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)

Ah yes, the "soapboxing" card. I see this tactic all the time on Israel pages: Person A makes a casual, unsupported factual assertion like "Israel doesn't kill civilians deliberately". Person B responds with a long, reasoned explanation of why this is bunk. Person A knows he's trapped, so he makes an accusation of "soapboxing" rather than engaging in a productive, factual discussion. Don't be person A.

Now then, I believe I've shown conclusively that the standard being applied here - see the most recent revert - is carefully designed to limit the list only to attacks against Israel, without being open and honest about it. In other words, this whole article is a WP:SOAPBOX, and verges on disrupting Wikipedia in order to make a point. Yes, we know there are awful, violent, terroristic organizations out there who try to advance their claims to land and political power by strapping nailbombs to teenagers and sending them onto buses full of women and kids. It's horrible. It's already covered in sucide attack among many, many other articles. We can cover it further on List of attacks on Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada. What's so wrong with this idea? <eleland/talkedits> 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, I'm not sure where you get the idea that the siege of Jenin is an example of something "not supported by RS as being intentional attacks on civilians," but that's false. Here's Amnesty International:

Amnesty International has documented cases in Jenin and Nablus where people were killed or injured in circumstances suggesting that they were unlawfully and deliberately targeted...Amnesty International considers that some of these abuses of the right to life would amount to "wilful killings."

And here's Human Rights Watch:

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

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

Your quotes do not support your contention. None of those groups said Israel's goal in Battle of Jenin was to kill civilians, while Hamas et al's goal with suicide bombing is to kill civilians; no one killed in a bus bomb died in battle, accidentally, or due to "disproportionate" attacks. Tewfik^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)

If you didn't mean to insert that comment you could take it out. Reminding people of the original texts is not soapboxing! PR^talk 05:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't need a dictionary, you need to read your reference. Disputed allegations of a handful of "willful" killings in the course of a battle wherein the consensus is that at least half of those killed were combatants in combat is still not the same thing as specifically attacking busloads of noncombatants. Tewfik^Talk 16:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The definition of "massacre" you want for the purposes of this page, Tewfik, is not "attacking busloads of noncombatants." It is rather "deliberate attacks against civilians in which ten people or more have been killed." Around 30 civilians were killed in Jenin, many of them willfully and deliberately (according to the best sources). Your definition of "massacre" is different from Human Rights Watch's, and that – not "PalestineRemembered's theories" – has created a problem, as original research is wont to do.--G-Dett 17:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, I won't address the spurious "gotcha" which ends your posting. I chose my words carefully, and consciously, but this is not the place to defend them, and your psychological speculations on my motivation are irrelevant. I have not, and would never, add Jenin, Beit Hanoun, Salah Shehade, etc to this "list of massacres", because they do not meet the criteria. It's the criteria, and the title, that I'm objecting to - let's discuss those.

Now, on the subject of what groups said about Jenin. AI only used the word "massacre" once in its report - they said that claims of a massacre spread under circumstances where the camp was locked down, and verifiable information was scant to non-existent. Shortly after the battle concluded, Amnesty's secretary-general noted that "there is no legal definition in international law of the word 'massacre' and that its use in the current circumstances is not helpful." ([1]) Indeed, Amnesty's "failure" to dismiss claims of a massacre earned the wrath ([2]) of the Anti-Defamation League.

HRW did not, in fact, "state that Jenin was not a massacre". They stated that they "found no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial

executions by the IDF in Jenin refugee camp," adding that "many of the civilian deaths documented by Human Rights Watch amounted to unlawful or willful killings by the IDF." (em mine). That claim appears to stem from a BBC report ([3]) under the headline "'No Jenin massacre', says rights group". The word "massacre" appears only once in the HRW report, and I've quoted it above.

The UN report does not contain the word "massacre". (Palestinian- and Jordanian-supplied appendices do, and they claim that a massacre was real or probable.)

The EU report to the UN does not contain the word "massacre". It does note that, "The massive destruction, especially at the centre of the refugee camp, to which all heads of mission in Jerusalem and Ramallah can testify, shows that the site had undergone an indiscriminate use of force, that goes well beyond that of a battlefield." (em mine).

You say that these allegations are "hotly disputed". But you don't mention that the Palestinians say one thing, the Israelis say another, and every neutral observer comes down on the "willful killings" side. I might as well note that the "infamous" or "atrocious" nature of pizzeria bombings is "hotly disputed", since some Arab and Palestinian sources try to justify them. <eleland/talkedits> 03:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point is, since some Palestinians justifying a suicide bombing is not some Palestinians denying a suicide bombing, which as far as I know no one whatsoever does. OTOH, the Israeli POV denies that there were "willful killings", and further castigates the neutral observers for being less than neutral. Moreover, however you would like to phrase it, no mainstream source maintains that there were "massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions" in the course of the battle at Jenin, and again, there is no denial that suicide-bombings fit that definition. Tewfik^Talk 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't draw meaningful distinctions if you keep shifting the criteria, or comparing what RS's "don't maintain" with what they "don't deny." There are plenty of Palestinian sources who (contra the international consensus) assert that a massacre took place in Jenin, and there are plenty of Israeli sources who (contra the international consensus) deny that "willful killings" took place in Jenin. And then of course there are lots of varying opinions about constitutes "circumstances of atrocity or infamy." The problem with this list is you've created your own ad hoc definition of "massacre" which differs from the dictionary definition as well as that of Human Rights Watch. Of course lining up your definition with either of these would be impossible anyway, because the former is subjective ('infamy' anyone?) and the latter is never articulated. So you've come up with an arbitrarily precise definition, and one which ironically Jenin actually fits. That's not an argument for including Jenin; that's an argument against building a list like this around a term that in the present context is contentious, political, and subjective.--G-Dett 23:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That ignores entirely what I just said. No one disputes that the suicide bombings occurred, or that they were intentional mass killings. No mainstream sources allege that Jenin was such an intentional mass killing (or "massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions", or whatever formulation you would like to use). Tewfik^Talk 23:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ignore your comparison between what "no one disputes" on the one hand, and what "no one alleges" on the other; indeed the first thing I did was to point out the fallacy of that kind of comparison. It's very simple; you shouldn't be building a list around a term that in this context is nebulous, contentious, political, and subjective, and for which you've had to create an ad hoc definition.--G-Dett 00:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So HRW's terminology is nebulous, contentious, political, and subjective - noted. Why don't you explain what term you think is appropriate. Tewfik^Talk 02:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the lamest gotcha!'s I've seen. In this context, Tewfik, in this context. The context here is a magisterial overview of the second intifada. In this big metacontext, with Wikipedians sifting through hundreds of separate acts of political violence, with wildly various local contexts, spread out over seven years, the term "massacre" – with its ad hoc Wikipedian-authored definition – is nebulous, contentious, etc. HRW was carrying out an investigation in a single and very specific local context, to wit, the siege of a refugee camp where militant fighters had holed up with civilians. "Massacre" in this context has a generally understood meaning – door-to-door slaughter of defenseless civilians, a la Sabra and Shatila. Now it is true that even in this specific context "massacre" – unlike "war crimes" – has no fixed, legal and technical definition, and I think Amnesty was wise and prescient to avoid using it; but HRW was using it in good faith, and despite subsequent moves by others to propagandize their findings, their meaning in the original context was clear enough, and accurate.

