Talk:Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 3

Discussion
Please vote about this issue below; please discuss the issue up here

There is still a big problem with the title of this article as it violates NPOV policy. It has been recommended by various users on both sides that the article be moved or merged with a more neutral title. The current article does not allow for a balanced presentation of the subject, and as such treats all "Israelis" as aggressors who target Palestinian children, which is not accurate by any stretch of the imagination. I recommend moving the current article to Violence against children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so that both sides can present points and counterpoints in context. --Viriditas | Talk 01:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article needs major cleanup. It's not NPOV, there's lots of grammatical mistakes and it's in dire needs of editing. However, I think it would be best to wait until the page is moved to a new title before posting a tag such as cleanup-rewrite. I support moving the page to Violence against children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Carrp 15:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The amazing thing is that it has already had a major cleanup done by Tarek, and other cleanups done by others. The original was vastly worse. Jayjg |  (Talk)  20:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The time's up. According to the vote, this article and discussion is to be moved into Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 11:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the time period for the survey should have been announced in advance, but the only negative votes want even worse things done to the article. I think we can move it. If someone cuts-and-pastes back here, we ought to consider VfDing other copies as forks. Cool Hand Luke  11:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vote
Move the contents to Violence against children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
 * A Yes vote indicates you agree that the title Israeli violence against Palestinian children is a violation of WP:NPOV policy and favor moving its contents into Violence against children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (currently a disambiguation page resolving solely to this page).
 * A No vote indicates that you would prefer some other decision.

[Please Do NOT discuss here. Only vote here. Discuss above, in the section To vote, find the vote you favor and vote by adding # ~ Below the vote you favor.

Yes
 * 1) I have already expressed my opinion too many times. The current title (coined by Alberuni) is a violation of NPOV policy.   &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Update: Changing my vote in favor for the title Minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 05:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) It would be an improvement. but compare child with minor (law). There will be endless discussions as to whether a given individual classifies as a 'child'. If you're going to move the article, pick a title that more clearly defines the scope. dab (&#5839;) 09:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree with Humus 168.209.97.34 09:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) (anon votes will not be counted, dab (&#5839;) 09:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC))
 * 5) Jliberty 11:10, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC) (the entire artile violates npov)
 * 6) Of course. And "minors" rather than children is probably better, though the age of majority differs in various jurisdictions. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  18:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) (I wonder, is there even "Palestinian violence against Israeli children"?) Peter O. (Talk) 18:55, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Definitely change from what the current title is, perhaps Children and Minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I suggest including both because "minors" alone may sound confusing (i.e., minor what? minor players, minor incidents?...), and "children" alone seems inaccurate when describing a 17-year-old. --MPerel 07:09, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) silsor 07:42, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) This is currently a full and fairly NPOV article in it's own right, and it's just under 20 kB. I don't oppose moving/merging it, but I suggest doing so without prejudice. If the article grows too long or unfocused, we should break it appart somehow. Also, I don't want the information to be lost; no deletions without grounds. Cool Hand Luke  09:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Agree the title should be cdhanged --Trodel 12:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) I would prefer these articles be deleted altogether, as they open up a POV can of worms that abandons NPOV entirely. (When will we be seeing "American violence against Iraqi children," "Government violence against innocent children in Darfur," "Christian violence against Muslim children," and so on?)  However, this article survived VfD, so I'll abide by it and ask that the title be moved to a more neutral one. --Modemac 12:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) I believe deletion would be the best option, but I realize there isn't consensus for such an action. I support changing the title to make it as NPOV as possible. Carrp 15:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Deletion is a better idea (Alberunicruft), but moving is better than nothing - David Gerard 20:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) 'Yes -- delete or move. I agree that the "children" in the title is misleading when applied to teenage rock throwing thugs.  They are probably recruited by organizations that don't consider them to be too young.--Silverback 22:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Déjà vu. Myself, Luke, and others have long ago attempted to – and I thought, succeeded in – having the article merged with and the title changed into a Violence against children in the Israel-Palestine conflict article, one to eventually be encompassed by a broader article depicting all violence against civilians in the conflict. So, my vote here is a re-statement of that position. El_C 23:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Yes, and be careful. Blacklite 03:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) SlimVirgin 05:08, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Yes, and I fully support User:Humus Sapien's suggestion/s above. IZAK 10:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No
 * 1) Delete the article altogether. RickK 08:48, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Redirect the article to Intifada. The current title is inherently POV, designed to gain sympathy for Palestinians. It's as silly as Christian teens persecuted by secular humanists would be. Rock-throwing by subteen boys is a tactic in the Intifada and should be treated there. Children as casualties of the Intifada could also go there -- if both Israeli and Palestinian children are featured. Zora 06:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Legitimacy of vote?
Most important thing is, what is legitimacy of this vote? Only place where vote count are in delete vote (which has failed). So voting here is useless. Any body who wants to put content in another place, he should create a separate article. If it is 'moved' a new article will be created with same content with same name. Then there will be no chance of move!. So voting here is pointless.

Zain 19:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Articles can be moved to new titles, and this one should be. Previous vote was for deletion. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  20:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But a new artcle can be created with the same content! Zain 21:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting you would create a POV fork of this article? Jayjg |  (Talk)  21:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I am suggesting that community decided that article with this content and title has right to exist on wikipedia. It was community decision not mine. Zain 20:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Except the community decided no such thing. There was no consensus whatever, but it should be noted that votes for keep were behind votes for merge and delete. In fact, deletes plus merge votes exceeded 2/3rds of votes cast suggesting that the community actually decided that this title was unacceptable. Because VfD currently only has clear authority to delete or keep, the article was kept and is subject to ordinary consensus editorial decisions, like the survey above. In no way did surviving VfD give the current title a mandate, and I'm rather surprised you came to that conclusion. Cool Hand Luke  02:14, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Policy of wikipedia on move?
Sorry I was/am away on holidays. Can you refer to any policy page which gives any critaria of 'move vote' in case of disagreement?
 * Zain 23:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just tried to find wikipedia policy about it and found only http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves. It doesn't state any NPOV reasons for move. only if there are nameing conflicts and other such technical issues. And if there is any such reason the process was not followed as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves. Zain 23:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So can move supporters point to any wikipedia policy which can justify their actions?


 * The original VfD indicated that the content should be moved. The more recent vote confirmed that. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  23:52, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Vfd is for delete. For move the process should be done only through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves if you read this page carefully it has nothing to do with vfd! if you think policy is incorrect. You can put it on the article of 'Criticism of wikipedia'. or wikipedia user suggestion. Current state of wikipedia policy makes no connetion between two. If it is needed to move it should go through [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves any way 3R rule doesn't apply move. So there is no use of renames until it goes through proper procedure. [[User:Zain engineer|Zain]] 00:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

.
 * Perhaps this vote should be moved to Wikipedia:Requested moves --Trodel 15:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

comments
Delete this? What about List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada? What kind of title is that? And everything in the Category:Terrorism and violence against Israel? And Palestinian terrorism?

I also noticed that the result for VFD was that Terrorism against Israel in 2000 should not be deleted, but people voted to delete List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2001.

It seems most people on wikipedia has anti-Palestinian bias OneGuy 09:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No, OneGuy, it is just that not ALL of us see the world though the same lense of an Islamic Apologist as you do (Yes, I know you say you are atheist. By the way, I'm Nelson Mandela). 168.209.97.34 09:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[unsigned]


 * No, not all of us :)) There are others like us who know what NPOV meeans. Don't worry. We will keep it NPOV :)) OneGuy 09:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course you know what NPOV is. You are constantly being rightly accused of violating it.  That is why pretty much everywhere you go a revert war is soon to follow. 168.209.97.34 09:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Everywhere you go revert wars follows, as it might in a few minutes :)) You are confusing yourslef with me. OneGuy 09:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I will never confuse myself with an Islamic Apologist who can not spell. 168.209.97.34 09:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Note to any admin who is reading this. 168.209.97.34 just violated wiki policy of no personal attacks. Is this policy going to be enforced? OneGuy 09:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It was not a personal attack. It was a correct observation.  People do notice when your comments are peppered with spelling errors. 168.209.97.34 09:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * An admin will decide whether that was a personal insult or not. I asked an admin, not you OneGuy 10:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * While you are at it, ask an admin about the 3RR and why you are allowed to violate it. 168.209.97.34 10:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't violated 3RR for 24 hours. What happened yesterday was 24 hours ago OneGuy 10:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * well, maybe you could all start to work towards a solution, here, and cut the taunting, or at least move it to talk pages! dab (&#5839;) 09:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The list articles should go, regardless of which side wrote them. They are useless. Articles that give context should stay. But there should be no articles reserved for one side of the dispute, this will just lead to a 'division of the turf', with each side trying to accumulate more condemning article titles than the other. This is not npov. Needless to say, 'list of massacres' is inapproprite, too. 'Terrorism against Israel' should be called 'Terrorist attacks in Israel'. It is very unhappy to extend pov-wars to article titles. pick titles that both sides can agree on, and then start arguing about the content. Why is it not enough to have an Al-Aqsa Intifada article? Any massacres can be mentioned there. Wikipedia is not a battlefield, for goodness' sake. dab (&#5839;) 09:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with all your points, except (sadly), the last one. Wikipedia has become a battlefield. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  18:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My main problem with both the old title and the suggested new one is the whole idea of "violence against children": this suggests a deliberate act of setting out to hurt children, which is not what the articles are about (from my brief reading) and it's not what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about. Is there another way of phrasing that part of it? -- Francs2000 | Talk 22:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well let me quote from the article.
 * Many individuals have contributed to the discussion and debate on Israeli violence against Palestinian children. In one editorial published by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on 16 October 2004, Derek Summerfield, an honorary senior lecturer at London's Institute of Psychiatry, argued that "the Israeli army, with utter impunity, has killed more unarmed Palestinian civilians since September 2000 than the number of people who died on September 11, 2001". He also speculated that the killing of Palestinian children might be deliberate, since "two thirds of [children killed] died from small arms fire, directed in over half of cases to the head, neck and chest &#8212; the sniper's wound";
 * I hope this will help Zain 22:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This is purely speculative, and not NPOV. -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * At least the point of relevance is gone. Now what is left is NPOV and speculative. About speculative first, Wikipedia policy says that even 'conspiracy theories' can be part of wikipedia. So even if it is speculative it can be added. More to speculative, you can 'never' determine 'actual intention' of any person. By any I mean any. About NPOV as it does not say any where in article that, Israelis have done any violence against Palestinian children, it is totally NPOV. Only thing is that it cite sources. This is inline with wikipedida policy. Zain 23:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

-- I read some comments somewhere that the person voted against "me" when he voted to move this page. Let there be no confusion about this. This page was not created by me nor do I care about the title. I just randomly noticed some POV edits by Humus sapiens when he removed a reference to settlers. I reverted it. A few days later I checked and it was removed again. I edited it again, and this is when Viriditas did his 4th revert for Humus sapiens. That's my only connection to this page OneGuy 07:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Psychological morbidity
I read the Canadian Psychiatric Association (http://www.cpa-apc.org/) page. The context of the study was still related to Israel, such as the following conclusion. What is the valid justification for removing that information?

http://www.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/2004/January/zakrison.pdf

the context still was Israeli related, such as


 * Villages in this survey were either within several hundred metres of Israeli settlements and (or) those travelling outside the village had to pass directly adjacent to the settlements (personal observation). Anecdotal evidence revealed that some children refused to attend school if they had to travel near a settlement, because they feared violence. Apart from the presence of the settlements themselves, significant military presence supports this expansion to protect infrastructure connecting the settlements to each other and to Israel (9, personal observation). Our study also supports the suggestion that settlement encroachment has a negative impact: village 4, the only village completely administered by the Palestinian Authority and having the largest self-contained population, had the lowest rate of psychological morbidity among its children. We hypothesize further that Israeli children living in the settlements of the West Bank are not insulated from the psychological effects of living close to a perceived hostile adversary (that is, existing Palestinian villages). It will be important, therefore, to determine the mental health status of Israeli children in settlements in this same West Bank region. The data for our study were collected during July 2000, less than 2 months before significantly escalated violence between Palestinians and the occupying Israeli military (that is, the September 2000 &#8220;Al Aqsa Intifada&#8221;). We predict further deterioration in the mental health status of Palestinian children in the West Bank. Given that psychological morbidity was above 42% prior to this escalation, the current rate is potentially greater than one-half the population.

OneGuy 21:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * So the article is now about the hypothetical effects of a "fear of violence", rather than actual violence itself? Jayjg |  (Talk)  21:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as "hypothetical". The Palestinians living near Israeli settlements do face higher violence, and the study shows the psychological effect on children. The article already has sections on health and education. Why is psychological effect not relevant? OneGuy 21:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The reference doesn't talk about the effects of violence, it hypothesizes about the effects of a "fear of violence". And it's hypothetical because its based on "anecdotal evidence", and some guesses about what the causes of the "psychological morbidity" are. This article was supposed to be a POV piece demonizing Israelis for being violent towards Palestinian children; are we expanding the scope of the article now? Jayjg  |  (Talk)  21:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Fear is also an effect like injury. So if it creates fear it is an effect simple. Zain 22:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hypothetical are also worth mentioning! It doesn't matter even if we consider 'holocaust denial' hypothetical it is mentioned. Only matter is relevance and it is relevant. I have added it again. Zain 21:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sock Puupets?
(name deleted by User:Razalah) uploaded the picture to wikipedia, but another different User:Razalah added it to this page? Both these are suspect accounts. Razalah also created a duplicate page (with a list of Israeli deaths in death section) as Palestinian violence against Israeli children

I must say these sock puppets are real annoying. I agree. Admins not only should have access to IPs, but they also should have authority to immediately implement strict penalties if someone edits a controversial topic or votes using a sock puppet OneGuy 01:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes I cannot imagine why someone would not wish to post something about Palestinian terrorists under their real name! Is your real name OneGuy? If it is I apologize. If it isn't I encouraged you to slither back under the rock you slithered out from, put my name up there again and I might just find out yours. Razalah 03:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Although OneGuy could probably have been a bit more tactful, there's no need to insult him. It's obvious that you're a sock puppet and this does upset many users, especially when you start editing controversial articles. Still, as long as everyone tries to be civil there shouldn't be a problem. Carrp 13:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is Israel being singled out?
Regarding Humus sapiens above comments that "Israel is being singled out for demonization", here is another article with POV title Discrimination against non-Muslims in Iran created a long time ago but is still alive. How long would have article remained alive on wikipedia with the title Discrimination against non-Jews in Israel? Also, it seems most of these POV titled articles are created by Israel supporters OneGuy 21:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * So you think there are a lot of articles demonizing Iran on Wikipedia? Which ones? Jayjg  |  (Talk)  22:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * How about the title of above article? You don't think that is POV? OneGuy


 * Perhaps you could answer my question first? You seemed to be claiming that Iran is being demonized the same way that Israel is demonized on Wikipedia. Let's not change the subject. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  22:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Given that this article with this title stayed alive on wikipedia for one and a half year, I would say yes, Iran is being demonized more than Israel. How long would have an article with the title Discrimination against non-Jews in Israel stayed alive? OneGuy 22:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * My question was "So you think there are a lot of articles demonizing Iran on Wikipedia? Which ones?"  From your failure to answer it, I think it's pretty clear that there is only one article that you feel "demonizes" Iran. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  23:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't searched for all the articles on Iran. This one that stayed for so long on wikipedia is strong evidence. And why did you put quotes around "demonizes"? You don't think an article with this title by the US government on Iran (this is like posting an article on Israel published by Iranian government) demonizes Iran? OneGuy 23:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Until there's further evidence, I think it's clear there are no further articles like this on Iran. I'd be surprised to see similar articles on other of Israel's neighbours or near neighbours.  And the vitriol which regularly spews from Iran regarding Israel far outweighs anything that comes from the U.S. regarding Iran.  Moreover, there are many articles on Wikipedia which come from sources whose major or sole purpose is demonizing Israel. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  16:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I did search for Iran and there were no more POV titles. (that doesn't mean the content of other articles were NPOV but just that the titles were not POV). However, I didn't find anti-Israel POV titles either except this one... so where is Israel being "singled out"? OneGuy 20:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to find out. Try creating the article. - XED . talk  23:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Why to guess when you can find it 'practically'. Make it if it goes for delete we can put it on my new page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zain_engineer/Israel_Anti-Israel_Coverage_Comparison No problem. :) Zain 22:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * A similar disparity can be seen on the Terrorism article. Check out the sidebar - there's Christian terrorism, and Islamist terrorism. No Jewish terrorism, a subject surely worth a few paragraphs. And yet, as you point out, there's an article on Discrimination against non-Muslims in Iran. - XED . talk  23:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No it means different policies are used on different articles. Same policies should be applied on *all* articles. Any way I think I should create a link to my user page where a comparison can be done. Coverage of Israel and coverage of anti-Israel. ok let me create one. Zain 22:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * FYI, there is Israeli terrorism. Anything to please our users.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 09:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have any problem with an encyclopedic article titled Jewish terrorism. But let's not change the subject: this section is about singling out Israel, not Jewish conspiracy theories. To prove the point that Israel/Jews are not ostracized would be easy by pointing out another article about X violence against Y children (BTW, I am strongly against harping on anyone's victimhood). A candidate article would be systematic premeditated slaughter of many thousands Armenian children only 90 years ago, or of 1.5 million Jewish children only 60 years ago, or of tens of thousands of Tutsi children in the Rwandan genocide only ten years ago, etc. But Alberuni went for the vile bloodthirsty Joos and, not surprisingly, he found a following here. Even after a few cleanup attemps, the current text is a banal blood libel not worthy of a serious encyclopedia.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 04:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, there have been many attempts here to change the subject. I'd be interested in seeing a Sudanese Arab violence against black Christian and Animist children article, which in both quality and quantity outweighs Israeli violence by at least an order of magnitude, perhaps two orders of magnitude. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  16:13, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for mentioning Sudan. I did search for Sudan and found Discrimination against non-Muslims in Sudan; yet another POV titled article created by pro-Israeli anti-Islamic person and it remained alive for more than one year. Israel is being "singled out" ... yeah right OneGuy 20:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I have ennobled a separate section below to the attempts designed to divert the discussion. I understand you're unable to present another article alleging violence against children? Israel/Jews is the only nation that Alberuni & the crowd pick out for defamation, no matter how grave and well-documented the atrocities are in other cases and no matter how questionable or "hypothetical" they are here. Why?  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 01:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well of course someone just created Palestinian violence against Israeli children, but I haven't seen anyone create Discrimination against non-Jews in Israel. And then there are series of articles with the titles Palestinian terrorism, Palestinian terrorism/2002, Palestinian terrorism/2001, Terrorist attacks against Israel in 2003 ... and on and on. Can ant-Israel articles match that? OneGuy 02:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I must note that if you're looking for human rights violations, you are in the right neighborhood but knocking on a wrong door. However if you are looking for more ways to besmirch Israel, you are in the right section of the discussion. Again, I challenge you to prove your own point. Israel attracts disproportional number and disproportionally accusatory if not slanderous coverage. Even though Palestinian fatalities are 95% male, in the best traditions of blood libels the articles are (just like this one) dedicated to "children murdered by Israelis":
 * List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2000,
 * List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2001,
 * List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2002,
 * List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2003,
 * List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2004,
 * Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada,
 * Operation Days of Penitence,
 * Operation Days of Penitence Fatalities (a separate article, and a disgrace of WP),
 * Jenin massacre,
 * Muhammed al-Dura,
 * Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar,
 * Iman Darweesh Al Hams,
 * Ibrahim Muhammad Ismail,
 * Rania Iyad Aram, etc. etc. - not a full list by far. OTOH, Palestinian violence against Israeli children was created only 2 days ago, so your bringing it up here was shooting yourself in the foot. There is also Israeli terrorism, so your worries proven wrong again. BTW, if covered from NPOV, it (as well as Palestinian terrorism) is perfectly valid topic for an encyclopedia. I challenge you to work for the latter to become history, just as the former has long time ago.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 09:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing these articles. After examining the history of above articles, it seems anti-Israeli wikipedians did not start the POV wars on wikipedia. All the above articles (except "Al-Aqsa Intifada") were created in the last three or four months (some of them just last month). The Jenin massacre above is already a redirect to Jenin. However, the list of  "Discrimination in" articles are more than year old (and created by a pro-Israeli wikipedian, RK). An article with such a title against Israel would have not survived this long on wikipedia, as the number of votes above prove that. Moreover, the series of articles on Palestinian terrorism (whole series 2001, 2002, etc.) and series of articles titled Terrorism against Israel (including a whole category) are much older, in some cases years older. Probably these articles motivated some people recently (especially Alberuni who is the author of most of these articles you listed above) to respond OneGuy 10:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, "the Jews made him do it". BTW, I don't see how articles about internal discrimination in Islamic countries relate to Israel. Wait, I get it now: "the Jews made them do it"... No logic, no guts.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 10:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Alleging "anti-Senistism" seems to be your response to everything. What exactly was incorrect about what I wrote above? It's easy to check that most of these articles were created recently by Alberuni, unlike anti-Palestinian and anti-Islamic articles that are much olderOneGuy 11:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Straw-man and intimidation won't work here. Your motives are your own personal business. As I said, the list was just a small sample, more titles can be found easily. Perhaps you saw that the most vicious - including this one - survived VFD, so denying strong anti-Israel bias is silly. Here is your chance to improve WP and show your evenhandedness for a change: why don't you tell us what are you going to do about all those libelous "articles"?  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 17:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * :)) You have stopped making sense now. "intimidation won't work". What "intimidation"? If the list was just a small sample, you can find more to post here. Most articles in the list that you posted were only a few months old created by Alberuni. That list did not prove that Israel is being "singled" out. On the contrary, just see the number of votes above. That many people would not have voted for an article on Palestinian violence against Israeli children, or Iranian violence. OneGuy 05:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I find this ridiculous inquisition and your straw-man pretenses intimidating. "Yes true, but what else?" doesn't work. I can bring more titles (check Category:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict, for example) but you already have lost the argument. The fact that these poisonous articles survived for this long (in spite of several VFD and cleanup attempts), being seen by many users/readers - not only Alberuni - is a part of ongoing efforts to ostracize anything related to the Jewish state. They hurt Wikipedia more than they hurt Israel. It is astonishing how an article with as POV title as this was held for this long. And finally, your assumption that being anti-Palestinian is necessarily pro-Israel (and vice versa) is cruel an d wrong. Now the burden is on you to regain good faith.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 03:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that Israel is being singled out on wikipedia, and I gave my reasons above. I believe the opposite is true, given the controversy this article created in just a month or two, compared to much older Palestinian terrorism or "Discrimination in" articles. You are free to disagree with me. There is no point in repeating same thing over and over. This is the end of this debate (unless you say something new) OneGuy 08:03, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another offtopic
And there were more, of course ..


