Talk:List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada/Archive 2

This page is a joke
The problem I see here is the "criteria" for massacres. There have been dozens of days since 2000 in which dozens of Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli bombs and bullets. But since the state of Israel and their apologists say that this was merely "collateral damage" (which doesn't mean "accidental", merely "acceptable" civilian casualties. It is almost always known that civilians will die) it ipso facto eliminates ANY Israeli action as a "massacre", even the event at Beit Hanoun in which 19 civilians were killed in one night. Any incident in which 10 civilians or more were killed should be considered a massacre here. Otherwise, apologists for Israel will simply continually say that all Palestinian civilians (thousands of them) are all killed incidentally, and thus, not a massacre. It's a blatantly one-sided "criteria". This should either be rectified, or this page removed.

I mean really. There are like a dozen pages on wiki about suicide attacks against Israel by Hamas, IJ, Al-Aqsa, a list of these massacres and so on... but no independent pages about Israeli massacres of Palestinians or anything like that. The wiki community ought to be ashamed. A student of history 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:NFT. All Palestinian civilians that are actually killed by Israel are killed incidentally. John Nevard (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't argue with you. But legions of pro-occupation editors can, and will. I think we'll just have to suffer this severely POV inconsistency. Eleland 21:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Massacres
Why are only terrorist attacks in Israel called massacres? -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 13:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good question - there was a massive cover-up in Jenin in April 2002, but 100s probably died there. Residential districts of Beit Hanoun were shelled by the IDF (at least 19 dead), yet these are the only incidents on this list not given the title of "massacre". Difficult to understand, it might almost seem as if 26 articles have all been entitled in a very POV fashion - I wonder how the body of each of these articles is written? PRtalk 08:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see an effort has been made to fix the problem I've identified - the 2,700 Palestinians killed and these two massacres of them were deleted from the article. I've put them back in, but as long as a Palestinian life counts for nothing, I don't suppose they'll be allowed to stay for long. PRtalk 20:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Article name
Please do not move the article to NPOV title. Thanks.--Burgas00 21:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent dispute
To summarize recent disputes:
 * "[This is] a list of intentional civilian killings parallel to List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war." (User:Tewfik)
 * "[One] cannot tailor [one's] definition of massacre to fit [one's] political agenda." (User:Burgas00)
 * "'Massacre' means intentional killing. The palestinian deaths don't fit that [definition]." (User:Okedem)
 * "Firing heavy artillery at populated areas fits my definition of intentional... In most legal systems the mental element of murder is direct intention or recklessness. Deaths on only one side is POV." (Burgas00)
 * "Accidents don't count unless there's proof that the IDF lied and they really were targeting civilians." (User:Armon)
 * "It's not up to us to decide what is an accident and what isn't, what counts and what doesn't... Let's not construe the article so as to exclude one side of the killing." (Burgas00)
 * "The Palestinian attacks had the stated purpose of murdering civilians, they didn't claim anything else." (Okedem)
 * "Not sure about the broader issues but... Palestinians say they are justified because of Israeli universal military service, ie, all targets are military." (User:Eleland)
 * "That's a crap claim, and many don't even bother making it." (Okedem)
 * "It is a crap claim. Whatever, it's just that this [article purposefully] filters out the deaths of one party in a conflict. It is POV." (Burgas)
 * "No, it's not POV. It lists attacks on civilians. IDF's actions are not attacks on civilians, even if civilians get hurt." (Okedem)

Okay then, let's start a proper discussion here &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 00:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Seing our edits like that one after another makes it look like we are never come to an agreement on this.--Burgas00 00:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the best path to an agreement is to simply move the page to List of attacks against Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada and drop the pretenses. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 00:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "'Massacre' means intentional killing. The palestinian deaths don't fit that [definition]." (User:Okedem) - easy enough to prove that Palestinian deaths are intentional (for Jenin 2002): Words of Sharon (5th March, a month before the incursions, before the surge of suicide bombings) "Palestinians must be hit and it must be very painful ... We must cause them losses, victims, so that they feel a heavy price." PRtalk 01:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that doesn't help your claim. He could just as easily be be talking about heavy militant losses. okedem 06:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The primary aim of the Israeli army is evidently not to kill Palestinian civilians. They are not building gas chambers in Ramallah and Hebron! I am also quite sure that the IDF takes basic steps to minimise civilian casualties in its military operations whenever possible. However, it does weigh out the benefits and risks to Palestinian civilians, and generally does not put off an important military operation because of the likelihod of civilian causalties.

I understand Okedem's position. As an Israeli he finds it morally reprehensible to equate military operations against militants in the west bank with blowing yourself up in a bus filled with children.