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

Not to cause chagrin or something, but given the sad reality of asymmetrical warfare waged in Intifada the attacks on Israeli civilians and deliberate attacks on civilians will give you exactly the same. The consensus appears to be that the last time when Israel forces deliverately attacked civilians was in 1948 (where it is BTW labeled as massacres). And I seriously doubt the point of the present list is to be generic and inclusive or "balanced" as "list of attack involving civilians". This imbalance is result of one side using F-16 and other using suicide explosive belt, and there is no way to straighten it by heaping IDF actions and Palestinian martyrdom together. DBWikis 14:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that the consensus is exactly what you say it is, though it's probably not too far off. My point is not that one-sided lists are a problem, only that the list title shouldn't center on a term that demands subjective interpretation and invites ideological debate. If it's true that a contentious title and a non-contentious title "will give you exactly the same" list, then the latter is clearly preferable.--G-Dett 14:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier it is indeed better to avoid loaded titles and incendiary language and it seems there is no tough opposition to changing the title from "massacres" to "deliberate attacks targeting civilians". Other point: one-sided lists are only reflection of one-sided reality and not a problem in itself; assymmetrical warfare and clash of civilisations are real problem but masking it with "balanced" commentary or reference in Wikipedia will not fix an imbalance having place in real world but will spawn new contention instead. DBWikis 14:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

List of deliberate attacks targeting civilians would improve on "massacres," but List of attacks on Israeli civilians in the second intifada would improve still further. Like it or not, there is indeed a serious RS-debate about what constitutes "deliberate," and changing to List of deliberate attacks targeting civilians would only strengthen the case for the inclusion of Jenin, where the international consensus is that civilians were indeed deliberately killed. List of attacks on Israeli civilians in the second intifada is not a move toward "balance," which is a red herring, but rather a move toward terminology not vulnerable to endless, solidly RS-backed debate about what qualifies or doesn't qualify. Such RS-debates are illuminating in articles on single events, but unmanageable in a list of dozens.--G-Dett 14:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that List of deliberate attacks targeting civilians should be better. I disagree that inclusion of Jenin Battle is justified unless you count armed guerillas firing at IDF troops as civilians. DBWikis 17:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

But do you really disagree that editors who want to include Jenin could cite RSs supporting its inclusion in a list of List of deliberate attacks targeting civilians? "Amnesty International has documented cases in Jenin and Nablus where people were killed or injured in circumstances suggesting that they were unlawfully and deliberately targeted...Amnesty International considers that some of these abuses of the right to life would amount to "wilful killings." The question is, given your view that "attacks on Israeli civilians and deliberate attacks on civilians" should yield the same list, wouldn't it better to choose the title that will yield that list cleanly and uncontroversially, and not spark endless debates with editors who disagree with you and have excellent sources to back them up? I find your take on the asymmetrical warfare and the I/P conflict sound and compelling, but your take on how this should shape editorial presentation in this instance has a logical gap in it. The question of what is a deliberate attack on civilians is not settled among RSs; why should Wikipedia try to foreclose that debate, when in the present instance it obviously doesn't need to?--G-Dett 17:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I concede I should not question motivations of Wikipedians and agree that Wikipedia is not intended (and should not be used) as a debate foreclosing platform. We should aspire to agree on more neutral tiles (and List of deliberate attacks targeting civilians seems to be acceptable) and should avoid introduction of ad hoc criteria. Exclusion of IDF actions follows from my own interpretation of assumed criteria for the article in question and other interlinked articles, including those devoted to Battle of Jenin. Specifically if Wikipedia settles on rendering claims of deliberate killing of civilians by IDF as valid then it effectively will relabel that particular incident and as result would justify its inclusion into present list. I was under impression that proponents of such an inclusion went ahead without settling the focal contention. As for use of AI's wording one should bear in mind that (1) AI is less impartial than it would like to present itself i.e. not being immune to political consideration and (2) their wording did change more than once. Regarding the Battle of Jenin specifically it looks like the focus of contention is about circumstances of deaths of less than twenty individuals and is better to be addressed directly and since PA did not provide evidence of deliberate killing etc in more than 5 years my logical conclusion is that such evidence is absent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBWikis (talk • contribs) 18:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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

On the other hand, if the article is named "Israeli victims of suicide bombings" or something like that, no political statement is made, and the article will remain encyclopedic. --Burgas00 19:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It is better not to ascribe political intentions to contributors, what seems to take place here can be seen as an attempt to present compilation of references to instances of Palestinian violence which unfortunately _is_ political. As I've mentioned earlier it is preferrable to establish consensus regarding Battle of Jenin in its dedicated article note here. Inclusion of IDF actions into present list should not tip the balance anyway. DBWikis 20:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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

I am not suggesting that Battle of Jenin is immutable source, only proposed to sort out the contention there first. And the present list probably should be retitled. DBWikis 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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

So it's Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid all over again? Stop trying to make this a bargaining session or a battleground. Discuss this article on its merits, or don't say anything at all. <eleland/talkedits> 21:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My view that lists (more than any other type of article, due to the number and range of incidents they manage, like herding so many cats) require terms not hotly debated by RSs is fully elaborated above, so I won't repeat it here. I have given only a cursory look at the other two lists of massacre you mention, Tewfik. It seems to me that both deal with historical events termed "massacres" by both scholarly and vernacular consensus: Boston massacre, My Lai massacre, Deir Yassin, etc. This is certainly the case with the more general of the two lists. These are things known collectively by common consensus as massacres; that's what connects them. That is certainly not true of the contents of this page: these are things known collectively as suicide bombings, or terrorist attacks (I know that's a WTA but I don't know that it should be). If it's also not true of the 1948 list – you may know better than I, Tewfik – then I think a parallel discussion on that page would be appropriate. As Eleland points out, however, let's not have any specious linkage; historical terms may have settled for the events of 1948 in a way they haven't for the events of 2000-2007.--G-Dett 21:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Many, if not most of them, are not labelled massacres, but rather "meet the criteria of resulting in large numbers of deliberate and direct civilian deaths in a single event". But please, what RS allege any sort of intentional mass killing at Jenin, or deny it in a suicide bombing? Tewfik^Talk 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following. You want to rename this List of attacks resulting in large numbers of deliberate and direct civilian deaths in a single event in the second intifada? Or you want to throw up a new and equally ad hoc definition of "massacre," one you hope will more successfully gerrymander Palestinian atrocities from Israeli ones?--G-Dett 21:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving on...

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

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

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

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

Option 1: List of attacks on noncombatants during the Second Intifada

Comments on this option please. <<-armon->> 23:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

====Option 2: List of suicide bombings during the Second Intifada==== -this was redefining the list. <<-armon->> 01:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey wait. what about List of suicide bombings during the Second Intifada????? I cant think of any reason why either camp would oppose this one... --Burgas00 23:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My goal is not to change the list, but to preserve it and give it a title that won't invite dispute. Option 1 might produce an interesting list for readers but will be a rugby match for editors. Option 2 would be equally fruitful in its own way and less of a headache. I vote 2.--G-Dett 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As a side note it probably worth remembering that if disputes would have been always settled by voting the Sun would still circle the Earth. Granted here the votes are cast regarding the WP article not "reality" but those reports from AI, HRW, etc are "only" paper. DBWikis 02:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't oppose such an article. However, I prefer "attacks on Israeli noncombatants", since a list of suicide bombings would necessarily in exclude events such as shootings, rocket attacks, pre-planted bombs, etc. These incidents are clearly part of the same campaign and should be listed together. Nonetheless, a "list of suicide bombings" would be a great improvement. <eleland/talkedits> 02:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC) _{(edited "include" to "exclude" 24 October - oops)}

I think Eleland's is the best suggestion yet.--G-Dett 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Option 3: List of mass murders committed during the Second Intifada

See mass murder. Maybe better than "massacres"? <<-armon->> 11:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous.--G-Dett 13:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that was uncharacteristically concise :) OK, well I guess we should stick to the consensus version which survived 2 afds then. That is, unless someone has a another suggestion. <<-armon->> 23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone does have another suggestion, namely you. And someone else – called Burgas – also has a suggestion. When you're done licking your wounds see options 1 and 2 above.--G-Dett 02:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, it seems that with this proposed option you are making a mockery of the whole debate. Are you sure you properly understand the contentious issues which we are discussing?--Burgas00 17:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"This article IS a POV fork. Either change name or stop deleting content please." Actually, I consider continually repeating the same failed assertions from the last AfD by delete voters like yourself to be disruption. Unless you guys have better arguments to present, I suggest you just move on. <<-armon->> 01:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, the arguments presented against the current title are very cogently laid out, and as yet unanswered. DBWikis and I were getting somewhere when you rather boorishly interrupted. Repeating that the discussion is "failed," "ad nauseum" etc. is either satisfying smackdown-rhetoric or very weakminded name-calling, depending on one's intellectual temperament, but either way it is argumentatively nil; and your suggestion of substituting "mass murder" for "massacre" is decisive evidence that either (a) the conceptual terms of the discussion you're dismissing have gone over your head; or (b) you are a troll. Take a time-out, and come back when you're ready to discuss.--G-Dett 15:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is just a tantrum. In the first place, I suggested List of attacks on noncombatants during the Second Intifada -and not a single 'cogent' comment to be seen. You guys are just repeating yourselves. Ad nauseum is the domain of trolls. If you don't like me pointing that out, too bad. <<-armon->> 12:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A choice to keep this article neutral

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

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

Reason for article move to List of major attacks on Israeli civilians during the Second Intifada

This was my full edit summary, which was cut off: Inappropriate for WP to create its own ad hoc definition of "massacre," in order to express our outrage about what RSs call "suicide bombings." When neutral & non-neutral phrases both yield the same list, you go with the former, per NPOV. --G-Dett 18:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A bold improvement, but "civilians" is problematic. Uniformed but unarmed soldiers on a civilian bus (Megiddo Junction bombing) are non-combatants, armed civilian security guards in downtown Hebron may be combatants. I also wonder about the "more than ten" criterion leading to the "major"; it seems so arbitrary that it could be original research. Oh well, we'll hash it out eventually. <eleland/talkedits> 18:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the list is built around "deliberate attacks against civilians in which ten people or more have been killed," so using the word "civilian" in the title shouldn't itself be a problem. If including attacks on unarmed soldiers or civilian security guards is a problem, then it's a problem for the contents of the list, not its title. Armon and Tewfik have objected to moves that "redefine the list." My move leaves the list's definition and criteria 100% untouched; all it does is modify the title so that it reflects that definition and that criteria in a neutral and transparent way. Now, is it OR to define attacks killing more than 10 people as "major"? Perhaps. But only insofar as the criteria "more than 10 people" is arbitrary and therefore original research to begin with. If we accept that a useful list can be created around an arbitrary cut-off point, then the only question is, what's the most neutral, non-contentious way to name this cut-off point? "Major" is the best I can think of, but I'm open to suggestions.--G-Dett 18:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying that you left "the list's definition and criteria 100% untouched" while limiting the list to only one side is inconsistent. How massacre is ad-hoc while "major attacks on civilians" is okay I don't understand, but I'll take you at your word. Tewfik^Talk 22:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following you Tewfik; I thought you wanted to keep attacks on Palestinian civilians off this list. I'd like to keep them off, because I don't relish the idea of a POV-war over the thorny question of intent – a POV-war that will be truly unmanageable, because RSs describing Israeli attacks as "deliberate" and "willful" are as plentiful as those denying that charge. Regarding the semantic distinction between "massacre" and "major attacks on civilians," do you really not understand? If this is a mother-tongue vs. second-language issue, forgive me for pointing out the following: the word "massacre" is one of the most emotionally and ethically charged terms in the English language, as well as one of the most slippery.--G-Dett 23:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm also puzzled how a list of attacks on Israeli civilians would be a "POV-fork."--G-Dett 23:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if the "POV-war" that you are threatening is "unmanageable", perhaps I should accede. Tewfik^Talk 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, this isn't a grudge match, and I've all but promised not to edit-war with you over the contents of this list! Look beyond you and me; if this list doesn't designate that we're talking about attacks on Israeli civilians only, there will be no end of editorial dispute. And both sides of that dispute will be well stocked with reliable sources. There is simply no need to do this. Everyone here wants this to be a list of major attacks on Israeli civilians; but you want to tweak the title to make a point, to convey your belief that whatever the reliable sources may say, in your view Israelis haven't/don't attack Palestinian civilians. Building that POV into the title does not enhance this list as a source of information, it does no service for the reader, and it's a violation of WP:NPOV. By the way, a POV-fork is "content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines"; how does giving this list a neutral and indisputable title do that?--G-Dett 00:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, you are not acting with good faith here. An article with this title and content is a pamphlet. I agree with keeping the content as it is but the fact that it only refers to Israeli deaths must be reflected in the title. As G-dett says, this article currently reads as someone trying to make a point.

The article is a POV fork since it refers to only deaths on one side. We are all being extremely flexible in allowing it to remain that way, so please do not cross the boundaries of what is reasonable.

--Burgas00 18:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it squeaks by the POV fork problem. The last AfD discussion was closed with the conclusion, "the actions of one group are represented; this is not necessarily, however, a NPOV violation ... The division of casualties by group-affiliation in a conflict is not arbitrary, though it is sure to be contentious what to call these groups in a conflict of this kind ... Division of the casualties by partisanship is permitted for reason of economy." I think this is basically correct. If it was an article, and not just a list, the question of POV forking would be more serious. <eleland/talkedits> 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Then the issue is whether the division by national affiliation should be pointed out in the title. I think a RfC is called for on this issue.--Burgas00 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I've just discovered this article, and have played no part in the disputes over it thus far. Here are my immediate thoughts:

• 'Massacres' is undoubtedly a POV word to use, and the ad hoc definition used here is arguably original research. The title definitely needs to change.
• Before it can be changed, though, it needs to be worked out what the scope of this list actually is. Is it meant to cover all attacks on civilians during the Second Intifada? Only intentional attacks on civilians, ruling out those killed in crossfire/'collateral damage'? Only attacks on civilians by Palestinian groups? Only suicide bombings? Any of those would be a perfectly legitimate choice for a list, but at the moment it is simply not clear what this list is intended to cover.
• If it's only meant to be a list of Palestinian attacks on civilians, then the title ought to reflect that. I'm not personally aware if there were any 'massacres' committed by Israelis against Palestinians in the Second Intifada; but at the moment, it's not clear whether the absence of Israeli 'massacres' from the list is because this list isn't meant to cover them, or because no such thing ever actually happened. Which is it? Terraxos 03:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Terraxos, thank you for weighing in here; third opinions are most welcome. Given that "massacre" is an highly charged, emotional word with no technical definition, the question of whether Israeli massacres have occurred is predictably contentious and probably moot. With a consensus emerging that "massacre" is inappropriate for this list, a better question might be, has the IDF targeted civilians in the second intifada? In some instances, the answer is pretty clearly yes; that is, there are documented instances where civilians were deliberately targeted, willfully killed, etc. In other instances, the debate gets very thorny, with some RSs claiming that the IDF's goal is always and everywhere to minimize civilian casualties, and other RSs claiming that civilian casualties in fact form part of the Israeli calculus of collective punishment. For example, when the IDF detonated a one-ton bomb in a densely populated residential neighborhood, killing one Hamas leader and 15 civilians, including 9 children, and Sharon declared the operation ""one of the most successful actions ever," some saw the 15:1 ratio of civilian to militant casualties as within the definition of "collateral damage"; others interpreted the devastated neighborhood as an Israeli warning to Palestinian civilians not to give comfort and quarter to militants.

The debates about intent are way too thorny to be managed successfully by a Wikipedia list of "major attacks against civilians." The editors who want that generic title for a list that only includes attacks on Israelis want to foreclose the RS-debate through insinuation, by endorsing the view that Israel never "intends" to kill Palestinians. The (hypothetical) editors who would then respond to such a list by adding major Israeli attacks with high civilian:militant kill ratios would be trying to foreclose the RS-debate in the other direction.

