Misplaced Pages

Talk:Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carolmooredc (talk | contribs) at 12:34, 4 April 2013 (→Removed text book material: 1rr violation; relevant info to be added). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:34, 4 April 2013 by Carolmooredc (talk | contribs) (→Removed text book material: 1rr violation; relevant info to be added)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to table of contents
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
WikiProject iconPalestine Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.
Archiving icon
Archives

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages.
  • 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... --Activism1234 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)

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.

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; Misplaced Pages 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)

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."
  • 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.
  1. http://www.btselem.org/english/Statistics/Casualties.asp Fatalities: 29.9.2000-30.9.2012 (September 29, 2000 to September 30, 2012)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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

  • B'selem: 320
  • Defense for Children International: 352
  • Amnesty International: "some 300"
  • Palestinian Centre for Human Rights: 318
  • Al Mazen 342
  • IDF 89

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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.

According to Btselem, 58 foreign citizens were killed by Palestinian militants between September of 2000 and September of 2012, and some unspecified number were children. These include Aleksei Lupalu, 16, of the Ukraine in the 2001 Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing ; Shmuel Taubenfeld, 3 months, of New York in the Shmuel HaNavi bus bombing on August 19, 2003; Daniel Wultz, aged 16, of Weston, Florida, in the 2006 Tel Aviv shawarma restaurant bombing.

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":

According to Btselem, 58 foreign citizens were killed by Palestinian militants between September of 2000 and September of 2012, and some unspecified number were children. Others were killed as an indirect result of the conflict. For example, a French Muslim attacked a Jewish school in February 2012, saying that his motives were to avenge Palestinians

--68.6.227.26 (talk) 04:43, 7 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.

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Changes this article needs

  • 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.

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)

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)

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)

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. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs lists 24 Israeli child fatalities between 1993 and 1999. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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:
  1. Rather than saying that "most" of the charges involve rock-throwing, give the actual statistic (60 percent, according to the Fox News report)
  2. 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)
  3. 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🗽 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🗽 07:52, 31 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)

Removed text book material

The text book discussion was way too long, WP:Undue vs. Palestinians and most belongs in the relevant Text book article, thus cut it. I added one paragraph of a report not already covered to that article. And after review this paragraph seems relevant to Israel's reaction so I can put that back in after my 1rr period over:

  • According Haaretz Israel has made the criticism of Palestinian textbooks a cornerstone of its Hasbara campaign against the Palestinian Authority.

The other couple paragraphs below we can discuss; temporary removal, especially if there are any major objections. I have more info on Israeli child indoctrination, bad settler behavior, etc. which can balance these removed paragraphs since obviously there is indoctrination on both sides. Not only place such balancing needed, obviously.

  • In August 2009, Hamas refused to allow Palestinian children to learn about the Holocaust, which it called "a lie invented by the Zionists" and referred to Holocaust education as a "war crime."
  • According to the Anti-Defamation League, the Hamas' bi-weekly on-line magazine for children, al-Fatah (Arabic for "the conqueror"), published since 2002, features stories and columns praising suicide bombers and attacks against the "Jewish enemy."
  • In 2013, more than 3,000 Palestinian teenagers graduated from Hamas’s first high school military training program in the Gaza Strip. According to Abu Hozifa, a 29-year-old national security officer who teaches in the program, the children are taught to, "honor the national flag and anthem, to strengthen their affinity with the homeland and Jerusalem, the spirit of resistance and the principles of steadfastness. We also prepare them in terms of faith and physical fitness to serve as resistance fighters if they want to be in the future."

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC🗽 14:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Why in the world would any of those three paragraphs be removed? They all made valid points extremely relevant to the topic at hand, child indoctrination. These paragraphs are crucial in giving a rounded overview of the topic as they elucidate claims of child indoctrination by Hamas (which, unlike claims against the PA and Israel, had not been addressed in the former paragraph). The first article addresses indoctrination in an academic setting, the second indoctrination through government propaganda (Hamas run children's magazines), the third indoctrination within Hamas' teenage military training program, which they themselves admit "is aimed at fostering a new generation of leaders in the struggle against Israel." These three paragraphs, along with those already present in the section, are all necessary for anyone looking to receive a rounded picture about child indoctrination from all parties at hand (Israel, the PA, Hamas) and thus need to be returned to their proper place; their omission is completely unwarranted. Sammy1857 (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Question left on brand new users talk page. However, to answer generally, there's just as much on Israeli children indoctrination but I didn't feel like adding it at the time and just got tired and took the easy out. Plus maybe people are tired of accusations back and forth by the time they get down here. I added material balancing the one paragraph you put back. Maybe that will be sufficient to make point. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I added the first story before finding your discussion on the talk page; I was hoping you would add the latter two after I presented the reasons for their inclusion in the talk page, but I still don't find it them within the article so I am going to add them now. I personally don't see adding this information about Hamas as throwing "accusations back and forth" as Hamas really wasn't covered in the section- like I said, I believe all three parties should be adequately represented, and I think the three stories chosen really highlight some major instances in which Hamas was practicing child indoctrination, each briefly mentioning a different method.

I also don't believe the sentence "His son Yoni, a pacifist, was arrested for resisting mandatory conscription." in the paragraph you added has any relevance to the point at hand- there are plenty of conscientious objectors, but that would be a fact more appropriately presented in an article about the IDF itself, not in a paragraph detailing the ways in which the army is said to be indoctrinating Israeli children.Sammy1857 (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see your talk page and revert you last two edits for 24 hours per 1rr - see Arbitration tag on top of page also.
If you didn't add something back, I can't mind read why. That Israeli school children know they face if arrest if they resist conscription is relevant somewhere, if not there. Will look at tomorrow. CarolMooreDC🗽 12:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Making article more NPOV

Still working on it per my detailed summaries. Let's try to keep relevant material together and not make sure every mention of something bad Israelis do is countered by some redundant reference to something a Palestinian did. I see emotional reactiveness not an attempt to make article more coherent. The biggest problems remain:

  • Unbalanced casualty examples in relevant sections and elsewhere in article really are themselves a media manipulation and wonder if we should use them at all, especially since there is a disproportionate number of Israeli examples. Let's think of a less exploitive way to deal with this.
  • This is a big problem in the school disruption section that doesn't even mention the disruption of having most of your schools bombed, not being allowed to import supplies to rebuild them, problems with check points, etc. Didn't have energy to deal with either issue right now.
  • I cut out the WP:undue in PTSD section whose redundancy was pretty easy to just remove. CarolMooreDC🗽 05:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  1. "Statistics:Fatalities". B'Tselem. September 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-05.
  2. Alexei Lupalo
  3. After praying for a seventh child Nava's baby died in her arms, Haaretz
  4. Daniel Wultz
  5. Red Cross official: Gaza isn't experiencing a humanitarian crisis, Ha'aretz, April 21, 2011.
  6. Red Cross: There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Jerusalem Post, April 21, 2011.
  7. Chemi Shalev and Nathan Jeffay, Yale professor blasts 'blindness' of Israeli Education Minister over school textbook report, Haaretz, February 2, 2013. Quote: "Israel, which has made the condemnation of the anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish content of Palestinian textbooks a focal point of its hasbara efforts against the Palestinian Authority, lambasted the report as biased, unscientific and unprofessional."
  8. "Hamas rips U.N. for teaching the Holocaust." JTA. 31 August 2009.
  9. Hamas Magazine for Kids Promotes Martyrdom and Hatred
  10. Barzak, Ibrahim. 3,000 Gaza teens graduate Hamas terror school. January 24, 2013.
Categories: