Talk:Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 4

Why this article?
I think that starting this article was ill-advised, because it begs for editing wars of the "pissing contest" variety. There is no question that the conflict has inflicted suffering of different kinds to children on both "sides," but if we're seeking "balance" by making comparisons the whole thing becomes offensive and impossible to make neutral. The tragic truth is that children suffer in armed conflicts, in many different ways, whether it's because they are killed or maimed as "collateral damage" or as targets, or because they're brought up in the hateful rhetoric of war.

I suppose this article could exist, but it needs a more meaningful context than "let's line up numbers and accusations and compare." --Leifern 10:28, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * It was created by User:Alberuni as yet another means of demonizing Israel; it's early title was "Israeli violence against Palestinian children". He was eventually forced to allow other material into it about affects on Israeli children, and the article was moved to a more neutral title.  But yes, it's ultimately just a "pissing contest" article because it was created purely for propaganda purposes. Jayjg (talk)  20:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll get bold one of these days and rewrite it, when I'm not jetlagged. I think this is an interesting article on the effects of such conflicts on children, but it has to be more than "this side/that side."  Interesting that Alberuni thought that a) people would let that kind of an article slide by; b) assume that there's nothing to be said about the effects of Israeli children of the conflict.  --Leifern 20:59, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

The "pissing contest" started with the demonization of the Palestinians in the Israeli section....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving On
It seems to me that OneGuy's contribution to this page is profoundly unhelpful, combatative and disruptive, and therefore move that he be banned.

I have little doubt that an acceptable NPOV article can be created from either beginnings if he is no longer around to cause problems


 * "&hellip;move that he be banned&hellip;" as in banned from Wikipedia? If you think you have a case, you can bring it to the ArbCom, but you will probably just be laughed at, especially because he hasn't edited the article in over 11 months. - Jmabel | Talk 04:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

About both sides resorting to violence
If a woman is being raped, and she takes a tube, and beats the guy, would anyone with a straight face say "they both resorted to violence" ?! If you where writing an article about the second world war, would you say that "both Hitler and the United States resorted to violence"? Hitler was "resorting to violence" to take over Europe, and the US was "resorting to violence" to defeat him. When you leave that out, when you only give half the information, you are not being neutral, not by a long shot. So it is not fair to say "israelis and palestinians resort to violence". WHo's attacking, and who's defending themselves? Some say that israel is merely defending themselves. Telling half the story is not honest. -- Dullfig 00:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny: reading the first several sentences of what you wrote, I was expecting that you would say that the Palestinians were merely defending themselves. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems rather unusual that the IDF are so unfit that they are unable to defend themselves from 3 year olds with anything but a bullet?....Is the standard of the Israeli recruit that bad?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

orphaned reference
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 9 November 2006.
 * 1) Palestine Section of Defence for Children International: [http://www.dci-pal.org/english/doc/reports/2004/sep28.pdf Status of Palestinian Children's Rights: Israel's violations of the right to life and security and the rights of

Merge proposal
Child suicide bombers is a logical subset of Children and minors and should be condensed and integrated into this article. In fact, this article could use some trimming and copyediting. 24.4.253.249 23:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree, based on the titles; but reading these articles, this one is all about violence against children, while Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about violence by children - the exact opposite. They should definitely link to one another, but I think their subjects are different enough to justify having separate pages. Terraxos 18:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * i agree with Terraxos, merger is not the right move based on the current articles.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  22:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The articles are, in fact, different as they are currently written, but that doesn't mean they have to be. It is perfectly logical for the other article to incorporate this one. Screen stalker (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo
I have removed the photo of a child holding a toy gun. Using this photo in the article carries with it the obvious implication that he is involved in some way with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, since you can't tell from looking at it that it's a toy gun, it implies that this kid is a combatant. That's a horrible BLP violation. We would not, for instance, have a photo of an American boy holding a toy gun in the article about 9/11 or the American civil war and so we should not here either. --B (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all - it shows a child with a toy gun and discusses the psychological effects the conflict has had on Israeli youth, of which this kid is one. B, are you simply going to the Wikipedia Review and reading what they write, and coming over here to Wikipedia?  -- David  Shankbone  11:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed it because you are libeling the kid. What "psychological effects" can you show by holding a toy gun?  I grew up in America, free from the psychological effects of war, but even I have held toy guns on occasion.  The obvious implication of this picture (the caption of which didn't even mention that it was a toy gun) is that the kid is a combatant in the conflict. As for Wikipedia Review, yes, I did read about this image there, but I made the change because your use of the photo is flagrant libel.  Muting criticism of your actions by screaming KILL ZE WIKIPEDIA REVIEW ZOMBIES isn't going to get anywhere.  (Or, maybe it will and that's one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia - that rather than responding to constructive criticism, it retreats into defensive mode.) --B (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Spare me the drama and amateur use of legal terminology that you clearly do not understand. The caption states "Seventy per cent of [Israeli youth] surveyed reported increased subjective fear or hopelessness."  The photograph portrays an Israeli youth, and crouched with the toy gun, gets across the concept of the text.  This isn't an anti-Arab Israeli commentary (if it wasn't I wouldn't have used Arab Israelis to portray Friendship).  -- David  Shankbone  13:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * None of which has a thing to do with what I said. A reasonable person looking at the photo would assume that he was in some way involved with the Arab-Israeli conflict.  He's holding what looks a gun.  The implication is obvious.  To turn around and say, there's a 70% chance that he has psychological issues as a result of the conflict doesn't change the obvious implication.  How would you like it if a picture of you holding a gun was used in an article about murder?  Sure, the image description page may have some details on it that explains that you really aren't a murderer and it isn't a real gun, but that's hardly the point.  If you think it is acceptable to show a person holding a gun in an article about violence and don't see that as implying anything, then that's a you problem. --B (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the un-sourced caption from the new photo. Although, I assume the source of the text was taken from this website, where it says, "A recent study by Herzog's trauma center found that 33 percent of Israeli youth have been affect-ed personally by terrorism, either by being at the scene of an attack or by knowing someone injured or killed by terrorists. Seventy percent of those surveyed reported increased subjective fear or hopelessness." (Word for word without citing the source), yet neglected to add the NEXT sentence that says, "The rate of post-traumatic stress disorder among Palestinian children is about 70 percent...". "Drama and amateur", indeed -- by adding the captioned text with the image is editorializing propaganda and bias.--KGBarnett (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations please?
This article is so one sided and biased it's hilarious. Oh and wheres the the citations after this precious open line:

"Since the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000 - which marked the beginning of the most recent upsurge in violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - at least 603 Palestinian and 112 Israeli children under the age of 18 have been killed, according to the Israeli group B'Tselem.

During the First Intifada, 37 Palestinian children were killed by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)."

