Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 12

Casualties of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
There seems to be a dispute over what kinds of casualty info should be in the article. For example; this sentence has been added and removed a few times.


 * A recent reflection of the human cost of the conflict, as reported by Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, is 373 Palestinian civilians killed by the Israeli Defence Forces in 2007; and seven Israeli civilians killed by Palestinian fire.
 * Reference: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/940067.html

I believe there should be some balanced info here and there in the article summarizing the casualties. There might also be a table summarizing total deaths for each time period, intifada, decade, etc.. Also some totals for the entire period of Israel's existence.

I think there should also be a separate article with much more information. One suggestion might be an article with the same title as the title of this section.

Check out examples of various types of casualty articles and lists in these categories:
 * Category:War casualties
 * Category:American Revolutionary War casualties
 * Category:World War I casualties
 * Category:World War II casualties
 * Category:Vietnam War casualties
 * Category:Iraq War casualties
 * Category:Israeli casualties
 * Category:Israeli casualties during the Al-Aqsa Intifada
 * Category:Second Intifada casualties

See these article examples:
 * World War II casualties
 * Vietnam War casualties
 * Casualties of the Iraq War
 * Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War
 * Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

Another possibility is an article called "Casualties of the Second Intifada". It would be in addition to the article "Casualties of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." There is plenty of info to fill out both articles in detail.

It is common to put casualty summaries in the main articles for each war, conflict, uprising, etc.., and then to link to the main casualty articles. See WP:SPINOUT. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think casualty information belongs in this article. However, I think it is quite tricky to word things in such a way that all or most parties consider the language to be neutral. Therefore, I recommend that the article present casualty figures in the less controversial form of charts, with year as the x-axis and number of casualties as the y-axis. The article could contain several charts where each chart lists casualties both in raw numbers and as percents of their respective populations. One chart can show the total, another could show the combatant breakdown, another could show the civilian breakdown, etc. The only major obstacle I foresee is finding a source which provides this extensive information and at the same time is generally considered to be neutral. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Charts are a great way to present the data. Various estimates can be put in the chart. I don't think there is one set of numbers considered to be best in all cases. A wikichart can be used, or a gif/png image chart can be created. There is a free online chart creation tool linked from here: commons:Category:Charts --Timeshifter (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes as Timeshifter wrote, regarding all the examples cited above:
 * World War II casualties
 * Vietnam War casualties
 * Casualties of the Iraq War
 * Casualties of the 2006 Lebanon War
 * Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)