However, I would rather we made an article with a common standard definition, and add a disclaimer on issues of manner of authorship (among other things) in the introductory section. Otherwise this article is inherently POV.

An article named "List of beheadings in the Bosnian war" would be inherently biased against the bosniaks, as only muslim extremists during this war carried out this practice. --Burgas00 13:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand your position. However, I think grouping these two categories together does a disservice to our readers, and is just not fair to Israel. It's not the same thing! It would make it look as if the IDF's actions and the Palestinians' are on the same level. But while the IDF takes steps to minimize civilian casualties, often delaying operations due to unacceptable risk to civilian lives, the Hamas (for instance) makes it its stated goal to kill as many civilians as possible. They could, mind you, attack military personnel - there are plenty of those in the West Bank (and there were a lot of them in the Gaza strip till 2005). There are plenty of military bases and soldiers in Israel itself, almost endless possibilities for attacks. Yet they choose to kill civilians in buses. The intent matters, the way of doing war matters. okedem 15:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is why I suggest we move it to List of attacks on Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada. It's one thing to list a specific aspect of a conflict, without drawing conclusions about it. It's another to use an inherently provocative title like "massacres". That invites editors to add incidents like (say) October 2000 events or Jenin Massacre. I see what you want this article to be for; a list of terrorist outrages inflicted on women and children, which has no direct parallel in anything the IDF has done since 1948. That's acceptable. Give it a neutral and honest title and I can't argue with keeping it. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 16:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't like the "massacre" title any more than you do. It's more journalistic than encyclopedic. It's also less accurate, since it doesn't convey the fact that these attacks are political in nature, and not simply mass murders (like some nut job with a rifle, as happens so often in the US...). okedem 17:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. Well, that was easier than I thought :-)--Burgas00 17:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess we should all try using the talk page instead of overly concise edit summaries... :-)
 * Anyway, let's wait for some more folks to express their opinion in the matter before taking any action. okedem 17:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I support that-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 18:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I support moving the title to "List of attacks on Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada". It is accurate and neutral.IP198 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * List of attacks on noncombatants during the Second Intifada would be OK. It's interesting that Eleland is suggesting that we redefine the article as a POV fork when that was his objection to it when he nominated it for deletion. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In that AfD I specifically endorsed articles like List of Hamas suicide attacks, since "they list attacks of a specific group, and are honest about it." &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 23:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, how do you feel about the previously proposed title? &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 01:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't blow smoke. I participated in the AfD and I know very well that your rationale was that it was a "disguised pov fork". The result of the debate was that it wasn't, because any massacre from either side which met the list's criteria could be included. The fact that one side is not (currently) targeting civilians is immaterial. So no, I don't support redefining the list. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 00:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember your comments there, and I wasn't trying to blow smoke. You say that one side is not currently targeting civilians, but that's not what a large segment of the world's media (including notable portions of Israeli opinion, I can link to Ha'aretz op-eds if you like) thinks, not to mention the Palestinians. Many people would say that the entire occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is a targeting of civilians. They'd say that Israeli attacks on civilians happen all the time, they're just better disguised as "accidents" or "collateral damage". As long as that POV is around, any "list of massacres" is going to be subject to edit warring and drive-by moves. And the edit-warriors will have a point.
 * The analogy to List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is confusing. For one thing, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. For another, you're comparing apples to oranges. From circa 1945-1949 there was an active civil war with several sides fielding organized armies, controlling territory, sacking villages, etc. Right now we have an established state with a powerful occupation army against a scattering of covert militias. Of course the situation is going to be different, so why would exactly the same article titles be appropriate? &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 20:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The British Empire was the established state involved at the time. If they were committing massacres at that time, then those incidents deserve to be on that list. And no, the "edit-warriors" pushing to inject propaganda into WP don't have a point any more than intelligent designers have a point in biasing science articles despite it being a widely held POV. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, some new ideas. Name of Civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force could be used here in similar fashion! -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 11:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, this list has the same criteria as List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 00:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I also like the introductory heading of Civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force. It could be used as a precedent... Seems NPOV enough to me.--Burgas00 13:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should go ahead and change the title. Armon is pretty hardcore and even he is not pushing this too much. The rest of us, including all those involved in the edit war, agree.--Burgas00 23:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what "hardcore" is supposed to mean, but I'll point out that this list has survived 2 AfDs and if you want to redefine it, and turn it into a different article and/or list, I think we need a broader consensus than a few delete voters who won't drop the subject. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if Eleland and others had not argued against such a clear POV fork, it would still be forbidden by our policy. This list is parallel to List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war - if editors want to use a different word for massacre then that is fine, but artificially limiting this to Israelis is not okay, and neither are edits including events which are not supported by RS as being intentional attacks on civilians okay, editor PalestineRemembered's theories about 'massive cover-ups' notwithstanding.  Tewfik Talk 16:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * *Sigh*. OK, can we just accept that I, at least, have absolutely no problem with an article that openly lists only attacks by, or against, one side of the conflict? The problem is that this list is carefully constructed to appear as a comprehensive list of actions by both sides, while in fact only allowing actions by one side. I don't know what your fulminations about PalestineRemembered are supposed to prove, and your summaries of his edits do not seem to bear much relation to the diffs you have provided, but whatever. Let me try and restate my concerns.
 * The apparent standards for inclusion here are twofold:
 * The attack must have killed at least ten people
 * It must be abundantly clear that the whole purpose of the attack was to kill non-combatants
 * There are plenty of incidents where Israel has killed more than ten non-combatants - and in circumstances which show clearly that they could reasonably have expected these non-combatant deaths. For instance, they dropped a 1,000 pound bomb on Salah Shehada's apartment building, killing him, a bodyguard, and thirteen innocents including nine children. There was wide speculation, including in the Israeli press, that this action was intended to torpedo negotiations between Fatah and Hamas to end terrorist attacks within the Green Line and form a united front to liberate the '67 territories. Leaving that speculation aside, it is quite obvious that the Israelis knew their bombing would kill a large number of innocents. Killing all those kids may or may not have been precisely intentional - we're simply not in a position to know - but it was clearly expected and calculated.
 * There are also incidents where individual IDF soldiers, or small groups, have clearly and deliberately murdered noncombatants. There was an incident in June 2002 where a tank officer noticed that Palestinians were congregating in a public market in Jenin. There was no suggestion of any threat, and the Israeli curfew had been lifted although supposedly the officer didn't realize this. His solution was simple: he began to blast away with high-explosive shells and heavy machine guns. Four were killed and dozens wounded. He was later charged with "negligent homicide" by his own government. The reason it was only "negligent" homicide" is that it's perfectly legal and normal in Israeli law to kill Palestinian civilians, including children, simply for being out on the street doing nothing threatening, as long as a curfew is in effect. If there really had been a curfew, everything would have been kosher as far as the IDF is concerned!
 * This type of clearly intentional incidents happen all the time, although generally they are in smaller scale with smaller weapons (ie, snipers). The problem is that they rarely reach ten casualties, so they don't count as notable massacres by this artificial, carefully constructed definition.
 * In summary, we should either expand the scope of this article to cover incidents like the Shahadeh bombing, the Jenin market massacre, etc, or we should drop the artificial constraints, and just make it an article about attacks on Israeli noncombatants. Since the first one seems to be clearly unacceptable based on previous edits, I favor the second option. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 17:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, well if I get you down off your soapbox, are you advocating reducing the criteria downwards from 10? &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, the "soapboxing" card. I see this tactic all the time on Israel pages: Person A makes a casual, unsupported factual assertion like "Israel doesn't kill civilians deliberately". Person B responds with a long, reasoned explanation of why this is bunk. Person A knows he's trapped, so he makes an accusation of "soapboxing" rather than engaging in a productive, factual discussion. Don't be person A.
 * Now then, I believe I've shown conclusively that the standard being applied here - see the most recent revert - is carefully designed to limit the list only to attacks against Israel, without being open and honest about it. In other words, this whole article is a WP:SOAPBOX, and verges on disrupting Wikipedia in order to make a point. Yes, we know there are awful, violent, terroristic organizations out there who try to advance their claims to land and political power by strapping nailbombs to teenagers and sending them onto buses full of women and kids. It's horrible. It's already covered in sucide attack among many, many other articles. We can cover it further on List of attacks on Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada. What's so wrong with this idea? &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tewfik, I'm not sure where you get the idea that the siege of Jenin is an example of something "not supported by RS as being intentional attacks on civilians," but that's false. Here's Amnesty International:
 * Amnesty International has documented cases in Jenin and Nablus where people were killed or injured in circumstances suggesting that they were unlawfully and deliberately targeted...Amnesty International considers that some of these abuses of the right to life would amount to "wilful killings."