According to B'Tselem? An organization thats clearly made up it's mind on the Palestinian conflict and it's no wonder which side they identify with. Hardly objective and the opening piece of this page lacks any credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.245.143 (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * These are not just B'Tselem reports, they've been vetted by Amnesty International, which condemns the killing of children on both sides, and have called on both sides to prosecute those responsible. With rare exceptions, neither side has. Nbauman (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not like the Israeli MFA who only record Israeli citizens and not Palestinians...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Work needed
According to B'Tselem of the 954 Palestinian children reported killed by the IDF (number to be inserted) were not involved in any hostilities when they were killed.

Above sentence has been removed for the time being as the original number was removed by vandals...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Photos
I put in one photo each of an Israeli child and Palestinian child injured in the course of the conflict. I removed the "pointing" photo again for the same reason as before, namely that it provides no information other than that armed Israeli soldiers and Palestinian children can be located in close proximity. The fact that it was taken from a radical, partisan blog doesn't help much. The caption stating that the soldier was pointing his gun at a child was irresponsible, as we have no way of knowing that. For example, the soldier may have been raising his gun toward the sky to check that the barrel was empty, and the photo was snapped in mid-movement. I also removed the protest photo, since the article is about an armed conflict, not protests. I'd like to ask other editors to select photos for their illustrative and informative potential, to use common sense, and not to add photos simply "because they can". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi! Let me take a bit different approach to our recent editings. I am not going now contend the approprientness of the image that I have been vigioursely trying to put into the article (even though I am convinced that this picture was a VIVID one that described the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict). Let me suggest the following, and I am hoping you would cooperate with me on that: My perception is that every section of wiki-article has to have some visible represention, which has to be an adequate one (whitin a context).--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  05:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we please remove the close-up of the Palestinian girl?
It's just really inappropriate to have a photo of a dead girl's body like that. What if her family were to see it? It's also really disturbing. Lilly (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * All the photos in this article are disturbing. (That could probably be guessed from the title.) I would oppose removing this one, since at the moment it's the only image of a Palestinian child in the article, while it contains three images of Israeli children. If anything, in order to avoid appearing biased, we should probably add more images of Palestinian children for balance. Robofish (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ive removed two of the Israeli children pictures. Ive done this because they fill up the article, and because there is a huge disparity in the number of child casualties between the sides, a disparity that is turned upside down in the display of these images.  nableezy  - 14:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * One of those has been restored, Id like to know why.  nableezy  - 14:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The disparity argument is WP:OR.If the pictures of Israeli children are more prominent in WP:RS then it should be used.--Shrike (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? The images of Israeli children take up not only the space of the Israeli children section, but additionally the space of the Palestinian children section (a section that covers ~6 times the number of casualties). You know what, Ill get to work on that section, lets see how much material on Palestinian children casualties is out there. Between B'tselem, the UN, and academic sources, I should be able to quintuple the size of that section, and perhaps include images such as this or this or this or any of the thousand other images of Palestinian minors who have been victims of Israeli attacks. Yall just do not know when to stop, but thats all right.  nableezy  - 16:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the close-up picture of the dead girl's face should be removed and replaced with another picture of a Palestinian child. This photo is disturbing, more so than the other pictures. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the photo of Faris Odeh in front of the tank? That picture has been described as "iconic". --68.6.227.26 (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hudson NY
Could someone explain to me why it unreliable source?--Shrike (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is an opinion piece that a user attempted to use as a source for facts on a completely irrelevant topic.  nableezy  - 16:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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


 * Dlv999, as you have not responded, I am going to add some notable incidents to the section on Palestinian child deaths and remove the "NPOV dispute" from the top of the article. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad to see responsiveness to complaints. It needs a lot more than that to be NPOV and remove tag, including cutting WP:Undue and repetitive material. But it's basically a Coatrack for how evil Palestinians are to all children. Indoctrination of Israeli children against Arabs, including their being expected to go into the military and fight Arabs, also are relevant here. Feel free to add something of that. Meanwhile  I'm going to correct one thing right now and putting tag back. CarolMooreDC 19:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A source you might start with: Israeli Textbooks and Children's Literature Promote Racism and Hatred toward Palestinians and Arabs (Questia article - also at Highbeam). CarolMooreDC 23:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The report shown in the link you gave is controversial and has been challenged by other sources. However, it sounds reasonable to include a section on Israeli textbook bias. Do you have any other specific complaints about this article? --68.6.227.26 (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Critical refs from WP:RS always relevant, as are noncritical ones. I found the article because a number of books recommended it when I did a general books.google search. There is lots of material that can be added. Usually just looking at existing sources will show the "other side of the story" that biased editors left out. I'll delete what I think is WP:Undue at my leisure and we can discuss if anyone has a problem. It's a long term project in a serious area. CarolMooreDC 05:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that so far you are doing a good job of making the article more neutral. As for the Gaza War, I added the casualty figures given by Israel in order to give both sides.


 * By the way, do you know why two images were recently removed? --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Image wise I get the impression from edit summary that they were somebody's flicker pictures and the person withdrew their authorization. But I'm not an expert in that area. CarolMooreDC 17:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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

'' Any objections? CarolMooreDC 18:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the text saying that Israeli and Palestinian officials said that the girl's death was not caused by Israeli actions because that is what the source says, though I think it is a good idea to give more context. I removed the part about her allegedly falling from a high area during an Israeli strike because that is just one of several accounts as to how she was supposedly killed. Another account is that a slide fell on her, while another says that she slipped off a swing and hit her head.
 * I think it is best to just say that the cause of her death is unclear, and that some claim that it was indirectly caused by an Israeli airstrike while others say that it had nothing to do with Israel. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, what you want to say is: Israel says she's a liar and some unnamed people may not being saying she's a liar. (And thus she should be fired from her job; Wikipedia not a forum to present evidence for firing people and suppressing exculpatory evidence. Which may have been original intent since this material in four articles; thus even now must be careful of content.) That's problematic per WP:BLP. The hospital report is most reliable. All that really matters here is that other sources refer to a nearby airstrike being related to the death.  What needs to be struck is extraneous fact There are differing accounts as to exactly how this occurred. Just deleting it would solve the problem, per above. CarolMooreDC