But there is absolutely no need to foreclose this debate either way. Doing so is a violation of WP:NPOV, and anyhow provides no service whatsoever to the reader. This list is useful as an information reference, not as an ethical argument. There are two ways to organize the material: either a single list for Israelis and Palestinians, or separate lists. Either way we need a neutral title that doesn't invite dispute. For a single inclusive list, something like "Major attacks involving civilians in the 2nd Intifada," where the criteria could be specified as 10 or more. For separate lists, something like "Major attacks on Israeli civilians" and "Major attacks involving Palestinian civilians." The different emphasis between the latter two would reflect that the RS-debate about intent is settled with regards to one list but not the other. The inclusive approach on the other hand would avoid the question of intent entirely, while leaving the reader no less informed, which is the goal of such lists. Both approaches are acceptable; the present list is not.--G-Dett 16:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page redirects resolved

A number of moves created more than double level redirects. All corresponding talk pages redirect here. Best wishes choosing the final name. – Conrad T. Pino 03:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Third Opinion

‘Massacre’ is definitely POV and should be removed; that will also add those incidents with less than 10 dead. There is no real way to equate deaths as a result of suicide bombs with those from ‘collateral damage’, except by body count, and that is the way it should be. They are all dead and bled red. A human rights perspective should be used and RSs are available. In any case, an encyclopedic article must cover deaths on both sides and in approximately equal length/detail.

I note the following comment under ‘Deliberate Ommission’ from nearly a year ago: “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.” I totally agree.

The current list is absolutely one sided; I could find nothing equivalent for the other side. This approach is absolutely POV and not encyclopedic. If Wikipedia can’t come up with an equal way to deal with ongoing-death on both sides, then I don’t see much chance of Wiki-success. --CasualObserver'48 06:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

All of these arguments have been repeated ad nauseam, but Tewfik continues to revert. What is the next step to solve this situation? --Burgas00 22:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, given that the page is protected, maybe we could continue to discuss here – with the third parties involvement if possible – which is preferable: a single list with a noncontroversial title (a la Major attacks involving civilians in the 2nd Intifada), or separate lists with titles reflecting the difference in RS-consensus regarding the two (say Major attacks on Israeli civilians vs. Major attacks involving Palestinian civilians). We could open a wider RfC if necessary. When we come to a reasonable conclusion with strong support, if the page is still protected we could ask the protecting editor to instate the change.--G-Dett 23:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally am not going to repeat myself indefinitely. The issue is far too straightforward. Can someone open a wider RfC please?--Burgas00 14:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand and share your frustration. My hope is that Terraxos and CasualObserver will continue to contribute to the discussion, and that we can now move forward. I think there's a solid consensus emerging that the title should be neutral and non-insinuating – that is, designed to name the contents of the list(s) in a non-contentious way rather than building a tacit ethical argument around them. (The point of lists is to organize information for the reader in a helpful way, not to teach the reader a lesson about right and wrong.) The question before us is whether we should have separate lists or a single comprehensive lists for all attacks with significant civilian casualties. I incline towards the former, because the reliable sources by and large are agreed that suicide bombings and the like target civilians, but they are divided on whether (and to what extent) soldiers in tanks shooting stone-throwing youths, or F16s and Apache gunships bombing and rocketing residential neighborhoods, constitutes targeting of civilians. Given that the RSs view the two kinds of attacks differently with regards to intent, the wisest solution seems to me to be separate lists, with titles reflective of their certainty on one side of the ledger, and their ambiguity/ambivalence on the other – i.e. List of major attacks on Israeli civilians and List of major attacks involving Palestinian civilians. For what it's worth, I personally agree with CasualObserver that "there is no real way to equate deaths as a result of suicide bombs with those from ‘collateral damage’, except by body count," but the consensus wisdom of reliable sources, which is what we're bound by here, is somewhat different.--G-Dett 17:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been watching the Israel/Palestine/Jerusalem/Mideast situation for over 30 yrs, starting when I ended up on that side of the world in October’73. The continuing non-peace/war leads to death on both sides; the common denominator, on the most basic human rights level is body count, period. I believe that that should be the encyclopedic view. I understand this is hard for some to accept, because the numbers are truly asymmetric.

It is asymmetric warfare and thus people die in varying numbers and ways, but not in degrees, because death is permanent. The method of death in this conflict depends largely on which side you reside. Concerning whether Israeli actions constitutes targeting of civilians really doesn’t matter; the question is whether civilians died as a result of Isreali actions. Until all editors accept the fact that life is the sacred yardstick and a Palestinian life is as valuable as an Israeli life, the perfect article either can not be written or will not be allowed.

I am of the opinion that all Israeli civilian/unarmed deaths should be included in this article, major incident or not. I ran across one article (but lost it) that listed annual tolls with a lot of other ‘stabbed in the street’ and ‘found dead in car’ fatalities. There is certainly no lack of involvement and RS on the Israeli side. I have no objection with their inclusion, as long as it doesn’t end up as the repository for every unsolved murder. There is also the continuing problem of rockets out of Gaza which so far have killed in smaller but unending numbers.

For titles, I like List of fatalities from attacks on Israeli civilian during the Second Intifada and List of Palestinian civilian fatalities during the Second Intifada. I can not come up with a parallel wording because the one side has real attacks and the other just has real deaths. But it also indicates the difference between big blasts and an endless stream of single bullets.

So let Tewfik have his pique, another article we should seek. I will be interested to see the level and volume of his involvement

The future job is to write a companion article to report fatalities on the Palestinian side. I haven’t found one in Wiki, have you? Once that is done maybe the two can be melded; I’d like to see it put in an historic context with the summary ‘list’ at the end. It is probably best to keep this page locked, except for likely updates and a link to the new ‘Palestinian civilian fatalities’ article. I believe that the discussion has been stabbed sufficiently (January 2004 to November 2007) to allow, and in fact, make necessary the POV fork.

I see some real problems with the new article. Some may revolve around the suggested title. Others will be general lack or inequality of coverage and a relative lack of RS in English. Another will be terminology, which will become obvious. I am willing to include all fatalities on both ides because the Palestinians tend to die in continuing small numbers, rather than in specific big blasts. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The point is to make the articles representative of the fatalities. Currently, they do not add up to the truth.--User:CasualObserver'48 06:19, 4 November 2007 --CasualObserver'48 06:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be worth reading the discussion at the last afd. It's unfair to say "let Tewfik have his pique" when he's only defending the decision reached there. It's quite obvious that the "pique" is being exhibited by those who didn't get their way. <<-armon->> 12:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not been involved before, so it is the way it is as a result of other people. I never asked or voted for AfD; the article should stay. I just have real trouble with the word 'massacre' in this title and there are no no similar articles which represents the death toll on the other side. I did not read the archived previous Afd and saw no link to it, sorry, I'm a newbie, but since the current page is already too lengthy, I felt I had gotten the gist. --CasualObserver'48 13:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)--CasualObserver'48 13:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if you read over the AFD, you'll get a distilled version of the debate pro and con with more people involved. What you're seeing here is just the overlong repetition of was was asserted there -as if it never happened. <<-armon->> 22:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Tewfik is doing, he's clearly not defending the decision reached at the last AfD. Firstly, what survived that AfD was a List of attacks committed during the Second Intifada, not the List of massacres during the Second Intifada, which is what Tewfik keeps edit-warring in. Pretty big difference there, which Armon would realize if he read and understood the discussions he variously invokes, ignores, enters into, or waves off. Secondly, Tewfik keeps claiming that a clear division of casualties by nationality is a violation of WP:POVFORK, whereas the AfD Armon refers to explicitly decided the opposite: "The division of casualties by group-affiliation in a conflict is not arbitrary, though it is sure to be contentious what to call these groups in a conflict of this kind. It is a neutral (though very sad) fact that Palestinians and Israelis have killed each other. Division of the casualties by partisanship is permitted for reason of economy." Tewfik needs to explain his edit-warring, which far from "defending" the last AfD decision, flies directly in the face of it.--G-Dett 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As Eleland pointed out in his nom, This article was recently moved from List of massacres committed during the al-Aqsa Intifada, an even more clearly POV title; now it's just a better disguised POV fork. The word "massacres" is not the problem you guys have with it. If it were, then my suggestion to rename it to List of attacks on noncombatants during the Second Intifada would have settled the issue. <<-armon->> 22:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Propagandistic use of the word "massacres" is one of the problems we've identified here, and it is certainly the main problem with the version of the list Tewfik has edit-warred into place. For the problem with List of attacks on noncombatants during the Second Intifada, see my comments time-stamped 16:31, 2 November 2007 and 23:11, 31 October 2007 above. As a general rule, you'd do well to read and understood the debates you participate in.--G-Dett 23:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Except it's not a debate -the correct term for what you're doing is filibuster. <<-armon->> 03:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon, I don't think these kind of accusations add anything to the discussion. And I'll also ask that you not make comments which give the impression that you think you understand our motives better than we do. My position is that an article titled "list of massacres/attacks/etc during the Intifada," which only lists one side of the conflict, is a POV fork. I think this is true even if the list criteria are designed so that theoretically, attacks by the other side could be listed, but in practice won't be. However, as I clearly stated in my AfD nom from August, "There's nothing inherently wrong with those articles [which] list attacks of a specific group, and are honest about it." Hence, I would accept either a list which includes all major incidents involving noncombatant casualties, or two lists which list those incidents in relation to one side or the other. This is not some pre-planned subterfuge or co-ordinated conspiracy, this is a good-faith effort by good-standing Wikipedians to reach a neutral and verifiable set of articles. And so far as I can see, it's supported — with varying degrees of enthusiasm — by everyone here, including editors with no discernible POV on Middle East issues, and opposed by Tewfik and yourself. A filibuster is, by definition, an effort by a vocal minority to prevent resolution of a debate. If there's any filibustering going on here, it's not by myself or G-Dett. <eleland/talkedits> 04:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon, I want to understand you. You said, "The word "massacres" is not the problem you guys have with it", then please explain what you think "we guys" do think. I will say that I do not think that your proposed alternative title "List of attacks on noncombatants during the Second Intifada" will work well, because the word "noncombatants" will be endlessly debated. The equal, neutral and human measure is body count.

I have never been thru an RfC, so will await what happens.CasualObserver'48 05:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)--CasualObserver'48 12:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm only going by what's been stated here. It's not the word "massacres" in itself, but the fact that there aren't any Israeli ones to add to the list. As it's survived 2 afds, the only thing the delete voters can hope to do is to redefine the list into something else -a deletion by other means. Here is what I said at the afd: Keep it's a list, it has clear criteria, it's cited. In fact, it has the same criteria as List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The problem seems to be some editors think it makes Hamas, al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, and Islamic Jihad "look bad". Killing civilians makes them look bad. This is obviously the problem. As for the total "body count" issue, I do tend to to see your point, but that's out of the scope of this list. That's what the main Second intifada article is for. Even so, at that article, I'm having to insist that some of the same editors as here stick to the source about what's presented in the causalities infobox. I don't care what people's opinions on the conflict are, everybody has some, what irritates me is when that gets in the way of our mission: a WP:NPOV encyclopedia. WP should be where you go to get facts, not "spin". There are a million blogs for that. Rant over. <<-armon->> 11:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're not "going by what's been stated here," Armon. You're alternately ignoring and misrepresenting what's been stated here, same as you've misrepresented the AfDs, and even misrepresented the position of your ally Tewfik. As for the high-minded boilerplate, it all sounds well and good but there's just no evidence that you sincerely subscribe to any of it.--G-Dett 15:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand your reticence to open a RfC, G-Dett. Trust me, there is no way you are going to acheive consensus or come to any agreement no matter how conciliatory or reasonable you show yourself. --Burgas00 18:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Burgas, I'll open one.--G-Dett 19:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My reticence about opening an RfC is that I'm not clear what we'd be asking. The only serious discussion on this page is whether to present separate lists by nationality (along the lines of my suggestions of CasualObserver's) or a single list with a non-tendentious title. There is a very small minority – consisting of two editors – who don't like these options but can't/won't say why or otherwise engage discussion. One edit-wars when the page is open and goes AWOL when it's not, and the other meanwhile fills the page with trolling non sequiturs, bad-faith red herrings and strawman arguments, and systematic misrepresentations of everything from the positions of other editors to the outcomes of AfDs. Would an RfC simply address the serious question, or would it rather try to break up the impasse brought about by Armon's ideological filibuster? If the former, it's hardly necessary; the shades of difference between Burgas00, Eleland, Terraxos, CasualObserver, and myself can be easily worked out. If the latter, it's not clear to me what it would accomplish; Armon has not understood or engaged the discussion thus far, and I don't see how his behavior would change if the discussion were widened.--G-Dett 15:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have trouble assuming good faith with Armon and Tewfik so Ill keep my opinion to myself.--Burgas00 18:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also add user User:Okedem to the list of users who have been reasonable and tried to resolve this dispute in good faith.--Burgas00 18:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

When the "delete faction" is done patting themselves on the back about how easy it is for them to come to agreement, and how obvious everyone else's bad faith is maybe they could read the closing admin's rationale, and offer some constructive suggestions in line with that. <<-armon->> 22:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We're not a faction but an overwhelming majority, we are not going to delete this article but rename it, we've read the closing admin's rationale and in fact had to explain it to you after you repeatedly misrepresented it, and finally, we've been discussing a number of suggestions, all of which you've misrepresented and/or failed to engage, and one of which will happen with or without your approval. Troll's veto will only take you so far, Armon. Opting out of the discussion is your prerogative, but it isn't imcumbent upon any editor here – as Burgas has pointed out – to keep reiterating elementary points for the benefit of a troll who doesn't read or understand them.--G-Dett 00:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between consensus and agreement between four users who came from another page in which they were also in agreement, the SPA discounted. There is a world of difference between "discussion" and the stream of incivility that has been hurled at anyone who dares disagree, and which I'll be shocked if even this post isn't met with. Tewfik^Talk 02:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I find your post downright offensive, Tewfik. Burgas, Terraxos, IP198, TheFEARgod, CasualObserver, Eleland, DBWikis, Okedem, and I have all raised valid points about the neutrality of this title and made productive alternative suggestions, all the while engaging opposition from each other and other editors directly and in good faith. There has been plenty of disagreement between the editors named, even deep-rooted ideological disagreement, and yet discussion has continued – with civility, honesty, probity, and assumption of good faith all around, so unsurprisingly we've made genuine progress. Two or three feet up this page DBWikis and I were engaged in one such serious discussion, one that was getting somewhere, when Armon interrupted with a series of inane insults. He has been trolling ever since, with post after post engaging in faked strawman arguments, obnoxious pseudo-suggestions ("list of mass murders" etc.), condescending non sequiturs, and misrepresentations of past decisions and present positions the collective point of which is to shove his middle finger incessantly in the eye of his interlocutors. If you are genuinely concerned with the "incivility hurled at anyone who dares disagree," take it up with Armon. We have been begging him to stop trolling to no avail; you might find you have greater influence with him. In the meantime there are decisions to be made about this page, and troll's veto has run its course.--G-Dett 03:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Intersubjectivity is not objectivity (J.L.Mackie in Ethics. Inventing Right and Wrong) Assuming we are here only bunch of subjectives trying to hash out something informative with semblance of NPOV there probably should be need to partition the contention pertaining to the present article along the divides outlined by Terraxos above - i.e. whether it should apply to both sides, whether it should emphasize the means used by perpetrators (e.g. suicide bombing, Kassam rocket, etc.), whether suspect cases like Battle of Jenin should be forced into the list while the jury is still out. I personally sided with List of attacks involving non-combatants during the Second Intifada (thus avoiding major and related quantitative criteria) and also proposed to sort Battle of Jenin controveries out in its dedicated place not here. Addition Notes column will be of good use here to qualify cases like killing of Shehada i.e. operations with significant collateral toll.