 * And here's Human Rights Watch:
 * Human Rights Watch found no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF in Jenin refugee camp. However, many of the civilian deaths documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to unlawful or willful killings by the IDF.


 * HRW obviously does not have the same definition of massacre that Wikipedia does. Which points to the problem of creating a list like this, with its own definitions of highly contentious words.--G-Dett 23:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Your quotes do not support your contention. None of those groups said Israel's goal in Battle of Jenin was to kill civilians, while Hamas et al's goal with suicide bombing is to kill civilians; no one killed in a bus bomb died in battle, accidentally, or due to "disproportionate" attacks.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 08:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Find a decent dictionary, and look up "willful" and "deliberate."--G-Dett 14:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I really feel users Tewfik and (Jaakobou on other articles) wilfully obstruct consensus on these articles. Such consensus is easily acheivable when discussions are in good faith rather than carried out as a "war" against the "enemy". Look how easily things were worked out with Israeli wikipedian Okedem. Now we are dragged into a useless political debate. --Burgas00 15:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ...except who is actually soapboxing here? These two. If you try and get past your own bias blind spot, you'll notice that no one, including Tewfik has opposed changing the title. The issue is with redefining it. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; —Preceding comment was added at 01:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you didn't mean to insert that comment you could take it out. Reminding people of the original texts is not soapboxing! PRtalk 05:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't need a dictionary, you need to read your reference. Disputed allegations of a handful of "willful" killings in the course of a battle wherein the consensus is that at least half of those killed were combatants in combat is still not the same thing as specifically attacking busloads of noncombatants.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 16:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The definition of "massacre" you want for the purposes of this page, Tewfik, is not "attacking busloads of noncombatants." It is rather "deliberate attacks against civilians in which ten people or more have been killed."  Around 30 civilians were killed in Jenin, many of them willfully and deliberately (according to the best sources).  Your definition of "massacre" is different from Human Rights Watch's, and that – not "PalestineRemembered's theories" – has created a problem, as original research is wont to do.--G-Dett 17:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

1. There is no need to create ad hoc definitions 2. There is no need to engage in propaganda 3. Intifada is an assymmetrical warfare par excellence. Regrettably civilians were hurt on both sides and Palestinians lost more lives than Israelis but this can not be improved or redressed by inclusion of instances like 'Battle of Jenin' or shelling of Beit Hanoun into this article because the definition of massacre does not apply. 4. If someone would like to systematize and emphasize palestinian victims of Intifada then he or she is welcome to contribute page on something along lines of "Palestinian victims of IDF actions" instead of attempting to smuggle IDF actions into present article. DBWikis 18:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that ad hoc definitions are out of place. However, the actual definition of massacre requires killings in "circumstances of atrocity or infamy", and since concepts of "infamy" are inherently subjective and POV, this actually mitigates against having an article entitled "List of massacres...". I agree that Beit Hanoun and, to an extent, Jenin are not exactly parallel to bus bombings. However, they're close enough that it's unwise to exclude them on the basis of nebulous, subjective, or overly convoluted standards. Better just to list all attacks involving noncombatants, with or without national/ethnic affiliation. Hence List of attacks on Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada. And I would be very happy to see a List of attacks involving Palestinian noncombatants during the Second Intifada, or some such. I do have a problem with taking an implicit POV stance that none of the killings of Palestinian noncombatants were "massacres"; this is really not for Wikipedia to judge. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 18:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree that Massacre is too loaded and better to be avoided. The criteria for inclusion of particular incidents should be derived from the intended focus of the article in question. If it is civilian deaths then IDF actions can be included. If it is rather incidents of intentional destruction of life on adversary side with clear indiscretion regarding military/civilian distinction (and the current perception is that latter applies) then IDF actions are out of scope. DBWikis 18:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this goes to the heart of why I want to move the article. If we set any kind of complicated criteria, there's going to be endless and ultimately fruitless warring over what fits those criteria. I'm also concerned that both setting those criteria and evaluating incidents against those criteria forces us to conduct original research. That's why I'd much rather list all incidents of civilian fatalities, and leave the qualitative judgment to others. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Once the article has been moved, it will be ok to delete Palestinian deaths...--Burgas00 20:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Eleland, you are right that it isn't for WP to judge - HRW, AI, the UN, EU, and US all clearly stated that Jenin was not a massacre, defined as mass-killings etc. Unless someone has challenged that suicide bombings are intentional mass-killings, I don't understand what the problem is or why we are trying to redefine the term (to include a handful of hotly disputed allegations that there were "willful killings" in the course of a battle where scores of combatants on both sides were killed) as being something other than the consensus in RS. It seems that you are even aware of this on some level as you wanted to retitle this List of attacks on Israeli noncombatants... and some other potential entry List of attacks involving Palestinian noncombatants....  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 02:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

1. There seems to be no strenous objection to renaming or moving the article. How you would like to rename it?

2. Regardless of the suggested moving, the focus of this article (as indicated above) is incidents of intentional destruction of life on adversary side with indiscretion regarding military/civilian distinction. If you will follow 'what links here' you will see that widening of the historical scope leads up to List of massacres and those are defined as incidents resulting in large numbers of deliberate and direct civilian deaths. As mentioned earlier IDF actions like Battle of Jenin or shelling of Beit Hanoun regrettably caused numerous deaths on Palestinian side but can not be classified as direct and premeditated attacks on civilians, ergo should be excluded. DBWikis 03:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I won't address the spurious "gotcha" which ends your posting. I chose my words carefully, and consciously, but this is not the place to defend them, and your psychological speculations on my motivation are irrelevant. I have not, and would never, add Jenin, Beit Hanoun, Salah Shehade, etc to this "list of massacres", because they do not meet the criteria. It's the criteria, and the title, that I'm objecting to - let's discuss those.
 * Now, on the subject of what groups said about Jenin. AI only used the word "massacre" once in its report - they said that claims of a massacre spread under circumstances where the camp was locked down, and verifiable information was scant to non-existent. Shortly after the battle concluded, Amnesty's secretary-general noted that "there is no legal definition in international law of the word 'massacre' and that its use in the current circumstances is not helpful." Indeed, Amnesty's "failure" to dismiss claims of a massacre earned the wrath  of the Anti-Defamation League.
 * HRW did not, in fact, "state that Jenin was not a massacre". They stated that they "found no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial

executions by the IDF in Jenin refugee camp," adding that "many of the civilian deaths documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to unlawful or willful killings by the IDF." (em mine). That claim appears to stem from a BBC report under the headline "'No Jenin massacre', says rights group".  The word "massacre" appears only once in the HRW report, and I've quoted it above.
 * The UN report does not contain the word "massacre". (Palestinian- and Jordanian-supplied appendices do, and they claim that a massacre was real or probable.)
 * The EU report to the UN does not contain the word "massacre". It does note that, "The massive destruction, especially at the centre of the refugee camp, to which all heads of mission in Jerusalem and Ramallah can testify, shows that the site had undergone an indiscriminate use of force, that goes well beyond that of a battlefield." (em mine).
 * You say that these allegations are "hotly disputed". But you don't mention that the Palestinians say one thing, the Israelis say another, and every neutral observer comes down on the "willful killings" side. I might as well note that the "infamous" or "atrocious" nature of pizzeria bombings is "hotly disputed", since some Arab and Palestinian sources try to justify them. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 03:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the point is, since some Palestinians justifying a suicide bombing is not some Palestinians denying a suicide bombing, which as far as I know no one whatsoever does. OTOH, the Israeli POV denies that there were "willful killings", and further castigates the neutral observers for being less than neutral. Moreover, however you would like to phrase it, no mainstream source maintains that there were "massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions" in the course of the battle at Jenin, and again, there is no denial that suicide-bombings fit that definition.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't draw meaningful distinctions if you keep shifting the criteria, or comparing what RS's "don't maintain" with what they "don't deny." There are plenty of Palestinian sources who (contra the international consensus) assert that a massacre took place in Jenin, and there are plenty of Israeli sources who (contra the international consensus) deny that "willful killings" took place in Jenin.  And then of course there are lots of varying opinions about constitutes "circumstances of atrocity or infamy."  The problem with this list is you've created your own ad hoc definition of "massacre" which differs from the dictionary definition as well as that of Human Rights Watch.  Of course lining up your definition with either of these would be impossible anyway, because the former is subjective ('infamy' anyone?) and the latter is never articulated.  So you've come up with an arbitrarily precise definition, and one which ironically Jenin actually fits.  That's not an argument for including Jenin; that's an argument against building a list like this around a term that in the present context is contentious, political, and subjective.--G-Dett 23:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That ignores entirely what I just said. No one disputes that the suicide bombings occurred, or that they were intentional mass killings. No mainstream sources allege that Jenin was such an intentional mass killing (or "massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions", or whatever formulation you would like to use).  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 23:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't ignore your comparison between what "no one disputes" on the one hand, and what "no one alleges" on the other; indeed the first thing I did was to point out the fallacy of that kind of comparison. It's very simple; you shouldn't be building a list around a term that in this context is nebulous, contentious, political, and subjective, and for which you've had to create an ad hoc definition.--G-Dett 00:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So HRW's terminology is nebulous, contentious, political, and subjective - noted. Why don't you explain what term you think is appropriate.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 02:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the lamest gotcha!'s I've seen. In this context, Tewfik, in this context.  The context here is a magisterial overview of the second intifada.  In this big metacontext, with Wikipedians sifting through hundreds of separate acts of political violence, with wildly various local contexts, spread out over seven years, the term "massacre" – with its ad hoc Wikipedian-authored definition – is nebulous, contentious, etc.  HRW was carrying out an investigation in a single and very specific local context, to wit, the siege of a refugee camp where militant fighters had holed up with civilians.  "Massacre" in this context has a generally understood meaning – door-to-door slaughter of defenseless civilians, a la Sabra and Shatila.  Now it is true that even in this specific context "massacre" – unlike "war crimes" – has no fixed, legal and technical definition, and I think Amnesty was wise and prescient to avoid using it; but HRW was using it in good faith, and despite subsequent moves by others to propagandize their findings, their meaning in the original context was clear enough, and accurate.