 * As I looked at it saw other aspects and thus rewrote with this edit summary:  Per BLP showing source supports that she did not lie; showing article emphasizes how she died, not what Israel said; relevance to this article means include details; exclude claim WP:RS presented as questionable) CarolMooreDC 17:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What I want to say is that Israeli and Palestinian officials deny that her death was caused by Israel, while hospital records and rights groups claim otherwise. Also, I think it should be mentioned that the accounts that say her death was caused by Israel vary in how it allegedly occurred. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * MaanNews last sentence reads: “Palestinian officials declared she was not killed by Israeli forces,” the official said, referring to the caption its blog sourced to an Israeli tweeter named Avi Mayer.  You really want a reference to that questionably sourced assertion in the article?  I doubt anyone on WP:DRN, WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN would agree.
 * The main point of the article is the child was somehow killed due to a fall because of a nearby airstrike. The variation is not in whether it was related to an airstrike, but where the fall was from and if something fell on her, given fact probably no one witnessed it directly. The question is, does article need all those options to explain what "how it allegedly occurred" means, for NPOV and BLP reasons. Should we bring this to WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard? CarolMooreDC 04:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would rather just talk it out here. How about this: "Ma'an News Agency reported the hospital medical report on the dead girl stated she died 'due to falling from a high area during the Israeli strike on Gaza'. Interviews with relatives, news reports and investigations by human rights organizations also suggest that her death indirectly was caused by an Israeli airstrike as little as 100 meters away, though accounts differ on how this occurred. Israeli officials have said that the girl's death had nothing to do with Israel." --68.6.227.26 (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * I haven't reviewed all your past edits, but I have a feeling they consist of a lot of the POV/WP:Undue material that needs to be cut down, just like this section. As I wrote on that section which I deleted before noticed this in talk:  delete POV section; article already is attack article to downplay Palestinian children suffering and emphasize Non-state terrorism; this section just piles it on; discuss at talk per WP:BRD) CarolMooreDC 05:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * According to BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you can't revert something until we've discussed my issues. Otherwise its 'WP:edit warring.
 * Right now I need to add some of the copious missing material to make article NPOV; then will review all that copious WP:undue material. CarolMooreDC 05:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Foreign children were killed in this conflict or as a result of it. That is a fact. They should not be ignored solely because you think it makes one side look bad. Everything I wrote was supported by one or more reliable sources. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You could put it in as a two sentence paragraph in casualties where it would have relevance. But it's just POV pushing having its own section. CarolMooreDC 06:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a section for Israeli children and a section for Palestinian children. It makes sense for there to be a section for foreign children as well. It is not excessively long or detailed. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC 01:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The 2006 Lebanon War was a response to Hezbollah rockets; it was not related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As for the use of multiple references, I have always seen them as a good thing because they help to strengthen the credibility of the article.


 * I do see the issue of the section containing only casualties caused by Palestinians, but I don't believe any foreign children were killed by Israel between 2000 and 2012 as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have tried to find the statistics for foreigners between 1987 and 1999 but have not been able to. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV reads: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
 * The Lebanon war is just a relevant as the French incidents because both have a tangential relation to Palestine (and the IDF killed at least one Palestinian activist during Lebanon war). A non-Palestinian killed them. Are we to bring in every Al Queda attack because they've said they are ticked off about Palestine? The emphasis obviously is POV.
 * The paragraph does not need to mention every adult killed. Just as POV as if someone mentioned how many of them were IDF members and quoted WP:Rs discussion of whether they were "fair military targets."
 * As for reference stacking, that can be done by everyone until there's a 1000 reference an article. Not necessary. CarolMooreDC 04:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When I said that multiple references were a good thing, I meant that two or three references are better than one.


 * The Lebanon war was not a result of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It was a response to Hezbollah rockets. In the case of the killings in France, the perpetrator specifically said that he did it because of the conflict.


 * Again, I do see the issue in the fact that the section contains only fatalities caused by Palestinians. How about putting this under "Casualties":


 * --68.6.227.26 (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Changes this article needs
So those are my more detailed thoughts and intentions for the coming month(s). Hopefully some will agree and help out. CarolMooreDC 16:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead that explains briefly what the conflict is about and conflicts/actions since First Intifada that are relevant to children and overview of article itself.
 * Legal responsibilities (or some such section title) section which outlines each parties obligation under international law, some of which is mentioned in passing below a couple places. More details can be offered as relevant in following sections.
 * Casualty figures subsections need Proper balance of details of who killed how many children and how - per WP:NPOV, including removing excessive details if they are repeated over and over and excessive referencing of articles with same info for POV purposes.
 * Manipulation of Children should be next and include more on Israeli children indoctrination vs. Palestinians and preparation for IDF (have found lots can discuss when enter). Indoctrination section would come before Child Suicide bombers. Again, balance with removal of overly repetitive and POV material and refs.
 * IDF treatment next
 * Effects on children needs more details, including new medical section contrasting Israeli and Arab children medical facilities; for past/current problems getting medical supplies to West Bank and Gaza; checkpoints holding up medical treatment; child birth mortality rates etc, as properly discussed by a variety of sources. The Israeli "good deeds" sections from sources that applaud Israel's actions can be incorporated into that section.
 * Peace projects could do a bit more.
 * Adding more to the lead sounds like a good idea, so does legal responsibilities of both parties. I agree that "Peace projects" could be expanded. Israelis tell their children that, when they are adults, they will be required to serve in the army for two or three years. How is that indoctrination? As for casualties, there should be a distinction between who killed who. Btselem lists several dozen Palestinian children who were killed by other Palestinians. There are some cases where the responsible party is unclear, and in those cases Btselem tends to classify them as casualties perpetrated by Israel. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For the section on peace projects, maybe there should be a little more about how the educational efforts work. Also it could discuss two or three more projects specifically, such as Children of Abraham.


 * I will go ahead and switch the section on indoctrination to go before child suicide bombers. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We can wait til info is added to discuss what is or isn't indoctrination. To clarify, I'm talking about excessive mentions and details with obvious POV. But we can discuss as we go. CarolMooreDC 00:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Anyway, at this diff AnonIP 227.36 changed the new text:
 * She stated the comments meant that Gazans were not starving, but the situation remained dire and the blockade was the main cause. She emphasized Israel's refusal to allow in building materials to rebuild homes destroyed by Israel during the Gaza War and to repair water and sanitation facilities, as well as raw materials for industry and spare parts for medical equipment.

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

This clearly changes the meaning of the WP:RS which emphasizes that she says the situation is dire and the blockade is the problem. This is obviously a POV twisting of a source and looks to me like edit warring again. Please revert it. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 03:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not revert your edit; I only altered some of the text because the section is on malnutrition, not damaged infrastructure or medical equipment. My edit does not remove the part about the blockade being the main problem. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:344: A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. Rewriting to remove important information, especially for POV reasons, is considered a revert. Do you not even see how you have watered down the statement to make it sound more like the IDF version?? CarolMooreDC 04:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the information to "water down" the statement, but because I did not think it was related to malnutrition. I will put the part about her saying that the situation was still "dire" back in. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Your original entry was not related to malnutrition either. There being food in the stores/restaurants is not related to whether there is enough food for all people, especially poor people.
 * But IF you insist on having the out of context statement per WP:NPOV then you must allow the whole context of what the Red Cross official said in the CS Monitor article, including things that are known commonly to be related to malnutrition - "every day thousands of liters of untreated sewage is dumped into the Wadi Gaza River, which is a major health problem." (See typhoid and diarrhea in next paragraph). Living in a cold tent because Israel won't let you re-build homes it destroyed and create proper toilet facilities can lead to illnesses which make it harder to eat as much as you need. Not having working medical equipment can make it more difficult to diagnose malnutrition-related diseases. Not having a job means less money to pay for food.
 * The NEXT paragraph makes the contamination connection more clear, like the fact that once sanitation and water facilities are bombed, water becomes contaminated, gives kids typhoid and diarrhea. (And as is commonly known, and the Wiki article will verify, the latter especially related to malnutrition since nutrients are not absorbed well when one frequently has diarrhea.) One of the difficulties of editing wikipedia is one article won't be as explicit as a later one, especially when you are presenting reports in Chrono order.
 * Food in stores/restaurants does not mean children are NOT malnourished. "Lack of rebuilding" is not sufficient to make it clear why children are mulnourished. Removing these explicit issues makes it difficult for readers to understand the problem and is very WP:POV. CarolMooreDC 16:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My original entry was to explain that, though there is malnutrition, there is no humanitarian crisis or starvation. Some of your edits have created the impression that there is. The fact that "The United Nation's Relief and Works Agency provides aid to most of Gaza's 1.5 million people, and has been allowed to bring in food and medical supplies. The Red Cross and other aid groups are active as well" is relevant to a section on food shortages and malnutrition.


 * The part about medical equipment and sanitation belongs in the section about medical care, as it is more closely associated with that than malnutrition.


 * The Christian Science Monitor article states that the most prominent issues in the Gaza Strip are poor economic, sanitation, and medical conditions, not malnutrition. The article does not discuss the things you mentioned - "Illnesses which make it harder to eat as much as you need. Not having working medical equipment can make it more difficult to diagnose malnutrition-related diseases. Not having a job means less money to pay for food." Those are your own words and conclusions. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

So we should delete the first sentence and tweak the second one to read (minus further since she said it first):
 * She stated that the situation was still "dire" and that the blockade was the main cause of lack of rebuilding of infrastructure and Sanitation since the Gaza War.

I think that solves the problems. CarolMooreDC 00:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't write that she said the Gazans are not starving; you did. Your original edit said the following:


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


 * I altered it to say "She stated the comments meant that Gazans were not starving, and that the main issue was not food shortages but damaged infrastructure and sanitation problems. She further stated that the blockade was the main cause for lack of rebuilding since the Gaza War." I have since re-added the part about the situation being "dire".


 * About deleting the first sentence and altering the first, how about this: "It was reported that, though there was no starvation, the situation was still "dire" and that the blockade was the main cause of lack of rebuilding of infrastructure and sanitation since the Gaza War." --68.6.227.26 (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Mea culpa!
 * I decided to go back and re-read the whole article and found a few things of interest that all are relevant to a response by both the writer and the Red Cross. So here's another version that more accurately reflects the article in relation to the IDF's version of her statements. Just to make the full context clear, here's both paragraphs with one thing struck in the first one, avoiding the whole "wrong spelling" issue:
 * In April 2011, the Israel Defense Force spokesperson's office made available to the media comments by "Mathilde Redmatn", the deputy director of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the Gaza Strip, who the IDF reported said that there is "no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. If you go to the supermarket, there are products. There are restaurants and a nice beach." Redmatn further said that problems caused by the blockade were "mainly in maintenance of infrastructure and in access to goods, concrete for example." 
 * ''Christian Science Monitor staff writer Dan Murphy interviewed the spokeswoman for the Red Cross, Cecilia Goin. She told him the comments were not provided in full context and thus gave the inaccurate impression "that everything was OK" when in fact the situation was still "dire." Murphy, who has been to Gaza, wrote that products in supermarkets and restaurants were "out of reach" for most Gazans and that aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East keeps Gazans from starving. Moreover, a 2008 United States diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks stated that "Israeli officials have confirmed to Embassy officials on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis".
 * When an organization's views are misrepresented and a major publication does an in depth analysis, you have to reflect that. CarolMooreDC 06:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree that it's not really necessary to call attention to a spelling error. I think the part about Wikileaks should be left out, as it is not the most reliable source, and that this line should be altered a little: "Murphy, who has been to Gaza, wrote that products in supermarkets and restaurants were 'out of reach' for most Gazans and that aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East keeps Gazans from starving." It gives the impression that the Gazans are on the brink of starvation, which is not what the article says.
 * Maybe it should say this: "Murphy, who has been to Gaza, wrote that products in supermarkets and restaurants were 'out of reach' for most Gazans and that they rely on aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East." --68.6.227.26 (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If the CS Monitor thinks it's good enough to quote Wikileaks, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Only primary source use of Wikileaks is frowned upon here. And obviously if the whole point of the first paragraph is that IDF (and the JPost headline) boasts that the Red Cross says there is No humanitarian crisis, a US Document saying Israelis "intend to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis" is highly relevant and I'm sure any NPOV wikipedian would think it was POV to delete that fact.
 * A slight tweak in order makes the statement an accurate summary of what Murphy writes- "Murphy, who has been to Gaza, wrote that products in supermarkets and restaurants were "out of reach" for most Gazans but they were not starving because of aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East."
 * What he says in the order he says it is:For average residents, they're out of reach...(intervening paragraph)...In this context the "no humanitarian crisis" means that people in Gaza aren't starving, which is certainly true. The United Nation's Relief and Works Agency provides aid to most of Gaza's 1.5 million people, and has been allowed to bring in food and medical supplies. The Red Cross and other aid groups are active as well.
 * If there is an impression left, it is an impression from the article itself. But certainly not all people would get that impression. CarolMooreDC 22:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What about just quoting the article? ...In this context the "no humanitarian crisis" means that people in Gaza aren't starving, which is certainly true. The United Nation's Relief and Works Agency provides aid to most of Gaza's 1.5 million people, and has been allowed to bring in food and medical supplies. The Red Cross and other aid groups are active as well. I think that would solve the issue of how it should be worded. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that solves that problem. CarolMooreDC 05:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Israeli minors killed between 1987 and 2000
This article currently says that 18 Israeli minors were killed between 1987 and September 2000, citing the Btselem statistics. Btselem gives numbers but does not list the casualties. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs lists 24 Israeli child fatalities between 1993 and 1999, giving their names, ages, and the circumstances of their deaths. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So add the additional numbers. i.e.  During that same period Palestinian militants killed 18 Israeli minors in the Occupied territories and within Israel's Green Line.[2] Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs lists 24 Israeli child fatalities between 1993 and 1999.[and Ref.] People can decide who they believe. CarolMooreDC 03:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Casualties abroad
Btselem statistics only cover fatalities within Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Israeli children were killed in Palestinian attacks in other parts of the world between 2000 and 2012. I don't know if there were Palestinian child deaths in other countries during that time period. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Only if there is explicit WP:RS saying that it was done regarding that conflict and not general terrorism and/or antisemitism. And I still do think the current section on non-citizens is WP:POV/WP:Undue. But will wait til bring several issues to WP:NPOV. CarolMooreDC 04:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The 2002 Mombasa attacks, which targeted an Israeli-owned hotel and plane in Kenya, resulted in the deaths of 3 Israelis and 10 Kenyans. 2 of the Israeli deaths were children. A group called the "Army of Palestine" took responsibility, saying that the attack was to mark the 55th anniversary of the partition of Palestine and also to show the "voice of the refugees". The 2004 Sinai bombings were perpetrated by a Palestinian group who, after a failed attempt to enter Israel, attacked tourist hotels being used by Israelis in the Sinai Peninsula. 34 people were killed (18 Egyptians, 12 Israelis, 2 Italians, 1 Russian, and 1 American), and 3 of the Israeli fatalities were children.  --68.6.227.26 (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than get into yet another section that would confuse people, why not just leave "Foreign children" meaning any child who is neither an Israeli citizen nor a Palestinian who has given up efforts to return to Palestine, whether they were killed in Israel or outside of Israel. I suppose Palestinian refugee camp inhabitants intent on eventually returning to their homes already should be included under Palestinians, if they were killed in relation to the conflict, including in Lebanon in 1982 and 2006. Just as Israeli citizen children killed abroad would be under Israeli children. CarolMooreDC 05:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about creating another section, just adding a sentence to the section on casualties. "From the outbreak of the Second Intifada starting in 2000, to September of 2012, B'Tselem statistics show that 990 Palestinian minors (not including those which took place during the Gaza War, discussed below) and 129 Israeli minors were killed within Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Other Israelis, children among them, were killed abroad in attacks related to the conflict." Something along those lines. Sorry for the confusion. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You do need refs for whatever you say. And in this case it would be Israelis and Palestinians killed outside of Israel/WestBank/Gaza/EastJerusalem. But if they are killed abroad and WP:RS say it was related to the conflict, it doesn't matter if they were killed abroad. CarolMooreDC 06:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have given sources for two incidents that report Israeli child casualties related to the conflict that took place abroad. I have been trying to see if there are reports of Palestinian child fatalities in other countries that were related to the conflict, but have not found any. If an incident were found, then the text should say Other Israelis and Palestinians, children among them, were killed abroad in attacks related to the conflict. If not, then the text should say Other Israelis, children among them, were killed abroad in attacks related to the conflict. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am confused. Why bother to give details above with refs and then say you only want one sentence. I've found a number of mentions of many Palestinian children killed in Lebanon by Israeli-permitted massacres and Israeli airstrikes, etc. which can provide when sufficiently motivated. CarolMooreDC 05:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought you were opposed to another section. And I am only attempting to make the section on overall casualties more accurate and specific, as it currently only includes those which took place within Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.


 * Which incidents in Lebanon, specifically, are you describing and what are your sources? The casualties section does not cover those which occurred prior to 1987, as there are no statistics of total casualties per year before the First Intifada. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to go ahead and add the mention of Israeli children being killed abroad. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Moving the story of the "youngest" Israeli killed up from an incident to a feature of casualties really necessitates bringing up the fact that the UN states 36 children died at birth because Israeli troops would not let them through check points to get proper medical attention. And there's ample evidence of Israel killing children during its attacks on Lebanon, not to mention Palestinian refugee children being killed in various conflicts related to the fact that Palestinians are refused the right to return to their own land. Also, the scope of the article obviously should go back to 1948 and once I write a short but relevant lead, I'll re-add the Deir Yassin incident and other killings of kids, especially in Lebanon like Sabra and Shatila massacre. Just FYI. Putting out other fires and still trying to get to putting up a new article, but this article remains important. CarolMooreDC 07:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Israeli who died nine hours after birth was the youngest to die violently during the conflict. Perhaps that should be clarified. The section on casualties is given to provide statistics from 1987 to the present, as there are no accurate statistics for children killed per year prior to 1987. I believe the casualties in Lebanon that you are referring to took place during the early 1980s. As stated before, the sentence stating that Israeli children have been killed abroad since September 2000 is intended to correct an error. The article previously reported 129 Israeli child fatalities in total between 2000 and 2012, but this only covers those killed within Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Others were killed abroad. Name an incident since 2000 in which Palestinian children died as a result of the conflict in another area of the world and give the source, and then I will alter the text to say Other Israelis and Palestinians, children among them, were killed abroad in attacks related to the conflict. I removed the Deir Yassin incident because it took place prior to the establishment of the state of Israel. What would you consider an appropriate time period for this article to cover? I believe it should begin at either May 14, 1948 or the emergence of Zionism. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * clarification good, but this is not just about violent deaths, as my addition made clear (though threat of being shot at a checkpoint usually considered violent). Also note that "Israeli" does include Arab Israeli children, though I don't know how many have died and if separate statistics are made of that. Also needs clarification somewhere.
 * Refugee issue in general needs addressing, given there are a couple million in several countrie with a large proportion being children. Have various incidents related to Israel and others killing kids as a result of the confict. Like I said, when gather best examples I will be ready to add and change the text accordingly.
 * starting at First intifada is arbitrary; obviously whatever is in there statistics and numbers wise needs refs and I'm just saying once I have refs, don't be surprised if add Palestinian refugee children abroad.(so many articles, so little time)
 * You are right Deir Yassin happened one month before Israel's official independence. I think the most appropriate time would be November 29, 1947 when the United Nations General Assembly recommended the adoption and implementation of the United Nations partition plan of Mandatory Palestine. December 1, 1947, Arab bands began attacking Jewish targets. (From Israel article.) Once the Brits said they were leaving, and the UN ok'd partitioning, the fight got really serious in an official way. CarolMooreDC 22:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by Also note that "Israeli" does include Arab Israeli children, though I don't know how many have died and if separate statistics are made of that. Are you suggesting separate statistics for Arab Israeli children who were killed?


 * A section on refugees would be a good idea. This should include the 800,000–1,000,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries who were expelled following the establishment of the state of Israel as well as the Palestinian refugees.


 * In your edit, you wrote that the "30 or more Palestinian children and infants dying" figure includes those that resulted from miscarriage. A number of Israeli women have miscarried as a result of suicide bombings and other attacks, and pregnant women have been killed on both sides of the conflict. Do you think this should be mentioned in the article? --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You wrote: "Are you suggesting separate statistics for Arab Israeli children who were killed?" I'm just wondering if such separate statistics are kept or not by anyone or if "Israeli children" typically does include Arab children. Just thought of when asked above. Have not yet investigated myself.
 * Jewish refugees: just as Palestinians have been most shunted to a few countries, it would be good to note that Israel lobbied many countries to refuse those Jews entries so they would have no choice but to go to Israel; of course, once there most did get better circumstances than Palestinians in refugee camps. So many details, so little time to properly research...
 * Miscarriages/Preemies/etc: Sure, if there are refs. At least for children just born or premature children who COULD have survived out of the womb IF there had been proper and speedy medical care. Should get own paragraph, I guess. I actually just used some articles already had, as opposed to looking for new ones. Will look soon to parse it out. CarolMooreDC 17:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs considers anyone with Israeli citizenship - regardless of their ethnicity - who was killed in the conflict as an Israeli casualty. I think that in some instances Btselem lists Arab Israelis who were killed as Palestinian fatalities.
 * I have never heard of Israel telling countries to refuse to allow the Jewish refugees entrance (over 200,000 went to Europe and the Americas following their expulsion). What are your sources? --68.6.227.26 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Format-wise, let's try to keep our own replies together, per my minor edit just now. Anyway, thanks for your views on how Israeli numbers counted. I guess something that still can be researched more if need be. Refugee origins just a thought as I typed away, and it may be more true of European than Arab Jews. As usual, really good and relevant sources would have to be found before putting in such info. Off hand I remember reading a lot about Zionist groups opposition to European refugees coming to anywhere but Israel - or emphasizing Israel - before, during and after WWII, with Menachem Begin being very vocal on or involved with the topic. For example, this books google search brings up on the first page some articles that have some info on the topic: (Chomsky Language and Politics, Page 570; Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture - Volume 1 - Page 600; The Holocaust in American Life - Page 79-81 plus. I can't remember off hand the more explicit things I've read. And then I remember reading how Zionists needed lots of Arab Jews to expand control over confiscated Arab land in Israel/Palestine so I assume same groups kept up same kind of lobbying to keep them from going elsewhere in large numbers. (And then there are rumors like Zionists bombing Iraq temples to drive them out of Iraq, detailed in History of the Jews in Iraq.) Also it seems that Russian immigrants in the 1980s were discouraged from going anywhere but Israel, though many of course came to US and elsewhere. I guess I should hold my tongue and just put things in when find sources :-) CarolMooreDC 21:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for elaborating on the refugee issue. I don't believe there is any solid evidence that Zionists were behind the Iraqi bombings. The Iraqi government did execute two men, Shalom Salah Shalom and Yosef Ibrahim Basri, for alleged involvement, though one claimed to have confessed under torture and the other maintained his innocence throughout. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Barely relevant POV material poorly sourced
Why is AnonIp ‎68.6.227.26 adding barely relevant material about women (pregnant or not) disguising themselves as suicide bombers, except to once again blame Palestinians for all the malnutrition and deaths of their children? This is wikipedia, not the Israeli Defense Forces website. I reverted the first occasion where you inserted material in the middle of of sourced info, in a very POV way that interferred with proper referencing. And then you added similar opinions from an American politician? Not very WP:RS. I wish I had time to clean this article up and properly balance it with indoctrination of Israeli children into historical inaccuracies, hatred and supremacy. When I have time to clean it up I will and then take it to a noticeboard where NPOV editors will surely agree with the way the article is being abused. A properly ref'd and placed mention of the Israeli excuses for these deaths might be permitted but both of these were just offensive. CarolMooreDC 01:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This article gave no explanation, justified or not, for women being kept at checkpoints. There is nothing in my edit about "women disguising themselves as suicide bombers," but rather sourced information about female suicide bombers feigning pregnancy to hide explosives. As for the second edit, the use of hiding bombs on ambulances and feigning injury or pregnancy as well as attacks on rescue workers are very relevant to a section on medical care, especially one that previously addressed only the impact on Palestinians. The United States House of Representatives is a reliable source. The statement was not by one American politician; the bill was sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence and cosponsored by 164 other politicians including dozens of members of both parties. You think it was "offensive," but I quoted exactly what they said. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll fix it with proper sources when get a chance. Meanwhile, please pay attention to the fact that your edits increase the bias of making this article emphasize Israeli suffering while making Palestinian kids look like a bunch of terrorists who deserve what they get. It's quite shameful really. I'll be looking for other eyes to comment on it. (And if you have used Hebrew language sources, please note that only English or English translations can be used as sources here.) CarolMooreDC 19:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I made this particular edit because the section previously only discussed how Palestinians were affected and gave no explanation for the delays at checkpoints. It seemed NPOV to me, so I added the information from the bill. I thought it was best to simply quote the source and avoid the issue of how it should be phrased. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Per my edit summary: 'replace introduced but not pass USCongress political resolution with high quality news/book reliable sources on topic to present NPOV overview of checkpoint issue. Resolutions are not WP:RS unless they have WP:RS; they are just political posturing and they weren't even passed. However, it is true that the context of the checkpoints needs more explanation and I did that with serious high quality refs. Using high quality refs, properly placed, tends to cut down subsequent aggravation by other editors. CarolMooreDC 14:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CarolMooreDC 19:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. First of all, thank you for notifying me about the Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion. I was uncertain where to respond and tried to at your talk page, but it doesn't seem to be allowing edits right now. I looked through my old edits for this article, and they include the following:
 * 1. Expanded the section on Israeli child casualties, mostly to make it less random.
 * 2. Added Sderot statistics to the section on Post Traumatic Stress, as it seems to have the highest concentration of PTSD in Israel
 * 3. Expanded the section on Palestinian child casualties to include examples of individual incidents
 * 4. Added a section on peace projects
 * 5. Added a few photos (three of Palestinians, two involving Israelis, and two for the section on peace projects). None of these had a negative connotation.
 * 6. Added statistics on malnutrition in Gaza
 * 7. Added information on schooling disruptions in Israel as a result of the conflict. It was intended to balance out the section, which previously only discussed schooling disruptions in the West Bank and Gaza. However, the text on those disruptions was removed shortly after by another editor as the link was dead.
 * 8. Rephrased some text from the section on Treatment of Palestinian Children by the IDF in order to make it more neutral
 * 9. Added a section on media manipulation
 * 10. Added some information on Israeli medical aid to Palestinians and cases of organ donation between opposite sides of the conflict.
 * 11. Gave statistics regarding the age and gender trends for Palestinian child deaths
 * 12. Added information about miscarriage and the deaths of pregnant women on both sides during the conflict
 * 13. Gave the age of the youngest victim of violence during the conflict
 * 14. Added some information on child suicide bombers and child indoctrination
 * 15. Added a section on foreign children killed as a result of the conflict


 * I have also added a few counter-arguments in sections which only included one perspective in order to make it more neutral. As a whole, I don't believe my edits have been particularly NPOV, though I am more than willing to discuss specific issues you have. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Usually I avoid these types of incident-related articles because it's too much he said/she said, with the Israeli side to often way over represented and it's too upsetting and aggravating. So I stick mostly to dealing with WP:Undue smears on WP:BLPs where there are more supporters for NPOV policy. Today I at least cleaned out a few of the most annoying POV problems, especially from NON-WP:RS sources and made things a little clearer chronologically. I'm trying to find a really good summary of past history for lead that I saw in some article, already no doubt vetted by many editors. I've collected four pages of new material have to organize.  CarolMooreDC 14:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Hmmm...I see properly sourced info below was replaced with older info that fudges the source (B'tselem filtered through the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs report?) And with no edit summary.
 *  Between the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000 and December 2011, 1331 Palestinian children and 129 Israeli children under the age of 18 have been killed, according to B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights monitoring group. becomes...
 *  B'tselem and Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs report that during the Second Intifada (September 2000 to January 2005) 571 Palestinian children, age 17 and under, and 112 Israeli children, age 17 and under, were killed.(REF) A study by the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism found that 46 Israelis and 88 Palestinians were below the age of 12 at the time of their deaths.(REF)
 * International Institute for Counter-Terrorism report named An Engineered Tragedy – Statistical Analysis of Casualties in the Palestinian – Israeli Conflict, September 2000 – September 2002 only covers a couple years and certainly doesn't belong in there; and its POV really hangs right out there.
 * What is the rationale for removing 6 years and 760 kids?? And adding a sentence drawn from two mere years of statistics. Again, none noted in the edit summary....
 * I can see this whole paragraph has to be properly reorganized to reflect all 12 years with proper sourcing, as well as recent Gaza clashes that killed 33 children. CarolMooreDC 06:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed the years because the previous figure, September 2000 to December 2011, felt a little random. The other casualty figures are those from major periods in the conflict, the First Intifada and the aftermath of the Oslo Accords. I thought it would make more sense to categorize the figures with the specific conflict during which they occurred. The numbers should be up to date, though. Maybe just have a distinction between during and after the Second Intifada? I think the part about how many were below the age of 12 should be kept.


 * I did give an edit summary. Looking back over the last edit, though, I realized that I accidentally cited the wrong report. I had meant to give the one from 2005 but gave the one from 2002 instead. That has been fixed.


 * Also, I think that the statistics should not include casualties in 2012 until the year has concluded. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * First, it is original research for you to divide up the Bt'Selem numbers by years the way you did. A broad overview from them (that doesn't just focus on years where Israeli deaths closer to Palestinian deaths), followed by other breakdowns by other sources is appropriate, assuming done in NPOV way. And Bt'Selem numbers til September as well as the latest "clashes" numbers are available from UN, so no need to wait.
 * Second, the 2007 OCHA report doesn't mention Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs or any statistics on minors from Bt'Selem. It does have a lot of other interesting factoids/statistics about children which it is too later for me to look at tonight.
 * Studying the relevant sources and a few others I put together and entered a cleaner version which makes clear who is saying what about what time periods and better summarizes some sources, like Richter-Stein. Also, it makes sense to start with the First Intifada when statistics on children seem to first have been collected and where large numbers of teens started being active. More info on specific deaths during those times, as well as Gaza War and 2010 clashes, can be added later. Obviously, this article needs the updating. CarolMooreDC 09:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I made some small changes. B'tselem reports 129 Israeli child casualties between September 2000-2012, not 85. I added a source and specified where Mearsheimer and Walt made the claim regarding the conduct of Israeli troops. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see I did misread the numbers. Read an interesting source on children's role in first intifada which is sourced info as opposed to current WP:OR of first sentence in introductory paragraph. Something to fix tomorrow... CarolMooreDC 01:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:Original research interpretation of B'Tselem statistics?
Going through tonight at this diff, the refs do not make clear that they support your statement except through WP:Original research interpretation. If you feel it is necessary to mention that there is a challenge to the B'Tselem statistics of Cast Lead/Gaza War discussed below, then do it in the next sentence, don't do it in the middle of the B'Tselem sentence as if it actually is a B'Tselem statement.
 * You wrote: "From the outbreak of the Second Intifada starting in 2000, to September 2012, B'Tselem statistics show that 990 Palestinian minors (not including those killed during the Gaza War, discussed below) and 129 Israeli minors were killed within Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[5][6][7]"
 * Also you have a wrong ref link and a missing ref link and I have included the full ones with full descriptions per the source (for comprehensibility), assuming all four really are necessary in this section, which I doubt.
 * http://www.btselem.org/english/Statistics/Casualties.asp Fatalities: 29.9.2000-30.9.2012  (September 29, 2000 to September 30, 2012)
 * http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/casualties.asp?sD=29&sM=09&sY=2000&eD=26&eM=12&eY=2008&filterby=event&oferet_stat=before Fatalities since the outbreak of the second intifada and until operation "Cast Lead":29.9.2000-26.12.2008 (September 29, 2000 - December 26, 2008)
 * http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/casualties.asp?sD=27&sM=12&sY=2008&eD=18&eM=01&eY=2009&filterby=event&oferet_stat=during Fatalities during operation "Cast Lead":27.12.2008-18.1.2009 (December 27, 2008 - January 18, 2009)
 * http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/Casualties.asp?sD=19&sM=01&sY=2009&filterby=event&oferet_stat=after Fatalities after operation "Cast Lead": 19.1.2009-31.10.2012 (January 19, 2009 to October 31, 2012)