 * We can see that the "Casualties" article supplements a main article on the conflict etc. itself. In all the main articles related to the above, casualties are listed in the lead. I'm reverting the sentence in question, which has I believe the most up-to-date casualty figures which come from a reliable (Israeli, I might add) source. If someone wants to reword the information or expand with a table or timeline with more detailed casualty figures, go ahead, but please do not delete simply this content. Thanks. RomaC (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the controversy regarding that sentence is that it suggests that there were no casualties in other years or that all casualties have been Palestinian. Perhaps you might consider rewriting the sentence so that it gives the total number of casualties, since the start of the conflict? Or, if not since the start of the conflict, then at least from a larger range of years? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that such a rewrite would meet fewer objections than the present version. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Michael Safyan is right. there is no basis for adding casualty figures for one year only. this is an issue of extreme complexity and sensitivity. these edits show little awareness of that. i am less concerned with finding an acceptable way to put in these facts, and more concerned with the fact that this appears like an attempt to run roughshod over the carefully-formed understandings, consensuses and discussions which have evolved and emerged to make this article a careful overview which would be fair to many viewpoints. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest putting in yearly totals. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)--Timeshifter (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Let us not miss the forest by focussing on the trees. A major drawback of any such statistics — even if sourced — is that all Pal. casualties are likely to be counted as civilian, even when the "victims" are so-called militants killed in the act of staging attacks on Israelis. This makes for a grossly distorted picture. Beware of statistics with hidden biases. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The most detailed info is in the casualties section farther down in this version of the Second Intifada article:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Intifada&oldid=180730544
 * For more info: Talk:Second_Intifada. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * this would certianly be a wise addition to the article. To deal with Hertz's concerns i don't think the term "victims" should be used at all.  "causualties" or "deaths related to the conflict" would be fine without distinguishing between soldier and civilian on either side. SJMNY (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether the article had aggregate or annual casualty figures would be fine with me, but I see the figures have again been removed and the article quickly protected from editing to block their inclusion. RomaC (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hertz1888, above. Also, can someone here please explain why so much effort was made to use casualty figures from one year only, and then to present those numbers as if they were an overview of the entire conflict itself? all of the examples which you cite quote statistics for the entire conflict, not for a single year. the fact that such a huge effort was made to present statistics for one year only, and then to not indicate what they actually were anywhere, and to present them in the lead, makes this seem like an effort to slant this article's lead greatly. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There was an article in Haaretz reporting the 2007 casualty figures, which are the most up-to-date figures. If someone thought it would be better to look at a longer period I have no objection ~ in short, improve, don't delete. And further, Steve, please clarify, when you say you agree with Hertz1888, does that mean you are also questioning the reliability of Haaretz as a source? RomaC (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your reply. However, that still doesn't explain why those figures were put in the lead. Furthermore, if people do not put in such figures, it may be that they are simply trying to preserve the article's fariness and balance. please do not assume that people are somehow negligent if they do not try to exapnd material which only you felt belonged there in the first place. It may be that they are using their good jugment to keep out detials which they feel would not improve the article. there are many figures which either side could quote to give itself an advantage. people here have learned the value of restraint and brevity to preserve balance and fairness here. I am not questioning the source, as i am not sure how these edits help this article in the first place. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would respond again that casualty figures appear in the lead of every one of the cited Wiki articles about war, conflict, battle. Why do you think this one should be different? Thanks. RomaC (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In response, I would ask you why feel the need to only include 2007 figures.


 * Also, this article does not describe just one war. It describes a conflict, spanning decades if not centuries, and which includes many wars. there is no reason to try to include casualty figures, and there is no way to obtain casualty figures for the entire conflict which would be reliable or acceptable to both sides. Doing so would not help the article in any way. The pro-Israeli side could come up with figures which you might find just as unacceptable.


 * Also, WHY do your figures provide separate numbers for Israeli and Palestinian casualties? this more than anything else points out the problematic nature of your edits. the lead for the World War II article provides only the total casualties for all combatants, and does not try to distinguish different sides within the overall figure. This article is the result of long, well-thought out compromises, and we try to preserve balance and fairness here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The World War II article breaks out the casualties for each side. It is in the infobox, not the lead. Infoboxes are common for articles about conflicts and wars. There is also a detailed casualties section farther down in the article. That is common too. A good place to go to get answers for questions about how to do deal with all this stuff is at WikiProject Military history. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"...the World War II article provides only the total casualties for all combatants, and does not try to distinguish different sides within the overall figure." That is not correct. Please check again. Now, are you really saying you object to casualty figures unless they go back centuries? No, because you say there would be "no way" to obtain those figures. So, what's wrong with the most recent figures? Or the last ten years, for example? Would you object to that as well? RomaC (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * you;re correct. i meant the lead for the World War II article.


 * the answer to your questions is, yes and yes, i would still object, as I feel that these figures add nothing to the article, and do not improve the content here in any way. however, i am not the only person whom you need to convince here, of course. if you can achieve consensus among other editors here, including a broad number from both sides and communities, then i will gladly step aside. In fact, i am happy to step aside here now, to give others a chance to comment here on this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I will also step aside here, and I hope some non-involved editors will weigh in. RomaC (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i have no opinion on whether or not it should appear in the lead, though i think incomplete figures should certainly NOT appear in the lead. in order to be 'complete' there should at least be figures, as far as they are available, for the last 10 years.  filling in backwards from there for as long as ther are relable sources would be good but not immediately necessary.  just posting one year's figures is bound to make people unhappy and i think justifiably so.  SJMNY (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Are casualty figures relevant here?
Does the inclusion of casualty figures add to and improve this article?


