Talk:List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada

From VfD

• • I think it should be kept with a rephrasing of the title from "massacres" to "murders" or something else. Massacres does imply partiality, which taints the legitimacy of this article and detracts from me, personally, considering the facts unaltered or uninflated. In other words I think rephrasing it less colorfully will lend credence to its content. -Profeign
  • An israeli propaganda. they don't show the reasons or the attacks, neither the israeli crimes done a day or two before the attacks.. + "massacre" is not a objective, and even wrong.. Should be deleted, or done again with changing the name, to "attacks" instead of massacres, and showing reasons and israeli crimes, done a day or 2 before. [Unsigned contribution was by User:81.49.157.203 19:00, 2004 Jan 31. Noted by Jerzy ]
  • Keep - Factual events - large number of people died on those dates and those terrorist groups claimed responsibility. ` Texture 19:53, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Nico 20:18, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm the author of the page. I would like to request that the decision on this page will be based on the same criteria used when deciding on List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war (also listed on VfD). Either "keep both" or "delete both" will be OK with me. -- uriber 21:15, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Well, they are not massacres, but suicide bombers, or attacks or anything else.. a massacre is another definition.. also the 1948 massacers ARE massacres, because done by jewish terrorist organisation (as the UN says) and against civimians. the difference, is by killing 100 civilians, each one alone, killing to kill... Both articles shouls be rewritten, specially List_of_massacres_committed_during_the_Al-Aqsa_Intifada, it is pure proaganda, and not a history subject like List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war..... And wikipedia is not a place for a cat and mouse play game.. Europeen
  • Delete. - UtherSRG 23:29, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. These are facts. They are massacres: intentional, indiscriminate killing of civilians, even if they "acts of war". I'm wondering who is aginst the list? Israelis would see it as a martyrolog, Hamas would see it as "hall of fame". Both sides should be happy. Mikkalai 03:22, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. Humus sapiens 04:20, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep both; change both page titles to "List of attacks during". Both pages should eventually include attacks from each side against the other, for the given time period; often there is a clear correlation. Individual attacks may be named "<foo> massacre", if that is how they were most commonly known. +sj+ 21:26, 2004 Feb 1 (UTC)
  • Uriber created this to make a point, as indicated above. However the point is invalid for several reasons. One is that this page only lists things done by one side (and you can be sure that trying to add the larger number of Palestinian civilians killed would be fought tooth and nail). On the other had the older page lists actions from both sides using the same criteria. A second reason is that all this stuff is listed already at Terrorism against Israel in 2004 (and similarly 2003, 2002, ...). What is the excuse for listing it twice? These have to be merged into a single article. A third reason is that one should not create articles just to make points. --Zero 11:23, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • 1: You (or anybody else) are welcome to add to this list actions done by the Israeli side, in a deliberate effort to kill unarmed civilians, in which more than 10 people were killed (provided there is reasonable support for the facts). 2:: You can say the same about the relation of List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war to the List of villages destroyed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Are you proposing to delete one of them? 3:: I believe articles should be judged on the basis of their content, not the intentions of whoever created them. -- uriber 18:53, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlike the other article, this is not yet history. It is an article in a controversial area, set up with arbitrary criteria to favour one side over the other. Otherwise for balance will we have a list detailing every killing of every Palestinian over the same period? (From the BBC website today "More than 2,600 Palestinians and at least 875 Israelis have died since the outbreak of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000.") Imc 19:49, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It is a list of indisputable facts....these, along with others, will provide the material from which people will select and deem some subset to be relevant and create a history. The history will contain context. It is indeed early to write that context. Wikipedia should be, at least we should strive to make it, a consistent whole. This list is a subset of Terrorism against Israel with a selection based upon the number of dead. Terrorism against Israel does not include failed attempts or acts that failed to kill Israelis, so that list is also partial, a subset of a fuller list. List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war to the List of villages destroyed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war may (have not checked each and every instance) have a similar subset/superset relationship. If so we should decide how to handle such articles and apply that decision to both. So, keep until we have a policy on subset/superset articles. OneVoice 01:31, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • It's obvious the only reason for creating this page was to prove a point (aka trolling). It is also a quite arbitrarily chosen specification for what to be selected on the list. However, it is also quite easy to disprove his point by adding three to four times as many massacres made by the Israeli army. I'd me much happier with the name "list of suicide bombings during the Al-Aqsa Intifada". Keep. BL 02:27, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not a contributer to this page or the discussion so far, I happened to bump into it and wish to give my two cents. I believe this to be factual information provided under well-defined criteria. Since Amnesty International defines the Palestinian suicide attacks as Crimes against Humanity, the definition massacre for the attacks with more than 10 victims is anything but unreasonable. However, I do not agree to Uriber's proposal of conditional removal, all war crimes should be published and be kept unconditionally online. It is regretful that these crimes happen, but since past events (of any war) can not be undone, it is best to give them their due exposure. That is exactly what this and similar pages accomplish. Keep. Gidonb 21:49, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. keep info as is (change title if needed though). JDR
  • The real trouble is, you need a lot of information from both sides to produce a database like this with NPOV. As long as there is at least one person on each side of the lines adding to each of these pages, it should be allowed to stay. The month-by-month lists of attacks since the Intifada began similarly needs balanced contributors; some months only attacks on Israelis are listed, others it is mainly attacks by Israelis. And again, bombings (no matter how detestable) aren't 'massacres'; neither are the modern-day Israeli attacks on stations, moving vehicles, etc. There hasn't been a proper massacre in a while, and thank God for that. +sj+ 10:04, 2004 Feb 5 (UTC)
  • I'm sure this can be kept, but needs a lot of work. There are loads of these articles on the middle east. I think we either delete them all or keep them all. I'm not taking sides. Ideally one day you'd all be able to come together and make a NPOV article - we are a long way from that yetSecretlondon 19:32, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This an accurate data that should be recorded. It was claimed here that it doesn't provide the full picture. This article deals with only aspect and therefore limits itself to it. There are plenty of other articles related to the al-Aqsa intifada which can give the full picture. MathKnight 21:26, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that the only problem is that the title is somewhat ambigious; because, arguably, Israeli forces may have committed "massacres" which took place during the period of the Second Intifiada... The page title should be changed to either reflect this fact, or the article should include "massacres" by both sides. To my mind, there's no NPOV question here whatsoever. - Seth Ilys 14:11, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep but change to a title without massacre. Also it would be nice to see the actions of both sides in one article. Rmhermen 14:33, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