 * As for what terminology would be appropriate here, I think there have been good suggestions above, from Eleland and others. Either something generic and inclusive like List of attacks involving civilians in the second intifada, or something specific like List of attacks on Israeli civilians in the second intifada.--G-Dett 13:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to cause chagrin or something, but given the sad reality of asymmetrical warfare waged in Intifada the attacks on Israeli civilians and deliberate attacks on civilians will give you exactly the same. The consensus appears to be that the last time when Israel forces deliverately attacked civilians was in 1948 (where it is BTW labeled as massacres). And I seriously doubt the point of the present list is to be generic and inclusive or "balanced" as "list of attack involving civilians". This imbalance is result of one side using F-16 and other using suicide explosive belt, and there is no way to straighten it by heaping IDF actions and Palestinian martyrdom together. DBWikis 14:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know that the consensus is exactly what you say it is, though it's probably not too far off. My point is not that one-sided lists are a problem, only that the list title shouldn't center on a term that demands subjective interpretation and invites ideological debate.  If it's true that a contentious title and a non-contentious title "will give you exactly the same" list, then the latter is clearly preferable.--G-Dett 14:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As mentioned earlier it is indeed better to avoid loaded titles and incendiary language and it seems there is no tough opposition to changing the title from "massacres" to "deliberate attacks targeting civilians". Other point: one-sided lists are only reflection of one-sided reality and not a problem in itself; assymmetrical warfare and clash of civilisations are real problem but masking it with "balanced" commentary or reference in Wikipedia will not fix an imbalance having place in real world but will spawn new contention instead. DBWikis 14:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * List of deliberate attacks targeting civilians would improve on "massacres," but List of attacks on Israeli civilians in the second intifada would improve still further. Like it or not, there is indeed a serious RS-debate about what constitutes "deliberate," and changing to List of deliberate attacks targeting civilians would only strengthen the case for the inclusion of Jenin, where the international consensus is that civilians were indeed deliberately killed.  List of attacks on Israeli civilians in the second intifada is not a move toward "balance," which is a red herring, but rather a move toward terminology not vulnerable to endless, solidly RS-backed debate about what qualifies or doesn't qualify.  Such RS-debates are illuminating in articles on single events, but unmanageable in a list of dozens.--G-Dett 14:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that List of deliberate attacks targeting civilians should be better. I disagree that inclusion of Jenin Battle is justified unless you count armed guerillas firing at IDF troops as civilians. DBWikis 17:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But do you really disagree that editors who want to include Jenin could cite RSs supporting its inclusion in a list of List of deliberate attacks targeting civilians? "Amnesty International has documented cases in Jenin and Nablus where people were killed or injured in circumstances suggesting that they were unlawfully and deliberately targeted...Amnesty International considers that some of these abuses of the right to life would amount to "wilful killings."  The question is, given your view that "attacks on Israeli civilians and deliberate attacks on civilians" should yield the same list, wouldn't it better to choose the title that will yield that list cleanly and uncontroversially, and not spark endless debates with editors who disagree with you and have excellent sources to back them up?  I find your take on the asymmetrical warfare and the I/P conflict sound and compelling, but your take on how this should shape editorial presentation in this instance has a logical gap in it.  The question of what is a deliberate attack on civilians is not settled among RSs; why should Wikipedia try to foreclose that debate, when in the present instance it obviously doesn't need to?--G-Dett 17:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I concede I should not question motivations of Wikipedians and agree that Wikipedia is not intended (and should not be used) as a debate foreclosing platform. We should aspire to agree on more neutral tiles (and List of deliberate attacks targeting civilians seems to be acceptable) and should avoid introduction of ad hoc criteria. Exclusion of IDF actions follows from my own interpretation of assumed criteria for the article in question and other interlinked articles, including those devoted to Battle of Jenin. Specifically if Wikipedia settles on rendering claims of deliberate killing of civilians by IDF as valid then it effectively will relabel that particular incident and as result would justify its inclusion into present list. I was under impression that proponents of such an inclusion went ahead without settling the focal contention. As for use of AI's wording one should bear in mind that (1) AI is less impartial than it would like to present itself i.e. not being immune to political consideration and (2) their wording did change more than once. Regarding the Battle of Jenin specifically it looks like the focus of contention is about circumstances of deaths of less than twenty individuals and is better to be addressed directly and since PA did not provide evidence of deliberate killing etc in more than 5 years my logical conclusion is that such evidence is absent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBWikis (talk • contribs) 18:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Its not a question of evidence of "deliberate killing". It is the arbitrary definition of "deliberate" attempted to be given here which is called into question. When we are excluding all palestinian deaths we are proclaming that they were "accidental" and thus making a political judgement. That is what is being attempted here by users tewfik and the like: To use this article to make a political statement.

On the other hand, if the article is named "Israeli victims of suicide bombings" or something like that, no political statement is made, and the article will remain encyclopedic. --Burgas00 19:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is better not to ascribe political intentions to contributors, what seems to take place here can be seen as an attempt to present compilation of references to instances of Palestinian violence which unfortunately _is_ political. As I've mentioned earlier it is preferrable to establish consensus regarding Battle of Jenin in its dedicated article note here. Inclusion of IDF actions into present list should not tip the balance anyway. DBWikis 20:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The simple problem is that the RSs aren't settled on what constitutes a "deliberate" use of lethal force in the context of the I/P conflict. Lists are great, but they become absolutely unmanageable street-riots if they aren't formed around terms of consensus among reliable sources.  It really is that simple.  DBWikis, Wikipedia articles aren't considered reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles; regardless of one's real-world views, Amnesty International is a reliable source and Battle of Jenin is not.  That will always be the case; even if that article is improved from its currently dismal state, even if it becomes the best article on Wikipedia, it will never "settle" issues for other WP articles if the reliable sources themselves aren't settled.  I'm not asking you to change your real-world views (most of those you've expressed I agree with); I'm asking you to consider that real-world views are not the appropriate metric for gauging the suitability of article titles.--G-Dett 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting that Battle of Jenin is immutable source, only proposed to sort out the contention there first. And the present list probably should be retitled. DBWikis 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * DBWikis has got it quite right. The criticism levelled towards the Israelis in Jenin was that they were indiscriminate or disproportionate, or even that there were a handful of "wilful killings" (all of which are disputed by the Israelis), while no RS claims that there were deliberate mass killings, a revelation that the news-media made quite a hubbub about. OTOH, suicide bombings are criticised for being deliberate mass killings. As far as replacing "massacre" with something like "deliberate mass killing", both myself and Armon have expressed interest, however it seems unbalanced for that to happen here when List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war exists, or indeed List of massacres.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 21:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So it's Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid all over again? Stop trying to make this a bargaining session or a battleground. Discuss this article on its merits, or don't say anything at all. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My view that lists (more than any other type of article, due to the number and range of incidents they manage, like herding so many cats) require terms not hotly debated by RSs is fully elaborated above, so I won't repeat it here. I have given only a cursory look at the other two lists of massacre you mention, Tewfik.  It seems to me that both deal with historical events termed "massacres" by both scholarly and vernacular consensus: Boston massacre, My Lai massacre, Deir Yassin, etc.  This is certainly the case with the more general of the two lists.  These are things known collectively by common consensus as massacres; that's what connects them.  That is certainly not true of the contents of this page: these are things known collectively as suicide bombings, or terrorist attacks (I know that's a WTA but I don't know that it should be).  If it's also not true of the 1948 list – you may know better than I, Tewfik – then I think a parallel discussion on that page would be appropriate.  As Eleland points out, however, let's not have any specious linkage; historical terms may have settled for the events of 1948 in a way they haven't for the events of 2000-2007.--G-Dett 21:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Many, if not most of them, are not labelled massacres, but rather "meet the criteria of resulting in large numbers of deliberate and direct civilian deaths in a single event". But please, what RS allege any sort of intentional mass killing at Jenin, or deny it in a suicide bombing?  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not following. You want to rename this List of attacks resulting in large numbers of deliberate and direct civilian deaths in a single event in the second intifada?  Or you want to throw up a new and equally ad hoc definition of "massacre," one you hope will more successfully gerrymander Palestinian atrocities from Israeli ones?--G-Dett 21:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving on...
Repeating the same failed, ad nauseam, arguments as were given at the afds is going nowhere, and is frankly, disruptive. Looking over the comments, there does seem to be significant opinion that the term "massacres" is problematic. So, without attempting to redefine the list against consensus, let's discuss the options. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize that here on Wikipedia, we have a strange set of jargon, but even then, trying to claim that the current version is "consensus" is a little rich! As far as I can see, it's a case of Tewfik and yourself defending the current definition against everyone else, including people who've in the past disagreed sharply over the nature of the list. Now, perhaps your arguments are right and perhaps they are not. I'm certainly not in a position to judge, having previously made my own POV very clear. But let's not cloud the issue with specious claims of "consensus". The operating principle here is clearly contention, not consensus. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 02:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone is of the opinion that the term "massacre" is problematic, this concern must be raised on Talk:List of massacres or at WP:WTA. This talk page is just not an appropriate venue for such discussions. Beit Or 22:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: are people here alright with List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, but not alright with this list? Beit Or 22:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Option 1: List of attacks on noncombatants during the Second Intifada
Comments on this option please. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