There was also question why term massacre is not tolerated here while List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war for example seems to be Ok; I personally think it should be avoided everywhere, at least in all places where its use is contentious. Also staying on personal note, I think we should try and remind ourselves that this is not the best forum for settling the historical verdicts regarding various disputes - and in fact WP:OR policy must be quite enough a justification. DBWikis 19:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I again agree with your position, as I believe does Armon. It seems that Okedem, Terraxos, and TheFEARgod also supported use of different language, although Beit Or questioned the inconsistent usage of "massacre". Okedem explicitly opposed inclusion of events such as Battle of Jenin as well. To G-Dett: the incivility that I've seen has been directed at Armon [and myself]. Take a break, invite HG, or call an RfC if you like, but "this" discussion needs to cool down. Tewfik^Talk 01:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

DBWikis, List of attacks involving non-combatants during the Second Intifada is a perfectly sensible suggestion. I have inclined (ever so slightly) to dividing these lists by nationality simply in order to prevent unnecessary edit-warring over gray areas. Note that I've never added Jenin to this list in any of its guises; rather, I've pushed (and continue to push) for a title in which it would be absolutely clear and non-controversial whether Jenin (and similar events) would be included or not included. I've also mildly preferred lists-by-nationality because it would allow for the ethical distinction some editors understandably wish to include between the nature of Israeli attacks and Palestinian attacks. My guide here is not my own opinion (which is pretty close to Casual Observer's, and skeptical of this distinction), but rather the consensus view of RSs, who are agreed that Palestinian attacks involve deliberate killing of civilians, but are divided on whether Israeli attacks fit this description. Separate lists would allow for certainty in one title and ambiguity in the other (i.e. attacks on civilians vs. attacks involving civilians). But I am of course open to an inclusive list with an inclusive title.

Regarding the 1948 list of "massacres," as I made clear in a previous reply to Tewfik, I have not closely scrutinized that list and cannot say if that title is appropriate. If the term "massacre" is not generally accepted currency for the events listed therein, then it absolutely should not be in the title. But I do not see it as automatic that the nomenclature for a list of events from 2000-2007 should be pegged to the nomenclature for a list of events from a half a century before. The obvious distinction being that as events recede into the past, a scholarly and popular consensus nomenclature tends to consolidate. The Boston massacre is the Boston massacre, period; that's how it's known. Same deal with the Deir Yassin massacre. But if the nomenclature has not generally consolidated with regards to the events on the 1948 list, and if the title has been chosen to impart to the reader a moral judgment, then it should be changed. No doubt about it. I will have a look at the list.

Tewfik, Armon has been egregiously trolling this page. I do not owe him any apology for saying as much. On the contrary, he owes me thanks for my patience, and he owes everyone here an apology for wasting our time, misrepresenting our positions and insulting our intelligence. But water under the bridge; let's move on.--G-Dett 04:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry the WP:CIVIL policy is rarely enforced. You should be thankful for that. When you're done, I'm happy to move on. <<-armon->> 01:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't commented here in a while, but I'm just coming back to say I broadly agree with the points made by G-Dett above. Specifically:

• The word 'massacre' may not be appropriate for the title of this page, while it is in the article about the 1948 war, and that's not necessarily a contradiction. We should avoid describing events as massacres until that becomes the widely accepted name for them.
• The best solution here might be to create two lists, one for Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians, the other for Israeli attacks which caused significant Palestinian civilian casualties (unequal terms, I know, but 'list of Israeli attacks on civilians' would be a blatantly POV and inaccurate title for the latter, since the IDF is not generally thought of as actually targeting civilians).
• Failing that, this should be kept as a comprehensive list with a non-controversial name. The one proposed above, 'List of attacks involving non-combatants during the Second Intifada', works for me; though it would still be necessary to agree on the exact criteria for inclusion, it's broadly clear what would go in that list. Terraxos 01:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think 'List of attacks on non-combatants during the Second Intifada' would work. "Involving" is nebulous and would never end the arguments about what "counts". <<-armon->> 01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think many readers or editors will find the phrase "involving civilian casualties" to be nebulous or hard to understand, and it's very hard for me to imagine them fighting over what to include under its rubric. Meanwhile "attacks on civilians" is in fact nebulous, at least with regard to Israeli attacks; both Wikipedians and the reliable sources are sharply divided about which if any should be described that way. This is why a number of editors have suggested separate lists by nationality with slightly different formulations; it's not only a good compromise, but is very much in line with the reliable sources, who are divided about the status of civilian casualties on one side of the ledger but not the other.--G-Dett 02:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

'List of attacks on non-combatants during the Second Intifada' means attacks with the stated and/or clearly intended goal of inflicting civilian casualties. True, you guys are unlikely to find RS support for the Israeli government committing such attacks, but likewise I doubt you'd find support for such attacks from the Palestinian National Authority. The common thread in the entities committing the massacres here, and in the List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is that they are non-state actors. If, something like the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre were to happen, there would be no reason not to include it. <<-armon->> 03:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon, at 01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC) you say: “I think 'List of attacks on non-combatants during the Second Intifada' would work. "Involving" is nebulous and would never end the arguments about what "counts".” It would certainly work for you; I have no doubt about that. But it won’t work to document death on both sides. As far as what ‘counts’ for me, it is an equal and just description of the body count on both sides and “involving” will do that for the Palestinian side.

At 03:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC) you go on to say: “True, you guys are unlikely to find RS support for the Israeli government committing such attacks, but [sic] likewise I doubt you'd find support for such attacks from the Palestinian National Authority." I now have an inkling how you think and this is probably why most others disagree with you. I gave your quote the [sic] because the word should be ‘and’. You are right, a suicide bombing/bombing is an attack on civilians; it is called terrorism and you can rightly make your list of death (but massacre cant be maintained).

You are also right about there being no RSs that will back up attacks on civilians for the other side. So why are you pushing other editors into titles that cant be RS’d. I’ll assume good faith, but it is getting harder. I believe that this is why most editors think a parallel list of death and destruction for the other side is an NPOV way to get around the problem at this point.

Everybody assumes that the Israeli government wouldn’t commit such attacks; the army is highly motivated, trained and disciplined. So, why is the death toll on the other side so much higher than on yours? I believe that it is, again, the difference between ‘attacks involving’ and ‘attacks on’. You get your word and we get ours; an encyclopedic account must deal with all facts. Body count is the main one now, but then, there is also the ‘destruction’. --CasualObserver'48 07:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Terraxos, I also agree broadly with G-Dett’s comments on the article and withhold comment on editors. I particularly agree with her later (02:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)) reply (above) to Armon’s suggestion. I generally agree with you too.

“Massacre’ is inappropriate in the title. In my mind, appropriate usage of the word either comes from immediate, wide-spread (and continuing) usage/reportage following the incident, or from older, incidents in a more historical perspective (well after the fact), as is likely with the agreed decision on List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. A massacre is also a somewhat unique incident, often within a larger on-going conflict, or some violent attack/retribution from out of the blue (unexpected). The American settlers of the old west were often massacred by the AmerIndians (and vice versa) but every incident wasn’t called a ‘massacre’.