• • • Keep. I just wanted to add that it the definition of 'massacre' that was given as 10 or more & equivalent to the 'List of Massacres Committed During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War' lists one massacre {Jerusalem Post Bombing February 1, 1948 Arab 6+ } at 6+ individuals. Finally, some of the 'massacres' mentioned in the '48 list have no sourcing (such as the Lydda/Lod) yet offer up numbers such as 250! Shouldn't there be some evidence of a massacre and not merely a battle? --Just wondering

This is Neutral

This is perfectly accurate and true. Just because some posters support Palestinian terrorism does not make such crimes excusable.

You're trolling bad, now. The facts are true, but the list is one-sided; and you're clearly biased strongly against Palestine ~ No one can excuse terrorism by Palestine, but why is it then that you ignore the state terrorism perpetrated regularly by the Israeli Defense Forces?

Not sure how that's a threat...

I'm not sure how that's a threat... what would be wrong with going in and adding in monthly incursion casualties to balance it out? I'd also be open to other ideas (such as renaming this to be a list of suicide bombings, and then creating another article on monthly Palestinian casualties (or particularly disturbing Palestinian civilian deaths) and then have the two reference each other) - but are we expected to leave this as a (quite clearly) NPOV article with no balance? Rei

It came across as a threat. "Delete or else". Sorry if I misunderstood your intent. Martin 20:10, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Keep

Apologists for terrorism may want to equate mass murderers with the actions that Israel is forced to commit to protect itself against the same. But there is no justification in equating planned, premeditated homicide with self-protection. This should in no way be combined with the separate issue of the equally tragic deaths of Arab civilians who get caught in the crossfire.

The list is accurate in describing the killing as a "massacre" -- which by definition is:

• "The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly." (American Heritage Dictionary)
• "The killing of a considerable number of human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people" (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary)

Is anyone disputing that >10 people killed is "a large (or considerable) number of humans?" Or having your body blown up while sitting in a cafe or riding a bus is an "atrocity or cruelty?"

It's weak-kneed ephemisms like "attack" and "sucide bombing" that whitewash the cruel reality and savage butchery of these horrid events.

Unless you can dispute the factual nature of the material, in terms of the count of victims or the terrorist groups responsible, the listing is a valid article and deserves to be kept intact. --LeFlyman 01:56, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Leflyman, that's ridicolous. The facts are indisputable, but that does not mean it is valid, nor that it should not be re-written. It only lists massacres committed by one side, violating the NPOV policy - If you read up on the definition of massacre, or for that matter, of terrorism(regardless that this article is not about terrorism, but on massacres committed during the AA intifada), you will understand that the massacres committed by the IDF during the intifada deserves mentioning here.