====Option 2: List of suicide bombings during the Second Intifada==== -this was redefining the list. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Hey wait. what about List of suicide bombings during the Second Intifada????? I cant think of any reason why either camp would oppose this one... --Burgas00 23:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My goal is not to change the list, but to preserve it and give it a title that won't invite dispute. Option 1 might produce an interesting list for readers but will be a rugby match for editors.  Option 2 would be equally fruitful in its own way and less of a headache.  I vote 2.--G-Dett 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. As a side note it probably worth remembering that if disputes would have been always settled by voting the Sun would still circle the Earth. Granted here the votes are cast regarding the WP article not "reality" but those reports from AI, HRW, etc are "only" paper. DBWikis 02:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't oppose such an article. However, I prefer "attacks on Israeli noncombatants", since a list of suicide bombings would necessarily in exclude events such as shootings, rocket attacks, pre-planted bombs, etc. These incidents are clearly part of the same campaign and should be listed together. Nonetheless, a "list of suicide bombings" would be a great improvement. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 02:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (edited "include" to "exclude" 24 October - oops)
 * I think Eleland's is the best suggestion yet.--G-Dett 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I consider this one to be a non-starter. Again, it's an attempt to redefine the list, and it seems redundant anyway. See List of Hamas suicide attacks List of Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide attacks and List of Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades suicide attacks. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 11:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Option 3: List of mass murders committed during the Second Intifada
See mass murder. Maybe better than "massacres"? &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 11:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous.--G-Dett 13:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that was uncharacteristically concise :) OK, well I guess we should stick to the consensus version which survived 2 afds then. That is, unless someone has a another suggestion. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone does have another suggestion, namely you. And someone else – called Burgas – also has a suggestion.  When you're done licking your wounds see options 1 and 2 above.--G-Dett 02:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, it seems that with this proposed option you are making a mockery of the whole debate. Are you sure you properly understand the contentious issues which we are discussing?--Burgas00 17:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "This article IS a POV fork. Either change name or stop deleting content please." Actually, I consider continually repeating the same failed assertions from the last AfD by delete voters like yourself to be disruption. Unless you guys have better arguments to present, I suggest you just move on. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Armon, the arguments presented against the current title are very cogently laid out, and as yet unanswered. DBWikis and I were getting somewhere when you rather boorishly interrupted.  Repeating that the discussion is "failed," "ad nauseum" etc. is either satisfying smackdown-rhetoric or very weakminded name-calling, depending on one's intellectual temperament, but either way it is argumentatively nil; and your suggestion of substituting "mass murder" for "massacre" is decisive evidence that either (a) the conceptual terms of the discussion you're dismissing have gone over your head; or (b) you are a troll.  Take a time-out, and come back when you're ready to discuss.--G-Dett 15:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is just a tantrum. In the first place, I suggested List of attacks on noncombatants during the Second Intifada -and not a single 'cogent' comment to be seen. You guys are just repeating yourselves. Ad nauseum is the domain of trolls. If you don't like me pointing that out, too bad. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 12:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that "killing" is more NPOV that "murder". News reports say "19 people were killed in an attack..." They seldom say "19 people were murdered in an attack..."Bless sins (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A choice to keep this article neutral
Either agree to change the name to reflect its content or desist in eliminating killings of Palestinian civilians. This article is not your personal political pamphlet.--Burgas00 09:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to imply that IDF conduct in Battle of Jenin falls under the title of "massacre" however this contention is still far from being resolved there. Nobody disputes that Palestinian civilians got killed but there is a range of possible interpretations. The present list is a compilation and the points related to one of the particular entries is better to resolve in its dedicated article not here. And "Neutral" should not be confused with 50/50 representation of conflicting positions. DBWikis 14:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)