 * Discrimination against non-Muslims in Pakistan
 * Discrimination against non-Muslims in Malaysia
 * Discrimination against non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia
 * Discrimination against non-Muslims in Afghanistan

The important point to note here is that all these articles survived more than an year with this tile on wikipedia, but this would have never happened if the title were Discrimination against non-Jews in Israel .. this shows me that the claim of being "singled out" is completely bogus OneGuy 21:23, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, that's one per country, vs. what, a dozen for Israel? Jayjg |  (Talk)  21:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * These were six titles created by pro-Israeli editor against Islamic countries. Count them as six, not one per country. What dozens for Israel? (keep in mind we are talking about titles -- you have not posted examples of dozen POV titles against Israel). Plus, I am positive that anti-Palestinian articles on wikipedia outnumber anti-Israel OneGuy 21:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a good idea to lump all "Islamic" countries together; and there are at least 20 more that don't have these kinds of articles. More importantly, I realize you have sidetracked this discussion again; this Talk: page is about this article, not others.  I'll be more careful in the future not to respond to these kinds of diversions. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  21:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I replied to Humus sapiens assertion that Israel is being singled you. You responded to my comment asking for more evidence. Now, who here diverted what? Wasn't me who diverted anything. In any case, I asked you to post the dozens of examples that show Israel is being singled out. You never did OneGuy 23:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I feel certain that the topic of this Talk: page is (or should be) the Israeli violence against Palestinian children article; also, please see my previous comment. Jayjg |  (Talk)  23:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said, I replied to Humus sapiens assertion about whether Israel is being singled out, and you responded asking for more examples and asserting further that there are dozens of articles against Israel with POV titles, without giving examples. That's how this discussion started OneGuy 00:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. And try to stay on topic, please. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  00:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Anyone can read above and see who is "Incorrect." And try to stay on topic, please. OneGuy 00:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, apparently you can't see who is incorrect, so I'll spell it out. I was talking about articles that demonized Israel, not POV titles, and I said there were "what, a dozen for Israel?", not "dozens". Here's a list of some: List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2000, List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2001, List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2002, List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2003, List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2004, Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, Operation Days of Penitence, Operation Days of Penitence Fatalities, Jenin massacre, Muhammed al-Dura, Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar, Iman Darweesh Al Hams, Ibrahim Muhammad Ismail, Rania Iyad Aram.  Including this one, that makes 15.  I think that qualifies as at least "a dozen".  Any further questions? Jayjg  |  (Talk)  17:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You repeated the list that Humus sapiens posted above, so I am going to repeat my response too. After examining the history of above articles, it seems anti-Israeli wikipedians did not start the POV wars on wikipedia. All the above articles (except "Al-Aqsa Intifada") were created in the last three or four months (some of them just last month, less than 30 days). The Jenin massacre above is already a redirect to Jenin. However, the list of  "Discrimination in" articles are more than year old (and created by a pro-Israeli wikipedian, RK). An article with such a title about Israel would have not survived this long on wikipedia, as the number of votes above prove that. Moreover, the series of articles on Palestinian terrorism (whole series 2001, 2002, etc.) and series of articles titled Terrorism against Israel (including a whole category) are much older, in some cases years older. Probably these articles motivated some people recently (especially Alberuni who is the author of most of these articles you listed above) to respond OneGuy 10:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I note Jayjg mentioning 'side-tracking' and 'changing the subject' above. An amusing example of Jayjg's own side-tracking (from this discussion last reply diff) Xed


 * Wrong page. This is not a discussion about Jayjg or some months-old grievances regarding another article.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 01:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Recent Version
What a joke. I guess that was the reason for the previous title? Humus sapiens completely turned the article into pro-Israeli POV propaganda and anti-Palestinian diatribe. I am going to revert it back unless someone posts a reasonable explanation for turniing the article into Israeli POV propaganda OneGuy 11:24, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you consider an Arab journalist and other brave people who protest recruitment of Palestinian minors for jihad engaged in "anti-Palestinian diatribe"? So in your view, condemning them to fight and commit suicide is "pro-Palestinian", and teaching peace (another section you have removed, I'm sure without even reading it) is "anti-Palestinian"? Check the title, this is not Bashing Israel.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, your definition of "peace" is blaming everything on Palestinians and pushing Israeli propaganda. OneGuy 10:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article starts with, "Violence has been proven to be a winning tactic as early as in the aftermath of Jerusalem pogrom of April, 1920 incited by Haj Amin al-Husayni, when the British employed the policy of appeasement toward the Arabs..." "Appeasement"??? Israeli version of disputed claims are described as facts. The very next paragraph starts with, "There are claims that the first bombing in the history of the Mandate was carried out by a Jewish extremist militant group Irgun,, but..." Notice how when it comes to Israeli terrorism, they are described as "claims." By the way, what does this have to do with violence against children, anyway? The article mentions stone-throwing children of the first intifada, but no where does it give the context of Israeli occupation. The article from A to Z is pure nonsense. Is this Encyclopedic material? OneGuy 11:53, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest you learn some history. The violence didn't start in 2000, or in 1987, or in 1967, or in 1948. Is your idea of making an article more encyclopedic is by deleting the historical context? If you don't like the word "claims", or if you think that the occupation of 1967 is the cause of the continuous violence since 1920s, then you edit, but not revert to a week-old version. BTW, I have some eyewitness citations of atrocities against Jewish children by Arabs (particularly, policemen) during the pogroms of 1920s. Can't find the numbers regarding specifically children right now, perhaps later. I thought I'd spare the reader of the grizzly details, but if "peacemakers" here keep insisting...  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 09:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No one cares about "eyewitness citations" if they are coming from a POV pusher like yourself. The article is completely nonsense. If this is not fixed, a different article must be created that presents Palestinian perspective. The article mentions Israelis killed during the Oslo period, but says nothing about far more Palestinians killed during the same period, nothing about Hebron massacre, nothing about children killed by Israeli settlers, nothing about the fact that Israel doubled the settlements (illegal and a violation of 4th Geneva convention according to UN) during Oslo period, nothing about Israeli occupation. "Psychological morbidity " section completely obscured the fact that the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry study relates to Israeli violence and effect of that on children, not "Christian minorities" relations with PA. That's a deliberate deception. Either the article will have to be reverted to NPOV version, or Palestinian view point will have to be moved to a different article OneGuy 10:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Please stop threatening to fork the article whenever you disagree with a NPOV. There is nothing preventing you from adding a sourced "Palestinian viewpoint" or any other viewpoint to the current article.  I also suggest you stop making personal attacks.  Writing, No one cares about "eyewitness citations" if they are coming from a POV pusher like yourself is not helping your case.  --Viriditas  | Talk 10:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not a "threat." If this article only has POV Israeli propaganda, Palestinian prespective will have to be moved to a different article OneGuy 10:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been having a hard time giving your proposal a fair reading because you can't even define the article in a NPOV manner, when you define it as only what Israeli's do to Palestinian "children" and state that one has to go to other pages for a different viewpoint. Perhaps you can start with a first paragraph or two as NPOV as the title.  First impressions are important.  For instance, you probably think I am a supporter of Israel, I am not, I oppose all direct aid to the Israeli government (just as I would oppose my own government if it behaved in a similar fashion). --Silverback 11:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's a good time to read the article instead of causing another disruption: "In the same period, 44 Palestinian children were killed by IDF soldiers, and another 10 by Israeli civilians [2](http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Minors_Killed.asp)."
 * Sorry to break it to you, but the "settlements" are not illegal, and some of them are as old as ~4,000 years (e.g. Jewish King David was crowned in Hebron). And again ignorance in history plays tricks on you: The Oslo committments were for PLO - to stop the violence and for Israelis - facilitate Land for peace. The "Area A" territories were gradually turned to the PA rule, but the violence only increased. Less peace = less land.
 * As for Hebron massacre, (yet another flop, don't expect for others to take you seriously if you don't do your homework), perhaps you meant Jenin massacre: even the UN agreed that this Arab insinuation was propaganda if not a blood libel. But if you repeat a lie too many times it will be perceived as truth.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 11:27, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with OneGuy that there is too much history of the overall conflict here, much of it not specifically about the children and minors in the conflict. Also, the tone of the introductory material is too editorial, and obviously an Israeli POV. However, I don't think the solution is creating a fork. I think the introductory material should be pared down significantly, hew to NPOV, and more focus brought to the effects on children and minors. I also think any additional information from a Palestinian perspective should be added; perhaps OneGuy can take that on. Jayjg |  (Talk)  16:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Instead of all this edit-warring, can we either add relevant information to the pro-Palestinian version, or remove the irrelevant stuff from the pro-Israeli version? I really don't think we need to reprise the whole conflict here, there are other articles that do that.  We should just stick to information specifically about children. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  23:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Removing irrelevant stuff from the "pro-Israeli" version is the way to go, since it is more NPOV. I agree that there is too much reprise of irrelevant history, but at least it isn't one sided.--Silverback 01:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm fine with that, but then the irrelevant stuff needs to go. Jayjg |  (Talk)  20:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What do you think is irrelevant? The entire history of the Mandate takes one short paragraph now. I think more recent history needs some cleanup, because it is still terribly one-sided. IMHO we should mention attacks such as Dolphi, intentionally directed against children.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 02:11, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think most of the introduction is irrelevant, and the stuff on Christian Palestinians as well. Intentional attacks directed at children and minors (e.g. Ma'alot massacre, Dolphinarium, etc.) are relevant, and should be included. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  19:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly all intentional attacks directed at children and minors are appropriate to this article, as are any patterns of attacks that frequently result in the deaths of children and minors, since repetition over time of something that has been shown to have a particular consequence is clearly negligent, at the least. Also, given the new title, information about psychological effects on children and minors seems appropriate, as well as information about active participation by children and minors in the violence. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:52, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed; with the new title, psychological information is more relevant, though the information included so far does, in fact, require some specific context. Other relevant information would be indoctrination of children and minors, in educational systems and elsewhere. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  20:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hebron massacre disambig?
This Hebron massacre page needs to be changed to disambiguation page because Baruch Goldstein massacre is also known as Hebron massacre. OneGuy 11:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It appears there is a third Hebron Massacre as well: . Jayjg |  (Talk)


 * The above page refers to Israeli soldiers being killed. That can't be called a "massacre." Under International law, it's legal to attack soldiers of occupying force OneGuy 21:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing "terrorist" with "massacre". Anyone can be massacred, even soldiers, and I'd be astonished if International Law actually defined what a "massacre" is.  In any event, there appear to be at least three distinct usages of the term "Hebron massacre". Jayjg  |  (Talk)  22:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Legality of the settlements
I don't care what you think about the settlements. The settlements are illegal according to the UN, the US, and almost every other country

http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1979/scres79.htm UNSC 452, July 20, 1979 United Nations Security Council Resolution 452 (1979)

20 July 1979

The Security Council,

[...] Considering that the policy of Israel in establishing settlements in the occupied Arab territories has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949,

Deeply concerned by the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlements policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population,

Emphasizing the need for confronting the issue of the existing settlements and the need to consider measures to safeguard the impartial protection of property seized,

Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem, and reconfirming pertinent Security Council resolutions concerning Jerusalem and in particular the need to protect and preserve the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in that city,

Drawing attention to the grave consequences which the settlements policy is bound to have on any attempt to reach a peaceful solution in the Middle East,

1. Commends the work done by the Commission in preparing the report on the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

2. Accepts the recommendations contained in the above-mentioned report of the Commission;

3. Calls upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

OneGuy 11:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The U.S. abstained on that vote, and, as far as I know, doesn't have any official policy that the settlements are illegal. Jayjg |  (Talk)  17:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The settlements are illegal according to the US. Search the State Department:


 * http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/24054.pdf


 * Since the first Israeli settlements were created in the occupied territories following the June 1967 war, the United States has held that such settlements are illegal under international law (Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that an occupying power may not transfer its civilian population into occupied territories) and are an “obstacle to peace” because their presence implies an Israeli claim of sovereignty that appears to rule out a willingness to negotiate. OneGuy 21:34, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think Donald Rumsfeld got that memo. According to him, the territories aren't occupied, but rather, "disputed" . James Baker felt the same way. On February 2, 1981 Ronald Reagan said the settlements were not illegal. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  22:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The settlements are illegal and there is no question about that. Both the UN and the US (see the State Department reports) use the word "occupied,", not "disputed." OneGuy 07:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course there's a question about their legality, and a number of experts in International Law have stated they are legal. Regarding the U.N., it is a political body which rarely sets International Law, and spends most of its time in irrelevant political posturing.  Finally, the State Department may have one view, but that hasn't stopped senior American officials (including Presidents) from stating another, so I don't think the issue is a clear-cut as you make it out to be. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  07:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The UN, Amnesty International, B'Tselem, Red Cross, the US State Department, and almost every credible organization uses the word "occupation." That's what the Wikipedia must use, not Israeli POV version. OneGuy 07:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we all can agree on these 2 points: 1) there is a controversy, and 2) this discussion does not belong here. OneGuy, please stop your repeated attempts to disrupt the project.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 07:39, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It sure does belong here. If you are going to mention stone throwing children (not to mention other irrelevent nonsense, like PA relation with Christian minorities) let there be no confusion about this. Israel is occupation force in the West Bank and Gaza and it's legal, under international law, to resist foreign occupation using violence OneGuy 07:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * B'Tselem and the Red Cross have no particular expertise as to whether the terrotories are illegally occupied or not. The State Department has an opinion, others have different opinions.  Would you like to see some legal analyses? Jayjg  |  (Talk)  07:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, please note, whether or not the territories are "occupied", and whether or not they are "illegally occupied", are separate questions. Please do not confuse the two. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  07:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I must say that I find OneGuy's support of children participating in violence deplorable.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, but you don't find 35 years old occupation (longest since Japanese occupation of Korea), "deplorable." OneGuy 08:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Encouraging children to participate in a military conflict (or justifying their participation) is deplorable. As for using "occupation" as a rallying cry, I'd like to see the same level of activity concerning Western Sahara occupied by Morocco, Tibet, East Turkistan and Inner Mongolia by China, Papua by Indonesia, Basque Country and Catalonia by Spain and France, Chechnya by Russia, etc in Belligerent occupation. Also, since you're such an expert in "occupation" matters, please also explain why Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan and Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt for 19 years didn't produce a Palestinian state.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 09:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If some POV pusher is trying to glorify other occupations, and you see me supporting that, then you will have a point. Your laundry list above is irrelevant otherwise. There is another very subtle (but very important) difference. Chinese claim that Tibet is part of China and people living in Tibet are Chinese citizen. That's not the case in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel doesn't treat the occupied population as citizens of Israel! (i.e. settlers can vote in Israeli elections but Palestinians can't -- civil law is used for settlers but military law is used Palestinians). Israel is only interested in the land, but treats people as noncitizen occupied population. If you mention stone throwing children of the first intifada, you have to mention this context of occupation! Otherwise it's just a deception.  Egyptian and Jordanian occupation is a history, not currently relevant. Also, Egyptian and Jordanians didn't treat the population as occupied population.  OneGuy 09:37, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see, that makes perfect sense, the children threw stones simply to get Israeli citizenship. Shall we talk about human rights in Tibet under Chinese occupation? I guess not here. FYI, "Egypt did not extend citizenship to the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, who were therefore without any national citizenship.", What matters most is, this is quite common situation (not that I support it, but that's besides the point), but User:OneGuy predictably by now selects Israel for harsh condemnation, going as far as encouraging Palestinian children to participate in violence. For shame.   &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 10:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, so Egypt didn't extend the citizenship, but I think Jordan did. All this is irrelevant history. Neither Egypt nor Jordan are demanding the land. What is relevant here is that Israel is an occupying power (obvious from the fact that Palestinians can't vote in Israeli elections and are under military law -- for the past 38 years). They are treated as second class citizens and ruled by foreign army (especially true during the first intifada when there was no PA). These were the causes of the first Intifada. When you mention the stone throwing children of the first initifada, why don't you tell us that too? OneGuy 10:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Palestinians are citizens of the Palestinian Authority, and apparently just elected a "President" in "national" elections. Are you demanding dual citizenship for them? Jayjg  |  (Talk)  22:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that's what you do every time you were caught lying: "Ok, so I was wrong. All this is irrelelvant." Totally relevant. Since the suicide bombers is a Palestinian phenomenon, are you trying to say that out of all occupations in history since the invention of gunpowder, only the Israelis are so barbarous and treat the Palestinians so badly that the poor guys have had no choice but to become suicide bombers? LOL... Obviously, you have no experience (as I do) with education and propaganda in a totalitarian society. FYI, even under "brutal occupation", and especially after 1993, Israel allowed the Palestinians to run their own education system. Hint: check their curriculum, the link is in the article, and try to find Israel on a map in any Palestinian textbook. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 11:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I never lie. Do not do that again. Suicide bombing is not a Palestinian phenomena. That's a shameless lie. A far more suicide bombings occurred in Sri Lanka than in Israel -- check that to see who is a liar now (more than 240 suicide bombings is Sri Lanka). I don't see how the response above answers anything that I wrote. Israel is an occupying force (38 years old occupation) and Palestinians live under foreign army's occupation as second class citizens (without the rights enjoyed by settlers -- illegal settlers according to the UN). Insert that when you mention stone throwing children OneGuy 12:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Fact: Arab anti-Jewish hostilities started way before the "occupation", as the conflict's history clearly shows - an uncomfortable but undeniable history that you attempt to hide.
 * 2) Fact: There can be no justification to encouraging children to participate in violence, be it PLO/Hamas, Tamils, Hitlerjugend or bleeding heart "peace" activists. Incitement, propaganda and education of hatred make all the difference. Read what the UN says regarding child soldiers.
 * 3) Fact: Israel renounced terrorism in 1948, Palestinians have not yet as of 2005.   &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 22:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (1) Yes, the hostilities started as a result of European Jews migrating to British Palestine. (2) I agree with that except that the context of first initifada must be given, (3) Officially PLO renounced terrorism in 1988 too. OneGuy 22:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, there was plenty of violence against Jews in Palestine before "European Jews" started returning to their ancestral homelands. Jayjg |  (Talk)  23:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (1) As early as in 1870s, Jews constituted majority in Jerusalem. As early as 1909, Jews founded Tel-Aviv. For the Arabs, the British created Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Trans-Jordan, etc. - see the map. But the Jews who constituted majority in some areas of tiny Eretz Israel and wanted self-determination, didn't get it. Who can blame the British is the Jews. The Arabs rejected numerous offers to partition the land in 1920s, 1937, 1947, etc., the last time in 2000.
 * (2) Sure, let's give the historical context. But let's not try to justify or encourage the unjustifiable.
 * (3) "Officially PLO renounced terrorism in 1988 too." - I see you're still upholding your "high standard" of NPOV. As I said earlier, you have already lost my good faith.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 01:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Working Version?
I'm afraid this revert war will continue until a consensus has been reached on which version to work on.

Version 1: Former "Israeli violence against Palestinian children page" that has been edited.

Version 2: Overhauled version that includes instances of violence against Israeli children and minors.

My personal opinion is that Version 2 is a better starting point since it seems to be more NPOV. For example, in Version 1, the second sentence is "This article addresses only one specific subset of violence: that by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli settlers against Palestinian children." This is obviously a carryover from the previous article and doesn't belong here.

I propose that reverts cease until this matter is decided. Carrp 22:50, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Version 2 is not NPOV . It's POV from A to Z. It starts with irrelevant material about Amin al-Husayni. It mentions settler massacres, like Baruch Goldstein massacre, only in a way, that it was condemned by Israeli government. The article uses irrelevant material, like PA relationship with Christian minorities, as a deception, to obscure Canadian Psychiatry Association study about the effects of Israeli violence on children. Other irrelevant POV claims (again used as a deception) include that Israeli occupation has been wonderful for Palestinians because "illiteracy" rate dropped. Guess what? The illiteracy and infant mortality rate dropped everywhere (much more than in Israeli occupied West Bank and Gaza) in the Middle East since 1967, and it has nothing to do with Israeli occupation OneGuy 08:19, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Do you have figures to back that up? Jayjg  |  (Talk)  08:22, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * ""Illiteracy and infant morality rate dropped since 1967"! Well, gee! What a surprise. UAE and Kuwait became industrialized countries with GDP approaching that of Western Europe since 1967 too. Jordan's illiteracy rate at 10.3%, from 15% in 1987 10% is lower than 15% in the West Bank. I just checked CIA factbook and infant mortality rate in Jordan is lower than the West Bank and Gaza. Obviously, then, Jordan made more progress since 1967. It was immediately clear (just common sense, without looking up the stats) that these irrelevant statistics are inserted in the article as a deception to glorify Israeli occupation OneGuy 08:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Just as Ver1's old name, it was offensively one-sided. Ver2 is partly improved Ver1. Ver2 can and should be incrementally improved. Ver1 didn't have any historical context, making a false impression that the conflict or its effects on children started with the Intifada. As for Amin al-Husayni, he was a major Palestinian political figure for decades even after WW2 when he was indicted at the Nuremberg Trial but escaped, and in addition to numerous pogroms (read: murdered Jewish children) that he instigated, for which he was indicted by the British in 1920. "In 1943, the Mufti's pressure succeeded in scuttling a proposed prisoner exchange that would have saved 4,000 Jewish refugee children. The children were instead sent to Auschwitz.", other sources cite the number 10,000: , , .  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 09:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No need to post a history lesson for us. We know who is Amin al-Husayni. The title of the title says "Israeli-Palestinian" conflict, and there was no such state called Israel at that time. But if you want to go that back anyway, there was also Palestine Regiment. Many Palestinians fought against Hitler. As for the history of conflict, it's very simple. European Jews started immigrating to Palestine with the aim of establishing a Jewish state (would have never succeeded if Palestine was not under British occupation). The indigenous Arab population saw that as a threat and started resisting (and history proves their concerns were legitimate). That's pretty much pre-1948 history OneGuy 10:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, "their concerns were legitimate". The Arbs carved 22 huge and resource-rich countries out of the Ottoman Empire, but those land-grabbing Jews! Check out Image:Israel_and_arab_states_map.png. FYI, Jews are entitled to their right to have a state just as any other nation - if not more, given their history. If you are against nation-states in general, why start with the Jews? The title of the title says "Israeli-Palestinian" conflict, and there was no such state called Israel at that time. Sorry, this idiocy doesn't deserve a response.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 11:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course their concerns of Europeans colonizing their land were legitimate. As for your argument about the size, since the US is so big, why don't you try to convince some Americans that New York should be given to Kurds as a separate country since Kurds don't have a country. I bet (according to your logic), Americans won't have a problem with that since the US is so big. That's a nonsensical argument 12:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, a more relevant analogy would be asking Americans to give back some land to American Indians. Israelites wandering throughout Europe for 2,000 years are still Israelites, not Europeans. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  00:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I hate to say this, but I think the old version should be more closely conserved. The copy is pretty good. It needs only to be counterbalanced, with more material on the affects of minor casualties among Israeli's minors. I don't believe the old version was "offensively one-sided" (or at least not the version User:Tarek wrote) It just lacked context. One thing I liked about Ver1 is that it grouped responses the violence. That was a kind of acknowledgement that the politization of children in the conflict is one of it's most important dimensions. Ver2 purports to be a kind of history and has a less coherant response section. Cool Hand Luke  10:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I find Ver1 offensive and one-sided, just as its former title. It misses historical context. As a small example, compare the settler violence, like some deranged wackos like Goldstein, who has no support in Israeli mainstream or by Jewish religious communities, (but article blames it on Israel nonetheless) - with violent jihad which has/had nods from the official PA (remember Arafat's "millions of martyrs"?), as well as overwhelming support in the Palestinian society and wide support in the Arab world in general. Regarding the numbers: Israel vastly improved their emergency services. So, armed with numbers of fatalities, we now accuse Israel for making every effort to save human life? To have such an article and not even mention Palestinian child soldiers, suicide bombers, military camps for children, or deep problems in PA curriculum is truly misleading. Of course Ver2 needs work (hard to do under ongoing edit war), but unqualified numbers and half-truths in Ver1 are unacceptable.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 11:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I find the POV version of history, irrelevant statistics added to glorify Israeli occupation (see above) and irrelevant material added (i.e. Christian minority relationship with PA, inserted only as a deception to obscure Canadian study), highly offensive too OneGuy 12:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's start with the intro. Hiding relevant historical events as if they have never existed is POV. Picture of the "OPT" children, carrying no information and designed solely to evoke emotions - hello, POV. Not mentioning the PA official propaganda of incitement in the media, mosques, universities, schools, kindergartens (!), military camps for children, child soldiers, child suicide bombers - POV. Not mentioning atrocities specifically targeting Jewish children, such as Avivim, Maalot, Dolphi, etc. - POV. By 2000, Bethlehem was under the PA control for years, and not saying this is lying by omission.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 23:26, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason I think the original artical was a pile of crap is that it cited an opinion column in the lead, and used other speculative nonsense. I believe Ver2 suffers from similar defects as Aberuni's first draft: the child warrior section is very much copy about editorials, and studies seem to be cited without relevant context. This Christian palestinian thing, for example. Even if that were somehow related to the heading "Psychological morbidity", I'm not sure how it relates to minors in the conflict. But primarily, I don't think the historical outline is sensible. We should have a heading for historical context, but the phenomenon is largly a political device. This structure doesn't make that as clear as it could be, in my opinion. Cool Hand Luke  01:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep. The historical stuff is too long, and not specific enough to children.  I've been saying that for a while.  The Christian Palestinian stuff is irrelevant.  Frankly, I think the "Psychological morbidity" stuff is too.  Right now we need more about affects on Israeli minors, less of that other stuff. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  02:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revert war
Viriditas reverted the article again to a POV version without giving any reason or response to anything I wrote above. The article was stable earlier before the title was changed. Not only the title was changed but Israeli propaganda and POV was inserted to dominate the text completely. Obviously this revert war is not going to end because of pro-Israeli POV pushers. The article needs to be split to 2 parts (with NPOV titles) where Israeli version and Palestinian version are discussed. OneGuy 21:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It's already been voted and agreed that one joint article is required to provide context and avoid bias. Rather than continually reverting, why don't you try to work with those you are fighting to produce a NPOV version? Jayjg  |  (Talk)  22:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page protection
I have locked the page while this is being discussed. I don't entirely know what the issue is here, but I suggest that people nut it out on the talk page. Reverting in the manner that has been done is not acceptable. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:00, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Historical context
Since User:Humus sapiens keeps harping on this point, as if his version of "historical context" is the only correct version, let me post some relevent material from "Jews for Justice" book:

Before the Hebrews first migrated there around 1800 B.C., the land of Canaan was occupied by Canaanites.

"Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan...Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews [in the second century A.D.] were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes." Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, "Their Promised Land."

The present-day Palestinians' ancestral heritage

"But all these [different peoples who had come to Canaan] were additions, sprigs grafted onto the parent tree...And that parent tree was Canaanite...[The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan."

The Jewish kingdoms were only one of many periods in ancient Palestine

"The extended kingdoms of David and Solomon, on which the Zionists base their territorial demands, endured for only about 73 years...Then it fell apart...[Even] if we allow independence to the entire life of the ancient Jewish kingdoms, from David's conquest of Canaan in 1000 B.C. to the wiping out of Judah in 586 B.C., we arrive at [only] a 414 year Jewish rule." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan."

How long has Palestine been a specifically Arab country?

"Palestine became a predominately Arab and Islamic country by the end of the seventh century. Almost immediately thereafter its boundaries and its characteristics - including its name in Arabic, Filastin - became known to the entire Islamic world, as much for its fertility and beauty as for its religious significance...In 1516, Palestine became a province of the Ottoman Empire, but this made it no less fertile, no less Arab or Islamic...Sixty percent of the population was in agriculture; the balance was divided between townspeople and a relatively small nomadic group. All these people believed themselves to belong in a land called Palestine, despite their feelings that they were also members of a large Arab nation...Despite the steady arrival in Palestine of Jewish colonists after 1882, it is important to realize that not until the few weeks immediately preceding the establishment of Israel in the spring of 1948 was there ever anything other than a huge Arab majority. For example, the Jewish population in 1931 was 174,606 against a total of 1,033,314." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

Was Arab opposition to the arrival of Zionists based on inherent anti-Semitism or a real sense of danger to their community?

"The aim of the [Jewish National] Fund was `to redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people.'...As early as 1891, Zionist leader Ahad Ha'am wrote that the Arabs "understood very well what we were doing and what we were aiming at'...[Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, stated] `We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly'...At various locations in northern Palestine Arab farmers refused to move from land the Fund purchased from absentee owners, and the Turkish authorities, at the Fund's request, evicted them...The indigenous Jews of Palestine also reacted negatively to Zionism. They did not see the need for a Jewish state in Palestine and did not want to exacerbate relations with the Arabs." John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

"Before the 20th century, most Jews in Palestine belonged to old Yishuv, or community, that had settled more for religious than for political reasons. There was little if any conflict between them and the Arab population. Tensions began after the first Zionist settlers arrived in the 1880's...when [they] purchased land from absentee Arab owners, leading to dispossession of the peasants who had cultivated it." Don Peretz, "The Arab-Israeli Dispute."

"[During the Middle Ages,] North Africa and the Arab Middle East became places of refuge and a haven for the persecuted Jews of Spain and elsewhere...In the Holy Land...they lived together in [relative] harmony, a harmony only disrupted when the Zionists began to claim that Palestine was the 'rightful' possession of the 'Jewish people' to the exclusion of its Moslem and Christian inhabitants." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

"Serfs they (the Jews) were in the lands of the Diaspora, and suddenly they find themselves in freedom [in Palestine]; and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination." Zionist writer Ahad Ha'am, quoted in Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

"An article by Yitzhak Epstein, published in Hashiloah in 1907...called for a new Zionist policy towards the Arabs after 30 years of settlement activity...Like Ahad-Ha'am in 1891, Epstein claims that no good land is vacant, so Jewish settlement meant Arab dispossession...Epstein's solution to the problem, so that a new "Jewish question" may be avoided, is the creation of a bi-national, non-exclusive program of settlement and development. Purchasing land should not involve the dispossession of poor sharecroppers. It should mean creating a joint farming community, where the Arabs will enjoy modern technology. Schools, hospitals and libraries should be non-exclusivist and education bilingual...The vision of non-exclusivist, peaceful cooperation to replace the practice of dispossession found few takers. Epstein was maligned and scorned for his faintheartedness." Israeli author, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, "Original Sins."

Was Palestine the only, or even preferred, destination of Jews facing persecution when the Zionist movement started?

"The pogroms forced many Jews to leave Russia. Societies known as 'Lovers of Zion,' which were forerunners of the Zionist organization, convinced some of the frightened emigrants to go to Palestine. There, they argued, Jews would rebuild the ancient Jewish 'Kingdom of David and Solomon,' Most Russian Jews ignored their appeal and fled to Europe and the United States. By 1900, almost a million Jews had settled in the United States alone." "Our Roots Are Still Alive" by The People Press Palestine Book Project.

OneGuy 04:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from irrelevant grudge matches on this discussion page (or bring it to the user talk pages) and stick to discussing the current article. Thanks.  --Viriditas  | Talk 05:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Why are all your responses related to me? You never said anything to Humus sapiens about "grudge matches." You tried to get me banned (unsuccefuly) twice now. You seem to have real problems with everyone who disagrees with your POV OneGuy 05:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Your above comments have nothing to do with this article. This discussion page is for discussing this article, not your personal disagreement with Humus.  Regarding your multiple policy violations of the 3RR, that does not result in a ban but a mere, 24-hour block.  I don't have a problem with anyone on Wikipedia -- I have a problem with editors who brazenly violate policy and think they are above the consequences.  The fact that both of your policy violations have been archived on the admin's board is good enough for me. --Viriditas  | Talk 05:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * My above comments were in response to Humus who kept on repeating that the article must have a historical context. My response was intended to show that there are two sides of history. That seems pretty relevant to me. You response above, directed only at me, is irrelevant to the article. The fact that you tried twice (but failed) to get me blocked because you don't like people who disagree with your POV has been archived on the admin page too OneGuy 05:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You seem less interested in working collaboratively on making this article better, and more inclined to pushing your own POV. In regards to your multiple policy violations of the 3RR, indeed, you reverted the article 5 times as the history clearly demonstrates however, 3RR policy does not count a self-revert, so with policy exceptions in mind, you only reverted four times. Either way, this was the second time you violated the 3RR policy in two weeks, the first time (10 January) is here:    . --Viriditas  | Talk 05:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, you seem to have contributed nothing on this talk page to improve the article except posting threats and intimidation of blocking people who disagree with your POV (and notice that no one on the admin board agreed with your claim that I reverted the article 4 or 5 times). Here are all the reverts:


 * cur) (last) 14:57, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (rv to NPOV version)
 * (cur) (last) 05:11, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (ops .. that was before 24 hours. Back to POV version .. till tomorrow 2:55)
 * (cur) (last) 05:08, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (rv to NPOV version)
 * (cur) (last) 01:25, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (rv to NPOV version)
 * (cur) (last) 17:33, 22 Jan 2005 OneGuy (revert to NPOV version ..)


 * Counting from bottom up, notice that both the 3rd and fourth reverts canceled each other (so they both should not be counted), leaving only 3 reverts in 24 hours. OneGuy 06:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alternative to revert war
Viriditas asked me to have a look-in at this.

I presume that everyone agrees that a revert war can go on indefinitely and will solve nothing.

I also can't see any point to blocking anyone for a violation of the 3RR here. It is obvious that both sides are trying to stick to the letter of it, that neither side is trying to stick to the spirit of it (avoidance of revert wars) and it looks to me like the other administrators share my reluctance to block anyone because he or she might have accidentally stepped over the line.

I propose that either or both of the parties to the disagreement attempt to state, as neutrally as possible, the points of disagreement. Does someone want to try?

I'm probably calling this a night pretty soon (I'm on the U.S. West Coast) but I promise to look in on this again within no more than 16 hours. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I would also add that reversions back and forth between two totally different versions of the article are extremely unhelpful. It is extremely unlikely that either side is so totally wrong that none of their edits should stand. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * As User:Carrp stated in the section, the alternatives are:


 * 1) Version 1: Former "Israeli violence against Palestinian children" page that has been edited.
 * 2) Version 2: Overhauled version that includes instances of violence against Israeli children and minors.


 * I would suggest to read them both and compare. Here's my brief summary. Ver1, "Israeli violence against Palestinian children", was overwhelmingly voted to be renamed, see . Its recent ugly cousin article, Palestinian violence against Israeli children, was similarly turned into a redirect to here. A problem with Ver1 was that it reflected its old POV title and focused solely on, well, Israeli violence against Palestinian children, implying that the violence was/is intentional. A picture of the "OPT" children, designed solely to evoke emotions, was followed by grim numbers of Palestinian children: Dead, Injured, Arrested, Effects on Health, Education, Psychological morbidity, Settler violence (I suspect this particular number came mostly from Baruch Goldstein's terror attack (denounced by both Israeli mainstream and by all Jewish religious denominations, but nonetheless the author blames it on Israel). Here's its See also section, to me looks like a blood libel allegation.