---

No longer on VfD as most votes were to keep. Angela. 10:28, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

---

Will move to "list of suicide bombings in the Al-Aqsa intifada" soon unless someone object. BL 20:58, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

• I object. I'd like this to be a general list of massacres, regardless of the specifics of the kinds of weapons used. -- uriber 17:53, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Context

An israeli propaganda. they don't show the reasons or the attacks, neither the israeli crimes done a day or two before the attacks

If anyone thinks they can do it, why not provide links of some sort between the various acts of violence? That is, if the Israeli army blows up a car or destroys a house or fires a missile, we have two basic choices:

1. Report it like a "bolt from the blue", bolstering the claim of some advocates that Israelis are waging indiscriminate and unprovoked war on innocent civilians; or,
2. Report it as a response to previous Arab violence (if so claimed by Israel), thus bolstering the claim of some advocates that Israelis are waging a defensive war against Arab terrorism

Note: I'm not saying these are the only 2 choices, but they're the first that came to mind. I'm open to suggestions about how we can make this a neutral article. --Uncle Ed 21:19, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Theres also NPOV which simply reports how many children or innocent civilians were killed, and whether the intended target themself was actually injured, and whether or not he got a fair trial. -戴&#30505sv 20:42, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

1. How old is a "child"? In discussions of gun control in the US, anyone 25 years or younger killed with a "gun" is "child".
2. Does it matter if the child was attacking someone, e.g., 15-year-old with a rifle?
3. How do you define "fair trial"?

I don't think NPOV means neutral in the sense of "value-free" or "unrelated to human motives". Rather, it means that the Wikipedia shouldn't endorse or condemn any particular person, act, or philosophy.

Hm. Maybe I should make a UnificationWiki, touting the absolute values of truth, beauty and goodness. Then I could freely condemn violent terrorism by Arabs its articles, just as much as violent acts of "counter-terrorism" by Israelis. Maybe I could give Sharon and Arafat 30-day suspensions from Palestine for each offense? Ah, the power of dreams! --Uncle Ed 19:57, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean equality of proganda

I fail to see what any of the massacre lists add to the debate or to the wealth of information already to be found on wikipedia. The conflict is covered with a reasonably complete historical overview and with minute detail of the Al-Aqsa intifada. The lists should either be made addenda of the latter or dropped as meaningless point scoring.

The suggested compromise of merging both lists ignores wider context and provides no useful information other than that the Israel-Palestine conflict is a waste of life and effort; if only that were the authors' point.

I agree. Our efforts should go towards a balanced overview of the context of this sad conflict, and not degrade into a competition of who can say "massacre" more often. dab 20:29, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VfD

For a june 2005 discussion about deletion of this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada.

Research

I was doing some research into urban terrorism, and came across this page. I have to say, that this is totally useless to anybody wanting to find any real information about the events described. The name of the list isn't a problem, so much as the way everything on it is described as a massacre. A proper, encyclopedic list of "massacres" during the Intifada would have titles briefly explaining the event, i.e. XXX bus bombing or XXX restaurant shooting, thus enabling a researcher to gain some idea of the actual nature of the attack, rather than the very vague term massacre. The individual links should then have an interesting article about the circumstances and context of each attack. Instead there is the briefest description followed by a list of names, where there is even an article at all. I have no problems with lists of names, but only when they are backed up by a well-written article about the incident. Finally, the following articles deal with similar events, but the writers have managed to retain the descriptive nature of the title and content by using specific types of attack and refraining from the unclear massacre, and should be used as a model for this issue: 7 July 2005 London bombings, 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings and September 11, 2001 attacks. This is my case for why this could-be-interesting article should be rewritten. --Jackyd101 04:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll add "Jenin massacre"

Robin Hood 1212 22:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Even the UN concluded that there was no massacre there. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It certainly fits the arbitrary definition of massacre given here... More than 10 civilian Palestinians were killed by the IDF. This page must be deleted. These inconsistencies and double standards should not be accepted.--Burgas00 18:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Another word instead of Massacres?