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC 06:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * According to # http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/casualties.asp?sD=29&sM=09&sY=2000&eD=26&eM=12&eY=2008&filterby=event&oferet_stat=before Fatalities since the outbreak of the second intifada and until operation "Cast Lead":29.9.2000-26.12.2008 (September 29, 2000 - December 26, 2008), 951 Palestinian minors were killed before Operation Cast Lead. According to #http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/Casualties.asp?sD=19&sM=01&sY=2009&filterby=event&oferet_stat=after Fatalities after operation "Cast Lead": 19.1.2009-31.10.2012 (January 19, 2009 to October 31, 2012), 38 were killed after. 951 + 38 = 989. It causes confusion to say that a certain number were killed in total, and then show the debate about how many were killed in a particular time period, as it could lead readers to believe that the dispute is over when certain casualties occurred rather than the overall number. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The current state of affairs is highly dubious. We should give the total figure for the whole period. This does not mean we cannot also discuss the casualty figures specific to the Gaza war. Dlv999 (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Listing fatalities during the Gaza War individually is more clear and accurate. I don't believe there is any dispute regarding how many were killed before and after, but because there are drastic differences between the numbers given during Operation Cast Lead, it is best to list them separately. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not "more clear and accurate" that is an absurd assertion. What would be more clear and accurate would be to list the figures for the entire period as published by B'tselem. Dlv999 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have stated previously, it causes confusion to state that a certain number were killed in total and then discuss the dispute over how many died during the Gaza War. It could give the impression that the dispute is over the time of their deaths rather than the number of how many were actually killed. It could also give the preconceived notion that B'tselem's statistics are the most reliable, which is dubious. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What is confusing is the current state of affairs. Listing B'tselem's findings for the entire period would not be confusing. Furthermore, it would not "give the impression that the dispute is over the time of their deaths" I cannot understand this claim you are making. Your claim "It could also give the preconceived notion that B'tselem's statistics are the most reliable" is not correct, we would simply be reporting the figures as published by the source. In any case, with respect to Cast Lead the figures provided by the Israeli military, who were a party to the conflict, are the outliers Quoting from the UN fact finding mission: ''" The Mission received statistics on the fatalities of the military operations from the Gaza authorities, specifically from the Central Commission for Documentation and Pursuit of Israeli War Criminals (TAWTHEQ), as well as from PCHR, Al Mezan and B’Tselem. The first three also provided lists of all the persons killed in the military operations, with their names, sex, age, address, occupation, and place and date of the fatal attack. Another NGO, Defence for Children International – Palestine Section, provided a list of all the children killed.....The Mission notes, however, that the Israeli Government has not published a list of victims or other data supporting its assertions, nor has it, to the Mission’s knowledge, explained the divergence between its statistics and those published by three Palestinian sources, except insofar as the classification of policemen as combatants is concerned.....The Mission notes that the statistics from non-governmental sources are generally consistent. Statistics alleging that fewer than one out of five persons killed in an armed conflict was a combatant, such as those provided by PCHR and Al Mezan as a result of months of field research, raise very serious concerns about the way Israel conducted the military operations in Gaza. The counterclaims published by the Government of Israel fall far short of international law standards."'' pp 90-91 Dlv999 (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * B'selem: 320
 * Defense for Children International: 352
 * Amnesty International: "some 300"
 * Palestinian Centre for Human Rights: 318
 * Al Mazen 342
 * IDF 89
 * I disagree. I still believe that it would be inconsistent to first give an overall casualty figure as if it were undisputed fact and then discuss a debate over how many were killed during the Gaza War. As the article is right now, there is no confusion. It gives the number prior to Operation Cast Lead, after, and shows both sides of the dispute over how many fatalities there were during the Gaza War. Readers can decide on their own who they think it more reliable. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My point at the time was merely that you can't make it look like B'Tselem is the source of comment that there is disagreement. However, since then I rewrote it with this edit summary: more info on disputes over figures; put in box with relevant B'tselem figures since best overview, remove most duplicate B'tselem figures; needs more work but easier to comprehend now. It's far less confusing now. If someone else has such complete figures, we an decide what do do about them. (UN probably does somewhere.) CarolMooreDC 03:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That solves the problem. I agree that this is the best way to present the figures. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, team! :-) CarolMooreDC 21:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV and Too many refs for many incidents
Just one more NPOV issue: I notice that a number of incident have 4, 5, even six refs for one or two sentences. This lends a POV air of importance and in the ref list drowns out even more destructive incidents which have only one or two refs. Two are usually enough, in case one gets deleted by the publisher, unless they really have very different info. Usually the first couple tell the story and/or the less reliable ones easily can be removed. And I think we can safely delete the Non-English refs in such cases without people having to bother to translate them. CarolMooreDC 20:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think more than one reference just increases the credibility of the article, but I have no objections to removing a few. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The other issue is: do the refs actually support the statements. I'm doing some major reoragnization on legal issues and checking refs as I go. As at this diff, so as not overwhelm, I will just cut down verbose paragraphs and remove material that just does not ref statements, leaving it in current sections. (Note that here calling an organization "controversial" using as refs articles published 3 years prior to relevant incident and adding 5 refs that "prove" it is just POV argumentative; it could be done with most organizations here but just not productive.) Feel free to check refs etc. CarolMooreDC 07:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Dead girl
There has been some edit warring over the who tag.


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

I'm afraid I find this kind of editing too repulsive to deal with so I'm out.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 21:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Even if it were in dispute who killed this child, it isnt relevant to the caption. This never ending game has to stop.  nableezy  - 21:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sean.Hoyland made an inference and assumption in his summary box. He could NOT list which girl it was and provide a link. If he wants it to be used on Wikipedia, he ought to provide a RS reference and proof and be able to state clearly who it is and how she died. Not "Well it was on Day X so it's either A or B or C."
 * B'tselem has been known to lie or exaggerate or misrepresent. I'm not interested in getting into an argument about this, as it's just silly to deny that they have been overwhelmingly criticized by many people, organizations, blogs, etc, and certain lies have been pointed out. When we have an article on the Gaza War, for example, there's a reason editors are supposed to write "According to B'tselem..." and not just take what they write as a fact and put it on Wikipedia.
 * If proof can be provided of this girl, rather than just an unreferenced inference talking about B'tselem, then go ahead. But right now, all we have is a picture of a girl from Al Jazeera. Hamas, her family, anyone could've even lied about how she was killed to glorify her or bash Israel or both. Or it could just be similar to the tweet by a U.N. employee about a girl killed by an IDF airstrike, only to turn out she died a few years back and wasn't killed by Israel.  THAT is the issue with this.  If I took a picture of a girl covered from head to toe in blood, and I put it in this article or something similar, and wrote "Israeli girl killed in a Hamas suicide bombing," when in reality she's from another country and died in a different war or from a disease or an accident, then I would expect it to be reverted, and the claim that "Even if it were in dispute who killed this child, it isn't relevant to the caption" would just sound silly... -- Activism  1234  22:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This is just a request for information. I can't locate the edit that removed the photo of the dead Palestinian girl. Sorry to be such a newbie. I am an academic researcher working on a paper. Shaixpeer (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Shaixpeer
 * There are lots of photos in relation to this conflict at Wikimedia Commons, including the one you are asking about. The photo, which was an up-close shot of a dead girl's face, was removed and replaced because it was kind of inappropriate. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Children and IDF
I made changes that hopefully make the section more NPOV, and to avoid edit warring people should comment here and not make further changes til there is more of a consensus. Specifically:
 * 1) Used actual ref for Code of Ethics which obviously would apply to children. The other material is not specifically about how IDF treats children, only infers excuses for bad treatment.
 * 2) Removed unnecessary dup refs
 * 3) More specifics about what report said with less wordy summaries; no need to identify Fox News; removing info not in source cited. CarolMooreDC 04:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the other material in the opening paragraph had originally been part of a section on international reactions, which was deleted, and its information was moved to various other parts of the article. I have a few suggestions:
 * Rather than saying that "most" of the charges involve rock-throwing, give the actual statistic (60 percent, according to the Fox News report)
 * Name the number of minors currently involved and their age distribution (233 in total, of which 31, or 13 percent, are below the age of 16)
 * The paragraph is getting rather long; it might be a good idea to break it up into two. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "code of conduct", the document itself does not discuss "children" or "minors" so inclusion only citing the document itself will be WP:OR. If we are going to include this what we need is a source that directly relates the code of conduct to the topic of this article "Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict".
 * I made all suggested changes. I think it's obvious children would be included in the code, but added one specific incident as illustration. From this search; find something better?. Actually, what we need here is a section on relevant International law/treaties/etc. and then subsections on how both sides violate it. But I'm in the middle of a bunch of other articles that get more hits and have even more disinformation (if on other topics). CarolMooreDC 14:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Newest article info added today fine, but belongs in the relevant section and not the lead or other sections. I'm trying to focus on finishing one article right now so otherwise will not act for time being. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 14:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I added to two or three sections. The article is lengthy and the lead almost pared down to one line, so that to date, we have had no attempt to write the lead. Leads summarize, as you know, and some general statistics, or even that UNICEF comment I added to the body, is perfectly adequate for a lead. You might like checking out the original sources Levy and co cite, and using them independently of that article. Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your note motivated me to finally - per past promises - "expand lead; create legal section and organize relevant material there; move text books/indoctrination to appropriate section and remove WP:Undue; add images; various tweaks". And there's still lots of overly wordy, wp:undue, tit for tat stuff in there that could be cut down. Will continue another day. See section about removed text book material below. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 07:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)