 * Ver2 is work in progress, based on Ver1 and is an attempt to present a more balanced view. In addition to most of the Ver1 text (including the numbers, still one-sided), it includes a brief historical overview of violence against children in the conflict. It contains a caution against using the numbers blindly, because sometimes combatants are lumped in with noncombatants, suicide bombers with innocents, and suspected collaborators killed by Palestinians are being reported as if killed by Israelis. Also, in response to frequent attacks, Israel revamped its emergency services in order to save as many human lives as possible, and by blindly comparing the numbers, Israel's smaller number of fatalities makes it look more vicious, and therefore more guilty. New "Children and minors' participation in violence" section mentions Palestinian child soldiers, child suicide bombers, military camps for children, problems with PA curriculum, plus opinions on this matter by a few moderates: the UN, PA's Abbas, etc.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 10:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, User:Carrp started with a strange assertion that version 2 is more NPOV, but he never responded to anything I wrote. The first few paragraphs in version 1 were NPOV. It simply stated that violence has been used by both sides. It then gave the number of Israeli and Palestinian children killed. It had a very long (and I have to say a very pro-Israeli POV section) called "Israeli response." Version 2 starts with a pro-Israeli version of "history,"  specifically designed to slander Palestinians (starts with a Nazi supporter like Amin al-Husayni). Most of that material has nothing to do with the topic, but if you really insist that the article must starts with the entire history of conflict, why this pro-Israeli version of history? I can insert the Palestinian version if you want, but how would that make the article NPOV?  Also, since you read this talk page, you must have seen the quote from Canadian Psychiatric Association. Their study showed the effect on children due to fear of violence from Israel (specifically regarding settlements). That part was very clear in CPA study.  Since you knew that, why did you insert in that section  irrelevant quotes about PA and Christian relations, if not to deliberately distort that section? OneGuy 11:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I do think that version 2 is more NPOV, but it is not NPOV at this time. My problem with version 1 is that it doesn't seem like a lot of effort has been put into making it NPOV. The example I gave was the introductory paragraph which includes the sentence:
 * "This article addresses only one specific subset of violence: that by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli settlers against Palestinian children"
 * This sentence should have been removed as soon as the page was moved here from Israeli violence against Palestinian children, but it wasn't. Version 1 focuses almost exclusively on Israeli violence. Version 2 has its problems, but it's more even-handed by dealing with Israeli and Palestinian violence.


 * Both versions need work, but we need to pick a starting point before any progress can be made. It's my opinion that Version 2 would be the better starting point. Obviously you disagree and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Since you truly believe that version 1 is the better version, why not make a copy of it and edit it in your user space? That would be far more productive than this bickering. Carrp 16:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I feel I must point out that an "Israeli responses" section is inevitably going to be pro-Israeli; that is the point of an "Israeli responses" section. However, including the positions of various sides does not violate the NPOV rule; on the contrary, it is the essence of that rule. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  19:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deliberate Distortions
As I said, if someone makes an honest mistake but in general is trying to be NPOV, I don't have a problem with that. The problem starts with deliberately distorting things to push POV. I gave a few examples of that in response to User:Carrp who has not responded yet (even though he reverted the article several times). Here is another clear example from version 2. Please read this carefully:


 * Between 13 September 1993 and the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, Palestinians killed 256 Israelis, many of whom were children .


 * In the same period, 44 Palestinian children were killed by IDF soldiers, and another 10 by Israeli civilians [2] .

Notice the number given for Israelis killed, 256, is much higher than Palestinians killed, 44. However, this is done by trickery. The number given for Israelis killed include adults and children, but the number given for Palestinians killed only include children. Click on the second link above to see the real numbers. Again, this is an example of deliberate distortion. It's not a mistake. I would like to see a response and explanation how anyone in his right mind can call this more "NPOV" version OneGuy 11:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * After looking at the first link again, the 256 number probably includes military (not just civilian adult and children). See the second link for real numbers for minors OneGuy 12:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of "deliberate distortion", "trickery", or "POV pushing". If someone added erroneous information, all you have to do is remove the content to talk.  There's no need to ascribe nefarious motivations to that which can easily be explained by human error. --Viriditas  | Talk 12:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course you don't see any evidence of that, but I and some others do. 13 Israeli minors under the age of 16 were killed between 1993 and the second intifada verses 54 Palestinian minors killed during the same time. This was obviously not something the editor wanted to state clearly (even though he knew the link), so he added all the military and civilians, minors and adults, causalities for Israeli side, verses only 55 Palestinian minors killed. OneGuy 13:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You see evidence of "deliberate distortion" where none exists. You cannot attrtibute malice to that which can easily be explained by human error.  Please reconsider your position. --Viriditas  | Talk 14:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It might have been human error but the odds of that are low. The same thing was done to Canadian study. See above OneGuy 14:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to concur - if the above example is not clearly deliberate distortion, I don't know what criteria you would use. That is a textbook example. Or in this case, Wikipedia. Perhaps you are more concerned with pushing your chosen POV than coming to consensus here. 67.68.6.149 02:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Towards a solution
That's all well and good, but it's not going to get us any closer to a consensus article. I suspect that the only way we are going to get to that is to start from one version or the other, and have the "other side" propose its edits one by one. Certainly wholesale replacement by one side is not an edit the other will ever accept. I don't think it really matters much which article is "more NPOV" at the moment. What matters is to start from some state of the article and work calmly on NPOV'ing it. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:06, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I believe this is how the NPOV version, covering both sides, should look like: User:OneGuy/Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I added the statistics for Israeli children killed in the first "Death" section. The rest of to be written parts should be filled OneGuy 01:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear. I've been saying this for days now. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  19:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * So, Jay, knowing from past experience which side of this you identify with, would you be willing to start from OneGuy's favored version and take matters up one by one? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:58, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that's fine with me, but I'm not the one you have to convince on this, as I haven't been involved in the revert wars. Jayjg |  (Talk)  21:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * We should start with the NPOV "humus" one, since the non-biased language there helps frame the discussion. The OneGuy version starts off on the wrong foot right away.--Silverback 21:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Pro-Israeli POV history is neither "NPOV" start, nor relevant to the topic OneGuy 01:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe it's helpful for someone to say they'd like to start from the one with which they are more in agreement. Yes, everybody would like to start from the one with which they are more in agreement! The issue is: is someone willing to do the heavy lifting of starting from the version farther from their view and work on the slow process of working the modifications one by one and trying to get consensus? Or -- if no one is willing to do that -- is someone willing to acknowledge that their favored version is still far from NPOV and start making some modifications themselves, introducing even material that they may find politically inconvenient, so long as they are decently cited? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:47, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I did add some material to User:OneGuy/Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict OneGuy 08:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * And the nature of that material is...? -- Jmabel | Talk 09:14, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I just added some material for Israeli children killed, health care in Israel, and psychological effects of terrorism on children. The problem I found is that it's harder to cover this topic with this title. This is due to the nature of the conflict. Most Israeli children were killed as a result of suicide bombings, and there is not much more to say. On the other side, the conflict involves a civilian population (including children) against a military. Israeli civilians are not directly involved in the conflict. Israeli children do not go out throwing stones at some military target (tanks or soldiers) and then get injured or killed. There is no Palestinian army inside Israel or even in Area C. No one to throw stones at! The nature of the conflict means more Palestinian children will get killed, injured, or arrested. Israeli adults/children (including settlers) can't get arrested by PA security forces. The settlers are not under PA jurisdiction. Neither health care not education in Israel is directly effected by the intifada (unlike in the West Bank and Gaza). However, there is a long Israeli response section that makes the article more balanced OneGuy 09:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Even when most of the casualties are on the Palestinian side, there should still be balance. Deaths of teenagers in a rock throwing mob should not be laid solely at the feet of the Israeli forces.  Their misbehavior is probably due to problems in their parenting, education and peer culture, as well as, possible instigation by adult officials.  Problems in their health care and education probably are worsened by corruption in the Palestinian authority as demonstration by the many who do not share in the privations of the general population.  Just because there are two sides in a conflict doesn't mean that one is right, both could be, and in this case probably are, or at least have been wrong.--Silverback 13:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * See above. There is a balance by having a section "Israeli response." Whether it's a "misbehavior" to throw rocks at soldiers considered by Palestinians as occupying army is a matter of debate OneGuy 14:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If it is "right" then it is the parents that should be throwing the rocks. The "children" are misbehaving, unless you are arguing that these are "children" only in the modern western sense, that in Palestinian culture the age of majority is lower?--Silverback 15:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No, but young teenagers usually do get involved (sometimes more than the parents) in political/nationalistic causes, whether the parents wants them to or not. That's just a fact. Hundreds of teenagers were killed in Tiananmen square by Chinese government. Were they "misbehaving"? OneGuy 16:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you comparing the murderous massacre of peaceful civilians at Tiananmen square by the Chinese PLA to defensive actions by IDF forces under attack? --Viriditas  | Talk 22:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I gave that as an example of teenagers getting involved in politics more than the parents. Whether all actions by IDF are "defensive" is a matter of debate. Why, have you not read any Amnesty International report on the occupied territories? OneGuy 23:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can we get back to the topic of which article to work from? Is there any possible agreement on this? Jayjg |  (Talk)  23:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The only difference between the two articles is that the second version has irrelevant pro-Israeli material added that has nothing to do with the topic of minors. That material will have to deleted, but then you are back to version 1. If the version 1 is lacking balance (i.e. nothing about Israeli minors killed), then that relevent part should have been added, not irrelevant anti-Palestinian stuff, such as relationship between Christians and Muslims OneGuy 23:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * How do you feel about other things Humus Sapiens added, like references to the Ma'alot massacre, Avivim school bus massacre, and Kiryat Shmona massacre? Jayjg |  (Talk)  23:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not have any problem with that. These references should go to the right sections about Israeli minors OneGuy 23:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling that if you put enough Israel related material into your temp version, you could get agreement from the others to work on that version. You might want to think about deliberate killings of children that have had a particular impact on the Israeli populace, such as the pregnant Tali Hatuel and her four daughters, Shalhevet Pass, Revital Ohayon's children, Rachel Shabo's children, Shiri Shefi, etc. Another good place to look would be the reports regarding Palestinian Authority (and Israeli) textbooks found on www.edume.org Jayjg |  (Talk)  23:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The OneGuy version is making progress. I am still concerned about the inherent bias introduced by using the term "children" for the teens or youths in some of these incidents, because of the presumption of innocence that seems to be associated with this english term.  If these youths are to be portrayed as children, then perhaps the slightly older innocent conscripts in the IDF should also be portrayed as children, and get their portrayal as innocent victims of the oppressive Israeli government.  Unfortunately "minor" is a clumsy specialized term in english.--Silverback 00:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I personally have no problem working from OneGuy's version, but I'm trying to build a consensus here. Perhaps the words "minor" and "teenagers" should be used more. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  00:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My comments below were meant to be strictly regarding the contents, nothing personal. IMHO, in addition to constructive suggestions above, the following issues should be addressed:
 * In general, trying to juxtapose Israeli/Palestinian subsections in this classic asymmetric conflict is misinforming and OneGuy's frustrations in this regard are understandable. I'd like to offer the following structure, roughly:
 * 1) Historical background
 * 2) Minors as victims in the conflict
 * 3) Minors as perpetrators of violence
 * 4) Projects for peace
 * The numbers. The text starts thus: Since the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa intifada... at least 603 Palestinian and 112 Israeli minors have been killed... IOW: HAMAS intentionally killed X Jewish minors (they tend to boast their "victories"), and since the IDF killed 5X Arab minors, it is only logical that the IDF is 5 times slaughterous than HAMAS. In case the reader didn't get it, the same phrase is being repeated again a paragraph down. And it goes on and on. Don't let the qualification "Israeli human rights group" mislead you: B'Tselem doesn't hide their political agenda but we treat them as if they are neutral. Their stats feed the most biased anti-Israel propagandists (see for yourself: ). Serious concerns about their credibility exist, but we use their controversial statistics 8 times. In fact, the entire article is written around their tables, which explains the sectioning: Death, Injury, Arrests, etc.
 * The names of the victims: I am against turning WP into a martyrology list.
 * I am surprised to see the idea of child-soldiers still being justified or even promoted here.
 * Compare (A): "Between 13 September 1993 and the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, Palestinians killed 256 Israelis, many of whom were children" [link], and (B): According B'Tselem, since Al Aqsa intifada, "34 Palestinians were killed by Israeli civilians, including Four minors: Two were age 17, One was age 14 and One was a Two month- old baby girl." One was called "Deliberate Distortions", the other is still in the text. Why?
 * The link to Ariel Sharon is there, right between Israeli terrorism and Atrocities, but curiously al-Husseini or Umm Nidal, didn't make it. Why?   &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 12:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not support the "historical background" section. First, the history of the conflict is not relevant to the topic. More importantly, there are two sides of history. The Palestinian version (this also includes some Western/Israeli historians, i.e., Avi Shlaim, Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappe) and the Israeli version. The two versions are contradictory. If you insert anti-Palestinian history, then I will have to insert anti-Israeli history to keep it NPOV. That would start new irrelevant disputes that should not be here. As for "Minors as perpetrators of violence," if that includes teenagers throwing stones on tanks, then the context of Israeli occupation would be there. In any case, this and the other points should go to Israeli response section. You cannot start the article with pro-Israeli editorial. If you think, unlike Hamas, IDF only responds in self-defense, why don't you make that argument in Israeli response section? The first part must be NPOV and should just present stats without editorials. I won't edit anything you say in Israeli response section. As for B'Tselem,  Camera.org is a pro-Israeli lobby. B'Tselem is a respected Human rights organization that even provides information to Knesset members.  B'Tselem is cited as a source by the US State Department  . You won't ever find camera cited by the US government as a source. OneGuy 13:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I think if you work some of the material I have suggested into your version, we might be able to make this work. From the Israeli position, what is generally seen as most shocking/damning are 1) the cases where children were clearly and deliberately targetted, often at close range, and 2) indoctrination of Palestinian youth.  As you willing to try that? Jayjg  |  (Talk)  17:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Why don't you directly edit that page and make these changes? I will be able to comment on that then OneGuy 21:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Time. If a Palestine-info lets up on POVing articles to promote his agenda, I might have more time. Jayjg |  (Talk)  21:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This aricle is protected right now anyway. Edit it when you have the time OneGuy 21:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * NPOV. Maybe if you do a good job, it won't get reverted.  As it is, you appear to be outnumbered, and that can only lead to disappointment for you. Jayjg (talk)  21:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Ther were two other people reverting the article to previous version too. I was not alone there. In any case, I did add material related to Israeli children. The article already had a Israeli response section. If someone thinks more is needed, he can add it to the relevant section OneGuy 21:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unfinished version
Hi OneGuy, I just reverted your last edit because it included unfinished sections (Israeli section; yet to be written, or words to that effect). We can't leave an unfinished article up like that. Perhaps you could move it to a user subpage and complete it from there? SlimVirgin 08:14, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * There are many articles on Wikipedia that has "to be written" section. See History of Islam. That's not a valid justification to revert to POV and factually distorted version (see above for evidence) OneGuy 08:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * In any case, your that complaint is over OneGuy 09:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is not "blame Israel"
None of the concerns above has been addressed. Our constructive collaboration can start with anything, even Communist manifesto, but by now it is obvious that some editors here are interested only in slurring Israel. The current "article" is rigidly built around highly controversial "statistics" of one particular group that doesn't even hide its political agenda, with Israeli "responses" supposed to be crammed into a section at the end, out of the context. In the chase for numbers, the distiction between victims and perpetrators is being intentionally ignored. Instead of unproductive revert war, I welcome anyone, friend or foe, interested in improving, NPOVing the article, to User:Humus sapiens/draft. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 10:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I took a quick glance at your article, and here are just some minor comments and why I think you should not take that route:
 * I'm taking the liberty of interspersing my responses; I admit that I haven't been following this article closely, but I hope that what I am saying here will be seen as reasonably neutral and evenhanded: I believe don't have an axe to grind here. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