Maybe we should call them incidents, they same things it's done to what Israelis do here, they call their massacres incidents. Robin Hood 1212 18:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• While for a different reason than Robin Hood 1212, I think massacre isn't the right word. Massacre suggests to me very large scale. How about suicide bombings or major/notable terrorist attacks? ehudshapira 04:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

massacre is the correct word, and also widely used with many of the incidents here, and therefore it's the word that should be used. It's also the word used for other acts of similar sort in differnet contexts. Amoruso 12:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support such a move, to List of major terrorist attacks during the Al-Aqsa Intofada or List of major acts of terrorism during the Al-Aqsa Intofada. --Eliyak T·C 02:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Robin Hood, please take a look at Deir Yassin massacre. If you agree to also rename that to "Deir Yassin incident", I agree with calling this article "List of incidents...". --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I support changing it to terrorist attacks or something of that sort. Massacre makes it sound like a military massacring unarmed people. These events were bombings and terrorist attacks. These were not massacres. Wounded Knee was a massacre, this is different. --יהושועEric 15:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Amoruso, the fact that it's used incorrectly in other instances doesn't mean it should be here too. Using strong words in every instance makes them lose their effectiveness when they're really needed. (And BTW, Maxim restaurant suicide bombing wasn't dubbed massacre, for some reason.) I also think it should be renamed to something like 'Suicide Bombings during...' because otherwise people may add what the Palestinian call massacres, and this doesn't appear to be the intention here.

  So what's the consensus? The above is 4:2 for it. Anyone with more editing skills cares to do it? | ehudshapira 23:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Add my vote for a change. I don't personally agree with Robin Hood's reasoning, but as I said above, labelling every terrorist incident a massacre is non-descriptive and unencyclopedic. Change the title to bombing where applicable.--Jackyd101 03:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not always bombings, some massacres can be shootings etc. These are massacres because many people were murdered in them. This is the term used in other wikipedia articles for a reason. Obviously wanting to change it is wanting to further put a good light on the terrorist attacks which wikipedia shound't endorse. It's ok to change it to "Large Scale terroirst attacks" per יהושועEric suggestion if one wants to go that way. Amoruso 11:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We should treat everything equal. If massacre is too pov for mass killing comitted by Israel, it also applies here. I think attack or major attack is better. I also will support deletion of this article(if proposed). Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 13:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To Amoruso - I only said bombing where applicable; if something was not a bombing, then use shooting or another word. I have no desire to play down any aspect of terrorism, only to clarify the nature of the events. Elsewhere in Wikipedia the term massacre is usually only used where a historical event has been widely desribed as a massacre such as Katyn massacre or more pertinently Deir Yassin massacre or 1929 Hebron massacre. The evets here, whilst undeniably tragic, have not been popularly coined as "massacres" in the same way and labelling them thusly is unencyclopedic and confusing, however grammatically correct use of the word may be.--Jackyd101 14:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war for comparison. Many of the events there are factually disputed, but those alleged massacres are on the same order of magnitude as these listed here. -- uriber 20:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Deliberate Ommission?

The figures dont seem to add up here. Over 3500 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces during the Al Aqsa intifada, compared to 1000 Israelis by Palestinian militant groups. Does none of those 3500 deaths qualify as a "massacre"? Or where they all accidents or "incidents"? I think Israeli military action against civilians should be also included in this article lest it seem POV and politically motivated.--Burgas00 20:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not just that- I've looked at 5 sources (so far) none of which even mention the word massacre (including the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs)!! Even some of the internal wiki links don't refer to them as such. This "encyclopedic entry" is a joke. I thought I've seen the worst betrayal of the concept of NPOV here in wikipedia- until I stumbled here that is. If this article is ever going to come anywhere near respectable, a fair criteria should be used, listing BOTH side's tragic civilian losses. --khello 19:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a Rfc should be made for this article...--Burgas00 21:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Palestinians don't count, didn't you know. Israeli lives are worth more. (sarcasm) --70.48.243.138 14:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So please provide a list of all the occasions on which Israel attacked Palestinian civilians with the stated goal of trying to kill or maim as many as possible. Tewfik^Talk 15:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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? --TheFEARgod (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? PR^talk 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. PR^talk 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 <eleland/talkedits> 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. <eleland/talkedits> 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." PR^talk 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. <eleland/talkedits> 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--TheFEARgod (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. <<-armon->> 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." <eleland/talkedits> 23:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, how do you feel about the previously proposed title? <eleland/talkedits> 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. <<-armon->> 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? <eleland/talkedits> 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. <<-armon->> 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! --TheFEARgod (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. <<-armon->> 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. <<-armon->> 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. <eleland/talkedits> 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? <<-armon->> 01:18, 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^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. <<-armon->> —Preceding comment was added at 01:14, 19 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^Talk 16:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)