 * 1) Yes The casualty figures would show how lopsided the conflict is. Also, it would illustrate the tragedy of the whole situation. Of course, casualties for both sides should be included.Ngchen (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, it would? ok, great. glad that Wikipedia is now in the business of showing how lopsided conflicts are. If you want, we can also have a graph showing how many times Israel or the Palestinians have been loutish and unjustified. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes An article on a military conflict should provide casualty data. However, the casualty information should be sufficiently comprehensive that its presentation does not introduce bias into the article (unlike Ngchen who wants to add the data for the purpose of convincing the readership that the conflict is "lopsided"). I think the lead paragraph should give the total number of casualties since 1948, since 1967, or since 2000, without dividing the casualties into Palestinian and Israeli casualties. In a separate section of the article, a more comprehensive listing of casualty data should be provided. The section should divide casualties into {Palestinian, Israeli, total}, {combatant, non-combatant, total}, {male, female, total}, and {under 18, over 18, total}. Additionally, the section should display the casualty figures as {raw numbers, a percent of the Israeli/Palestinian population, a percent of the overall casualties, a percent of the Israeli/Palestinian casualties}, and it should display this data on a graph, with the figures on the y-axis and time on the x-axis, with data points for each year. The section should wrap up with the total figures from each category. Where casualty data is disputed, the disputed status as well as the nature of the dispute should be duly noted. That's my take. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand,except there's just one problem: this article is not about a military conflict. See my comment, below. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) No. It adds absolutely nothing to the article. this article is an overview of a conflict whose borders and parameters are difficult at best to define. what is included in the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict," and what would be included in the casualty list? Would it include all the casualties of the Six-Day War? Would it include the victims of the terrorist attack at the 1972 Olympics? Would it include all the casualties of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in the 1980s, since that was undertaken in direct response to PLO attacks?
 * Would it include Palestinan casualties during Black September in Jordan? Would it incluide casualties during conflicts before 1948, such as the 1929 Hebron Massacre? there are even more issues, questions and nebulous areas associated with this question. For all these reasons, I absolutely oppose any attempt to add total casualty figures to this article, especially if such figures would be broken down by ethnic group or by sies in this conflict. Such figures do not improve the content or informativeness of this article in any way, shape or form. and this article has done just fine without them thus far.
 * My main goal is to be fair to the many heartfelt concerns and justifiable senstivities of editors in both communities, both Israelis and Palestinians. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) No. Being fair would involve grappling with the built-in biases of the statistics (where, for example, slain "militant" attackers are considered "civilian casualties").  Even if this problem could be overcome, an attempt to be "fair" would amount to comparisons of victimhood, and inevitably leave someone (if not everyone) unsatisfied.  The boundaries of the topic are ill-defined and likely to remain so.  I fail to see why casualty figures are relevant to the article in the first place.  If in doubt, leave it out. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) No. Palestinian propagandists love death statistics because to an uninformed reader, it looks like Israelis are butchering Palestinians. The truth is that the conflict has been unbalanced because the combatants on the Palestinian side are almost always often terrorists who blend into civilian populations.  Comparing death statistics between Palestinians and Israelis is like comparing death statistics between criminals and police officers.  --GHcool (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. This is really disturbing: "Comparing death statistics between Palestinians and Israelis is like comparing death statistics between criminals and police officers." I hope you are able to set aside your strong POV, and meet the requirement of WP:NPOV to show all significant POVs in the form of X says Y, without giving undue weight to any POV. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes Include Casualty figures in all "conflict" articles. I believe one estimate gives the total as some 250,000, though I cannot be sure where I saw this. The figures and analysis we use need to come from observers, not participants - nobody will need reminding of what has happened in this situation already. PRtalk 10:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. There should be a short casualties section in the article. I think simple totals for deaths for each side should be in the article. I don't think this is the place to break it down by combatant and non-combatant. That is already in the articles for each war, intifada, conflict, clash, etc.. Also, it would make the article too long to do the issue of combatant/non-combatant breakdown justice. I think there should be death totals for each side for each intifada. Outside of those two conflicts there should also be totals since 1947 for Israelis killed by Palestinians, and Palestinians killed by Israelis. I am talking about those killed outside Intifada time periods. This could all be done in a paragraph or two. There can be links to other articles for more info. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Absolutely!! When has anyone ever studied a war in History class and not been informed of the casualty estimates? No honest commentator on this conflict can, with a straight face, make the argument that casualty statistics are irrelevant to its documentation.   To attempt the suppression of such fundamental and utterly uncontroversial facts as these from an article that ostensibly strives for encyclopedic accuracy is just crazy.  Stone put to sky (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you that the statistics should be included (see my comment above), they are hardly "utterly uncontroversial facts." Keep in mind that this is an ongoing conflict, and nearly all aspects of it are in dispute. Though I support including casualty data, I think it will be rather difficult to find sources for these statistics which all editors consider to be neutral. These statistics are controversial, because having more casualties (especially civilian casualties) proves useful in eliciting sympathy and support from third parties; therefore, not all sources provide honest figures but, instead, inflate the number of casualties for their side or maintain the same number of overall casualties but shift the status of some of these casualties from "combatant" to "civilian."
 * Michael Safyan (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Within a certain range the casualty figures are uncontroversial. Yes, AIPAC and its supporters would like the world to believe that the Israelis never kill anyone who isn't a soldier, even as they're carpet-bombing innocent lebanese and bulldozing Palestinian homes with three year old children and/or 80 year old grandparents in them. But setting aside propaganda efforts by such extremists, there is far more to agree upon in the casualty lists than there is to disagree upon.  UN figures are adequate, and if we want to get down to "taking a vote" then the UN has made clear that -- oustide of the U.S. and Israel -- 95% of the world considers their analyses accurate and reliable.  Stone put to sky (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. This is an article about a deadly conflict, of course casualty figures are informative and relevant. Some editors want to block casualty figures here and are arguing, among other things, that the figures may not be accurate. Wiki project's policy clearly states that we need to look at verifiability. Information on Wiki has to come from third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The current request for comments results from some editors trying to block 2007 casualty figures from Israel's oldest daily newspaper, Haaretz, which clearly pass Wiki project inclusion criteria. Trying to block these figures is not helping the article or the project.
 * Regarding the scope of the casualty figures in this article, I am flexible but would tend to agree with the proposal from Timeshifter, above. Totals in the article lead and a breakdown in the body. RomaC (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. Casualty-wise, this is probably the best documented conflict of our time. The UN has reliable figures which can and should be used. The casualties themselves are an important part of the conflict and merit being mentioned since they constantly fuel the cycle of violence.  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 07.01.2008 09:00
 * 2) Yes Including statistics would be helpful. But the combatant vs non-combatant debate should be avoided since apparently people feel that many civilians are either 1 terrorists pretending to be civilians, 2 civilians aiding terrorists, 3 collateral damage. Sorting out the actual status of the people killed certainly would cause an edit war and should be avoided. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. As Pedro says, the figures are well established, but they are not well known. Providing a neutral and accurate report on the conflict requires inclusion of the figures. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes, yes and yes I'm thrilled that editors are finally working on such a project in a comprehensive fashion. It's desperately needed. Of course we can incorporate information in existing articlesvia wikilinks, like the charts on Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (both of which still need development) and the information in the List of massacres during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and perhaps even List of massacres prior to the 1948 war. Though Isrel came into being in 1948, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict predates its emergence, as we know from the article. So where is the cut-off point exactly?  T i a m u t  23:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * the "cutoff point" should be verifiability. just make sure that whatever figures are given have a time period given along with them so that readers know it does not include anyhing before the date for which sources are listed  SJMNY (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As SJMNY points out, verifiability is the primary challenge, and as such the plan at present is to focus on the period when the conflict was both pronounced and monitored, which is from the start of the First Intifada to present (1987-2007). This is being discussed in a section below. Some editors, who have made it clear they want no casualty figures in the article, are also arguing that covering a specific period is wrong, or that the stats need to go back "centuries" (while admitting that this would be impossible). So we are looking at focusing initially on a verifiable modern period. If some editors want to expand this, then the responsibility for making it practical and verifiable will fall to them. Thanks. RomaC (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * covering a specific period to the exclusion of others would be wrong, covering 1987-present now and adding in more data as we can acquire it (and agree on it) is perfectly fine. May i suggest now that where figures vary we give a range with a footnote citing all the reliable sources? SJMNY (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. It's a conflict between peoples, and they speak to the consequence. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes, Absolutely!!. The fact that someone even suggest that these figures should be hidden are outrageous and more than a bit suspicious.--Ezzex (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, though proper sourcing will be a real pain. Hobit (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Some casualty summaries
Here is an easy summary of part of the casualties:

''The number of Israeli fatalities in the current conflict with the Palestinians exceeded 1,000 last week. Only two of the country's wars - the War of Independence and the Yom Kippur War - have claimed more Israeli lives than this intifada, which began on September 29, 2000. In the Six-Day War, 803 Israelis lost their lives, while the War of Attrition claimed 738 Israeli lives along the borders with Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.''

It is a quote from this article: "Israeli death toll in Intifada higher than last two wars". By Ze'ev Schiff. August 24, 2004. Haaretz.

For more casualty numbers see this version of the Second Intifada article:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Intifada&oldid=180730544

I don't see why some death totals for each side for each war, phase, and conflict can't be in the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of detailing every mini-conflict would it not be better to simply stae X israelis and Y Palestinians have lost their lives in this conflict since ...(1948, other date?). Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest totals for each side in each intifada, and totals outside the intifadas. That would be fairly easy and noncontroversial. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No. The Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts are not a spectator sport and Wikipedia is not a scoreboard.  --GHcool (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe it is a spectator sport in YOUR eyes, but not in mine. Maybe YOU look at casualty numbers as a scoreboard, but not me. In a previous comment you stated that you thought Palestinian deaths were analogous to deaths of criminals, and that Israeli deaths were analogous to the deaths of police. You have a really disturbing world view. It is OK to have a strong POV, but I hope you are able to set aside your strong POV, and follow the WP:NPOV guidelines. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote. --GHcool (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Timeshifter, I think your suggestion provides the relevant information in a clear manner. Now we just need reliable sources, and so I would only suggest that we start with a time frame in which accurate casualty figures can be reliably and noncontroversially sourced. Something like casualties from 1987-2007 would cover a period during which the conflict has been both pronounced and monitored. If some editors then insist on an aggregate total stretching back to 1948 (or "centuries"), the responsibility for making this practical and the figures verifiable would fall to them.RomaC (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea, RomaC. It covers both intifada periods. Everything before 1987 is covered in detail by separate wikipedia articles. The main wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, Lebanon invasion, etc.. Those wars were mainly Arab versus Israeli wars, though of course their roots were in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The casualties came from many nations, not just Israelis and Palestinians. For this article people mainly want to know the Palestinian and Israeli casualty numbers for the last 20 years since 1987 when the first Intifada started. There can be "see also" links to the articles for the other wars and acts of violence from both sides. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the logic behind Timeshifter's statement, "For this article people mainly want to know the Palestinian and Israeli casualty numbers for the last 20 years since 1987 when the first Intifada started." How does he/she know what most people want? And why does he/she arbitrarily choose the First Intifada as the starting point? I propose we try a more objective approach. --GHcool (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Timeshifter, that sounds like a plan. If you have a reliable source for casualty statistics for 1987-2007 could you post a link here please? I think UN figures would be the least controversial. (And GHcool, I believe anyone following the discussion here would be aware you are against including any casualty numbers at all in the article, noted, thanks!) RomaC (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If I was dipping into this article I think I'd want to know the number of victims since 2000 (which happens to be convenient, because that date happens to coincide with the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada), the number of victims since the UN decision in 1947 and the number of victims since the start of the conflict - probably 1919/1920. We know that Palestinians were being shot dead as they were expelled before that, but the earlier numbers are not very significant. PRtalk 20:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that the best approach would be to list three phases of the conflict: the ethnic cleansing of Palestine following the declaration of the State of Israel and up to 1987, the first Intifada, and the Second Intifada.  I don't see how one can realistically leave the entire first period of the conflict out of this article, especially considering it was these Israeli actions which fuel the conflict up until this day.  Stone put to sky (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Stone put to sky, Wikipedia is intended to be a neutral source of information, not a tool to promote a particular POV. Comments to the effect that Israel is solely responsible for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, such as the one you just made, do not belong Wikipedia articles nor on their respective talk pages. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Israeli military is an established fact, not any particular "point of view". You may posture as much as you wish, but there are tens of thousands of still-living first-hand witnessess to the undisputed ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the occupied territories, done at the point of a gun and orchestrated by the Israeli military.  Nowhere in my words did i make any mention of the sources or origins of the war;  i only mentioned an established fact and suggested that the casualty counts should begin from there. Your objections are specious, and i urge you to attend to the issues at hand rather than trying to cloud the matter with straw-man irrelevancies.  Stone put to sky (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Michael Safyan on this. But allow me to pose a question -- if Stone put to Sky wrote "many or most Israelis have no intention to accept or recognize Palestinian nationhood. Their main goal is to destroy Palestine and to do harm to Palestinian people. Any other statement is not true," I assume you would be similarly critical. Yet you said nothing when Steve Sm890 wrote, just above: "many or most Palestinians have no intention to accept or recognize the State of Israel. their main goal is to destroy Israel and to do harm to Israeli citizens. Any other statement is not true." This makes your appeal for "neutrality" seem selective, would you not agree? RomaC (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The truth of the matter is that I was not looking at my watchlist when Steve Sm890 made the edit in question, and only just now -- as a result of your comment -- became aware of Steve Sm890 writing such a thing. I will now respond to his comment in kind. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I accept your explanation of course, re-reading my last post it seems somewhat accusatory in tone, I apologise. There is as you know a current RfArb on the issue of improper editing of Israeli-Palestinian articles, many editors are very frustrated. Really I believe cabals are the single most serious threat to Wikipedia and that is why I have been visiting such articles more over the past few months. I am heartened when I meet people who can be good editors first, even when they have strong personal opinions on certain subjects. That is why I equally disapprove of the comments by Stone the Sky and Steve Sm890 above. Back to the matter at hand, I am also pleased that you support the inclusion of casualty figures in this article. Cheers. RomaC (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi RomaC. I understand your concerns. However, some Palestian editors here are not neutral, as they believe that Israel has mistreated some Palestinians. Similarly, some Israeli editors are also not neutral, as they believe that some Palestinians have mistreated some Israelis. The goal here is to find positive consensus between two different viewpoints, or between two approaches to the conflict. it is not usually feasible to contact each and every editor, or to scrutinize each of their past statements, to eradicate every such instance of non-"neutrality". thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes Sm8900, I already know that some Israelis have mistreated some Palestinians and some Palestinians have mistreated some Israelis. In fact, some Israelis have killed some Palestinians, and some Palestinians have killed some Israelis. Now we want to put that information in the article about the conflict, so others will know, too :-) RomaC (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like you are perhaps deliberately misreading some aspects of my comments somewhat, and also bringing up the other current conflict on this page, when i was trying to deal with just one at a time. Anyway, please feel free to comment further in general on this article. I don't wish to unnecessarily prolong this colloquy between us. I am trying to end on a note of courtesy, so let's try to please bow to each other graciously and move on. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I try not to misread things, appreciate your civility Sm8900, cheers! RomaC (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I accept that, and I appreciate your statement. You, too! thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Casualty figures: UN numbers
Ok, as per my own comments in the RfC above, I had a look at what the United Nations has to offer and found the site This is where most of the data used in UN press-releases and other documents (except for those from special rapporteurs in the area -- they do their own research) come from.
 * OCHAoPt: UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs -- occupied Palestinian territory

The office has its own monthly publication, The Humanitarian Monitor, which, month for month, tracks the number of casualties (killed and injured) on both sides directly due to the conflict. It also separately tracks the casualties for children (<18 years of age) for both sides.

According to the latest issue (November 2007), the break-down for 2005 and 2006 is as follows

We can argue ad nauseum about layout -- this is just an example. In the interest of being able to better compute the columns sums, I'd propose (as an afterthought) to put the injuries in a separate set of columns instead of rows, something like

I have not double-checked the numbers (there could be typos or arithmetic blunders), as this is only an example to illustrate how the data can be broken-down. The numbers for 2007 are probably going to appear any time now, so we will be able to add an additional row. Unfortunately, the reports only go back as far as June 2006, so I'm still looking for sources for the data before that -- probably to be found within the references of the first report.

Comments?

Cheers and thanks,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 10.01.2008 08:18


 * P.S. Apparently, there are statistics going farther back in the OCHA Humanitarian Briefing Notes. The previous link only goes back to January 2004, but older issues can be found searching the UN site. Cheers,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 10.01.2008 08:32


 * Thanks for posting those Pedro. As you might have seen above, a report on 2007 casualty figures was published by Haaretz at the end of the year. These figures were released by B'Tselem, and could become part of a range estimate -- but for the purposes of standardisation maybe we should also try to find more UN figures? RomaC (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would prefer it if we could use only figures from a single source to avoid differences (and the resulting discussions) due to them having been tabulated differently. One source means one standard, and if this can be the UN's own, then all the better :) It would be interesting to know where B'Tselem has their figures from, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were from the UN too ;)  Cheers,  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 10.01.2008 09:19
 * I think these tables fits wikipedia policy and are a relevant information. I don't think the fact they could come from different sources is an issue if the source is precisely specified.
 * I think that children should be defined. In these numbers children seems to mean < 18. Ceedjee (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To fit


 * How about this?
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; width:90%"

! rowspan=2 | Year ! colspan=2 | Deaths ! colspan=2 | Injuries ! Palestinians ! Israelis ! Palestinians ! Israelis ! 2005 ! 2006 ! Total || 894 (179) || 73 (8) || 4354 (599) || 861 (11)
 * + Casualty figures for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the OCHAoPt (numbers in brackets represent casualties under the age of 18)
 * 216 (52) || 48 (6) || 1260 (129) || 484 (4)
 * 678 (127) || 25 (2) || 3194 (470) || 377 (7)
 * }
 *  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 10.01.2008 10:55
 * That is excellent.
 * Just needs the former years.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ceedjee (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As bystander I think this looks very nice. May I concratulate all on the result? Looking forward to seeing the previous years added. Respectfully Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, this all looks pretty good so far. thanks for all the data and materials, as well as the formatting. this looks like a pretty good approach. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great job, Pedro. Thank you for everything you have put into making this. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * that looks fine. if you're going to seperate out "children" that term must obviously be defined (as pedro's chart does.) SJMNY (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * thanks for all the helpful input. I've requested unprotection, based on these very helpful new materials and cosensus. By the way, when the article is unprotected, any further issues should be able to be handled directly, considering that we have an ArbCom case open right now. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've just added the latest figures. There is not much text though... Can anybody look for and add older years and sourced estimates for the casualties in the different phases (i.e. 1948, 1967, First Intifada, etc...)? I've written to the ochapt.org asking for the historical data but have as yet not received a reply.
 * Cheers and thanks for the helpful comments!  pedro gonnet  -  talk  - 23.01.2008 16:05