(1) Not only your version starts right away with a slanted history, how is pre-1948 history relevant to the topic of minors in Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Israel did not even exist as a country back then. How many minors were killed in Deir Yassin and Hadassah medical convoy massacre? How is that relevant?
 * I think that it is perfectly appropriate to go back before 1948. Clearly Israel has continuity with the Jewish community in pre-1948 Palestine, and even with most of its institutions. On the Palestinian side, there is no clear date of formation of a Palestinian national identity. Splitting at any particular date would be very arbitrary. Similarly "Paragraph 175", a featured article about a particular anti-homosexual ordinance in Germany, starts out by talking about similar ordinances that preceded it; I'm sure I could find many similar examples. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

(2) The article then jumps to 1967. It implies that infant mortality rate etc. reduced because of Israeli occupation. That's not a valid implication. Infant mortality/illiteracy rate are lower in Jordan than in Gaza and the West Bank (the countries that you cite as examples, such as Egypt, are much bigger countries, and therefore the progress is obviously slower. Why not compare the progress with a smaller country with a similar population size? i.e. Jordan?).

(3) Next you have The First Intifada: 1987-1993 header, and the only thing mentioned in that section is that teenagers were the major group involved in that intifada. That's it? A lot has been written about Israeli policies of "breaking bones" and other tactics claimed by Amnesty International to be in violation of human rights.
 * The Israeli policies and tactics should certainly be in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

(4) Next you have The "Oslo peace": 1993-2000 header. The numbers for Israeli causalities include adults (including military) but the number for Palestinians only include minors under the age of 16.
 * If that is the case, it clearly needs to be remedied. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

(5) Next you have Psychological morbidity section. You cite some irrelevant information about PA and Christian relationship (what does that have to do with the topic?) and then incorrectly imply that Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is somehow about that. That's not true. The study very clearly says it is about the effects of Israeli violence on children.

(6) Next you have a section called "Peace education during peace years" where you only cite a pro-Israeli source (Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace) on Palestinian education. That's it? The claims by CMIP are disputed by the other side. See The CMIP report is full of distortions, exaggerations and outright lies. Second, what about mentioning the criticism of Israeli education by the other side? Israeli Textbooks and Children’s Literature Promote Racism and Hatred Toward Palestinians and Arabs.
 * I would agree with OneGuy that CMIP are not a neutral source. If they are cited, a response to them should be cited as well. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

(7) Then you have the header: The Second Intifada: 2000-present; Using numbers. Again only one-sided view from Israeli source on how most causalities are males. How about citing other views like Amnesty international? [http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE020022004 Palestinian children have been killed and injured by the Israeli army, as a result of deliberate as well as reckless shooting by soldiers and shelling and bombardments of densely populated residential areas including refugee camps in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Others were killed when Israeli soldiers used excessive and disproportionate force during demonstrations or when the army launched missiles into busy streets to assassinate Palestinian militants.]
 * I would certainly say that AI qualify as a generally trustworthy source with no particular bias in this matter. They have been critical of both the Israeli government and the PA. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I can go on if you want. I have avoided Israeli-Palestinian articles because I noticed that most of these articles already involve major disputes. (and you probably won't like to see me get involved in them either). I was directed to this article by Alberuni, and that's how I got here. I believe the current version is NPOV (even has a slight pro-Israeli tilt). If you want to clean it, go ahead. But if you want it replace it with your version, then all these (and there are many other problems -- including having a much larger section for Palestinian response) will have to be inserted/fixed to keep it NPOV. That's why I suggest you don't take that route but instead clean this article OneGuy 13:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes Alberuni did a lot of damage. To your first point: the first thing I did after copying, I rewrote that section. Your suggestion that IPC began after 1948 is just another proof of how little you know on the topic. I challenge you to provide a serious source holding this opinion. The rest of your arguments are of the same caliber. My draft is work in progress and unlike you, I intend to rely on multiple sources and disclose - not hide - their affiliation.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 23:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I know a great deal about the topic. What I wrote is correct. The conflict before 1948 would be called Zionists or Jews vs Arabs, not Israel vs Palestinian. The rest of my arguments are even stronger, and I guess that's why you did not reply. As I said, if you try to make the article anti-Palestinian diatribe (like your version currently is), I will have to insert anti-Israel stuff in each section that you have (see above) to keep the balance OneGuy 00:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV Tag
In light of the vigorous consensus-building and dispute resolution attempts in Talk sections of articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, I am removing the POV tags. If someone has a any further problems not already covered in Talk then by all means restore the tag but please start a new section and bring forth your concerns for consensus building. These perpetual NPOV tags are unreasonable. I have also removed the cleanup tag, as the article seems well written to me. If anyone thinks it is not, please come forward with edits and/or suggestions.--A. S. A. 09:17, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)