From my review of the previous debate and RfDs, it appears we are at a crossroads (or a fork if you like). One path leads directly to the Wiki-perfect NPoV article, in which case the current article should be re-named; it is currently inflammatory and verging on the defamatory. The other path, based on the many feet of typing (currently 31 ‘page-downs), accepts that a single NPoV article can not currently be written and considers that appropriate, equalizing titling/documentation of Palestinian death during the Second Intifada should be pursued; tit for tat. Making that decision is well over my head, but I tend toward that path at this point, because I consider it will lead eventually back to the NPoV road.

I already know that there will be future RfDs with this path, because of the geography, peoples and editors involved; so be it. There also will be endless debate over the word ‘non-combatants’, which I want to avoid and therefore, reiterate my view that the common accounting unit for both sides is the corpse. That unit of measure is equal, unequivocal and undeniable; it doesn’t require additional ‘exact criteria’.

In the final article it only matters if they were unarmed or not; an unarmed corpse seems more tragic. The numbers on both sides will show more non-combatants than combatants. It is tragic; it is the MidEast. The numbers will be based on the RS data.

At the same time, there is a difference between defending your local neighborhood and attacking someone else’s neighborhood, for whatever reason; there is a difference between an offensive ‘incursion’ and defensive resistance to it; there is a difference between an occupying army and the occupied people. If ‘the powers that be’ decide the POV fork is needed, then some leeway must be given while all this is worked out, that leeway has certainly been shown the current article; it should be noted and linked. --CasualObserver'48 03:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wilfully missing the point

I'm disappointed to see Armon, Tewfik, and possibly others repeatedly offering unhelpful suggestions and attempting to ignore the central objection raised by many editors to this list. Whether this list describes "massacres", "mass murders", "attacks", "suicide bombings", or (for the hell of it), "martyrdom operations", its major problem is its extreme one-sidedness. This list is clearly designed to include only killings of Israelis. When this has been objected to, Armon and Tewfik respond by declaring that only Israelis are killed wilfully, and that each and every Palestinian noncombatant death is an unfortunate and unintended consequence of a legitimate security operation. Now, that claim is certainly made by reliable sources representing notable POVs. But as Armon and Tewfik know well, there are also large sectors of world opinion and many RS's which state that many Israeli actions have amounted to deliberate killing of civilians. To say nothing of those who hold that, whatever the immediate tactical intent of this or that operation, the IDF raids are undertaken in support of an illegal and condemnable military occupation and thus inherently illegitimate regardless of whatever precautions are taken to avoid harming noncombatants.

Bizarrely, Armon has referred to "attempting to redefine the list against consensus" in his justification for keeping the "list of massacres" or "list of attacks" formulation. This ignores the point raised by numerous editors since August that this list is already defined in terms of attacks only against one side. In the AfD which Armon keeps preposterously misrepresenting, I pointed out that the standard the list claimed to apply was transparently not in effect, and that the true standard was "major attacks against Israelis." Since I made that point, I've been met with explicit and implicit accusations of anti-Semitism and terrorism, but not with so much as an attempt to refute it.

To re-iterate; there are two broad possibilities here. One would be to redefine this list to include all discrete incidents with a large civilian death toll. This would necessarily include operations such as the battles of Jenin, Nablus, and Ramallah in '02, not to mention innumerable other IDF incursions. There is a well-founded objection to listing such attacks alongside pizzeria massacres, to wit, that they are inherently dissimilar in quality, and that listing them in paralell implies a moral equivalence which Wikipedia should not make. Fine. That's why I support the second possibility, that of dropping the pretense that this is a comprehensive list of attacks, and explicitly labelling it as a list only of Israeli fatalities. Subsequently, a list of Palestinian fatalities can be created, without any implication that these fatalities are equivalent in quality or intent to Israeli deaths. This was precisely the solution reccomended by the closing admin at the August AfD, which Armon has misrepresented so blatantly that I cannot but deduce bad faith. It's also the best compromise in accordance with Wikipedia policy. <eleland/talkedits> 05:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Look. The closing admin stated explicitly that this list wasn't a NPOV violation or a POV fork. If it was, he would have deleted it in spite of the vote. In this sense the list has "passed". Now, there's a debate about the title -that's a different issue and I'm sure we'd reach a consusus on that. However I regard your insistence that it be redefined into a different list as a failed argument. The only thing to do at this stage is WP:DR, so we should start with a RFC on redefining it. <<-armon->> 04:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem then Armon? We all agree that this list of major attacks on Israeli civilians should be entitled as such. Do you and Tewfik oppose this?--Burgas00 12:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon, would it be fair to say that by "failed argument" you mean a position that, no matter how many editors share it, has failed to convince you and Tewfik? Secondly, when you rail against editors who would "redefine this into a different list," who do you have in mind? I'm not aware of anyone who proposes to do that. Meanwhile I and about a half-dozen other editors have stressed and re-stressed our proposal to keep this list; as Burgas has put it, "we all agree that this list of major attacks on Israeli civilians should be entitled as such."--G-Dett 14:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No it wouldn't "be fair to say". A failed argument is one based on clearly incorrect assertions. For example, changing a "list of X" into a "list of Y" and then asserting that you are "keeping" list X. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern that a list of attacks targeting "civilians" and a list of attacks targeting "Israeli civilians" are two different lists. <<-armon->> 23:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Two different lists, or the same list with two different titles? If the former, what items specifically would you include in one list that you wouldn't include in the other?--G-Dett 23:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Something like the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. I did just say that. <<-armon->> 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You would include events from 1994 as part of the Second Intifada? The Second Intifada began in 2000.--G-Dett 00:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Something like it.<<-armon->> 00:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be coy. What item specifically would you include in one list that you wouldn't include in the other? Or would the lists be identical? If the lists in your view would and should be identical, then we are indeed keeping and retitling the list.--G-Dett 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being coy -you're asking the wrong question. One list allows attacks from either "side", one doesn't. <<-armon->> 02:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Above I've tried arguing repeatedly that the asymmetrical character of this list is not a result of effort by some fervent pro-Israeli cabal but rather result of asymmetrical warfare waged in reality. You have IDF fighting guerilla forces which have no scruples about blowing buses on city streets and launching Qassams in rather indiscriminate fashion; should we wonder that the difference in attitude towards violence and difference in material means influence asymmetrical results? My point is this asymmetrical list we are discussing is just a result of asymmetry of the warfare and if you like to broaden the scope, clash of asymmetrical civilizations. Digging deeper, the UN's partition of Palestine in 1947 has met asymmetrical reactions too: proclamation of a democratic state by one side and rejection of UN's plan and attack on population by the other side. I do not think that NPOV should mean to try and force mechanistical "balance" on totally different sides here. DBWikis 17:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

DBWikis, your points about asymmetrical warfare are well-taken as always, though where you'd attribute it to a difference of values or even civilizations (!), I respectfully part ways. No one here is attributing that asymmetry to a "pro-Israel cabal," but nice use of the scare phrase :). Nor so far as I can tell does anyone one here want to impose "mechanistical balance" – indeed, the proposal is exactly the opposite: to create separate lists with unequal formulations. As opposed to a single formulation that smuggles in an ethically controversial and organizationally superfluous value judgment, one that guarantee endless dispute among editors while providing no service to the reader.--G-Dett 18:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

DB, can I draw your attention to the last paragraph of my little screed? Here, I'll mark it out with bold font:

There is a well-founded objection to listing [IDF military operations] alongside pizzeria massacres, to wit, that they are inherently dissimilar in quality, and that listing them in parallel implies a moral equivalence which Wikipedia should not make. Fine. That's why I support the second possibility, that of dropping the pretense that this is a comprehensive list of attacks, and explicitly labelling it as a list only of Israeli fatalities. Subsequently, a list of Palestinian fatalities can be created, without any implication that these [Palestinian] fatalities are equivalent in quality or intent to Israeli deaths. <eleland/talkedits> 21:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, my implicit point is that compartmentalizing the list of victims along national divide will be even more detrimental (instead of possibly being perceived as "lesser evil") -because your departure point was seemingly taking issue with one-sidedness, but your suggested remedy is actually institutionalizing this one-sidedness, correct? DBWikis 00:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

He appears to want an "undisguised POV fork". <<-armon->> 00:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon, your continued insistence on trying to paint me as a hypocrite based on your trite and stupid misreading of my statements is disruptive and verges on a personal attack. It's a lame system-gaming tactic meant to avoid a good faith discussion of the serious problems with this list. Drop it. <eleland/talkedits> 01:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to argue that the list should be deleted because it's a POV fork, then, when that argument fails, insist that it become one, because you can't find examples committed by Israelis, I'm going to point it out. That's not a personal attack. If you want a good faith discussion, great, stick to good faith arguments. See RFC section below. <<-armon->> 03:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

DBWikis, you've lost me with "institutionalizing." Wikipedia doesn't institutionalize anything. It does however run the risk of presenting material in a way that forecloses questions of truth that are still open among the reliable sources; when it does this it violates NPOV. If we present a single list of "attacks on non-combatants in the Second Intifada," how we compile that list will necessarily foreclose an open question – namely, whether certain Israeli attacks with predictably high civilian casualties or high civilian-militant kill ratios constitute "attacks on civilians." If we include Israeli attacks, we foreclose it one way; if we exclude them we foreclose it another way. We absolutely do not need to foreclose this question in order to organize this material in a way useful to the reader, and no one here has presented an argument why we should.--G-Dett 00:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, by "institutionalizing" I have meant forking the list i.e. giving up on process of first working out objective criteria and second applying those criteria to known facts in defensible manner. My perception is that part of the contributors are unhappy with result looking sort of one-sided and as a remedy attempting tweaking the rules so that the product will be more "balanced" which in my own view amounts to possible misinterpreting the NPOV policy. DBWikis 01:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's it, DBWikis. I and other editors want to avoid "objective criteria" that, due to a lack of consensus among reliable sources, are not in fact objective and in fact necessarily create large gray areas. If for example we settle on List of attacks on non-combatants during the Second Intifada, we will have to put in certain Israeli attacks, along with a rather complicated disclaimer saying that some reliable sources describe these as attacks on civilians and others don't, and that some conclude that attacks with such high civilian-militant kill ratios render questions of intent meaningless, etc. Why would we do that?--G-Dett 01:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess that working with those "objective criteria" is sometimes quite torturous yet the alternatives are worse still, or how you are proposing avoiding them? (aside of excizing the whole topic from WP altogether which is even worse). And what is wrong with complicated disclaimers? The life itself is complicate so the good reflection must be as well, and is certainly preferrable to simplistic one. DBWikis 02:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

DBWikis, besides your rather surreal summary of the Arab Israeli conflict, that last post sounded slightly xenophobic. Could you care to expand on this concept of "assymetrical civilisations"? --Burgas00 23:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather he didn't. It's off topic and you're obviously attempting a "gotcha" in order to paint the guy as a racist. <<-armon->> 23:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Burgas00, "asymmetrical" here is a qualifier emphasizing set of differences between the sides in the conflict in question and alluding to Clash of Civilizations (Cf Huntington etc.) Unrelated example of asymmetrical stance can be an idea of focusing on persons voicing certain opinions and applying labels to them, instead of addressing those opinions directly along with related facts, ideas and logic. Regarding asymmetry: recognizing differences is sine qua non for both xenophobia _and_ xenophylia too, and if someone is in hurry to start calling foul upon perceived xenophobia then this is actually rather testimonious to the tendency how that person would prefer to paint the discussion. DBWikis 00:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

DBWikis, I've been assuming you were talking about asymmetrical warfare, which refers to disparities in military power – and therefore in the strategies and tactics – between the opposing sides of an armed conflict. You now seem to be talking about some sort of asymmetry of morals, values, etc. of different "civilizations." You're welcome to your opinions on this, but you should know that Wikipedia doesn't build such opinions into the contents and titles of articles.--G-Dett 00:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, it's a good thing the whole "Clash of Civilizations" issue was never germane. "Gotcha" failed. <<-armon->> 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, my point was indeed primarily on asymmetrical warfare, and in line with my views on NPOV I've proposed relabeling of this article and yes opposed Eleland's idea on splitting the lists (see above). Focusing on differences in values is relevant to understanding the conflict but should not be interpreted in context of justifications etc. As for itemizing articles of my xenophobia or moral relativism or what not - this probably can be supplied by Burgas00 on my behalf but not by me since I subscribe to neither DBWikis 01:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

DB, I think you raise a good point about false balance and intersubjectivity generally, but I'm not sure of its relevance to this discussion. I think it's clear that suicide bombings are deliberate attacks on civilians, and no notable sector of opinion disputes this. Even Hamas is off suicide bombings these days. Personally, I think it's clear that Defensive Shield, the Shehada bombing, and innumerable other IDF actions were also deliberate attacks on civilians. A lot of reliable, significant people and groups agree with that (for starters, look up how many groups have condemned Collective punishment by the IDF on how many different occasions), and a lot of reliable, noteworthy sources disagree with that. So we have acts which are clearly and undeniably "massacres" by our ad hoc definition, and acts which are arguably "massacres" and arguably not.

Now, if we make a list which includes only the undeniable massacres, we're effectively making a POV, editorial judgment about what is a massacre and what isn't, and we're contradicting many very knowledgeable sources. Nobody would ever get away with making a direct statement in an article like "During the Intifada, both sides killed civilians, but only Palestinians did it deliberately. The Israeli forces have never committed any kind of massacre." But this list is saying exactly that.

If we make a list which includes only the undeniable massacres, but we make it clear that we're only listing massacres of Israelis, there's no such problem. Your objection that dissimilar events should not be listed as if they are the same seems to me actually to militate against one list and for two lists. A list of operations causing Palestinian civilian deaths would do well to include, for example, the stated target of the operation such as arresting militants or capturing bomb-making materials, information which would be spurious in this article since the immediate goal of the terrorist attacks is always maximal carnage.

Anyway, I do appreciate your input, and I'm sorry that some other editors have gotten a little hot-under-the-collar. I'm a bit confused as to your overall position though, probably as a result of that same heated undertone to the discussion. Can you restate for me, what do you think this list should be called, what do you think it should cover, and how do you feel about creating an additional list recording incidents with large Palestinian civilian death tolls? <eleland/talkedits> 02:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I do think that the article should be called List of attacks involving non-combatants during the Second Intifada and that it should include a "Notes" column identifying whether it was suicide bombing, or collateral from targeted killing, or Qassam attack, etc. I do recognise that the list is very long potentially covering hundreds of instances but the truth is it is actually a list of lives lost irreversibly and is more horrific exacly because of that. I believe that the list should not assign responsibility but should provide reference to the known facts and enough data on circumstances (and information sources), so for example it will be possible to conclude what was deliberate and what was collateral; and controversial cases should be labeled as such explicitly. I am not totally against separate list of incidents with large Palestinian death tolls but think it is not particularly good idea because that one will be one-sided too (by definition) and also much easier to highjack. DBWikis 03:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC

A quick review for the uninitiated: this article was written in January 2004 as a list of suicide bombings of Israelis. Nine days later, someone called Rei made the basic point which underlies this dispute: "Can someone rename this page to be a list of Palestinian suicide bombings (since that's what it is?)"

This proposal was never implemented; or rather, it was rapidly dis-implemented every time we tried. The list was moved to many, many different titles, yet it always wound its way back to "List of massacres". The list was AfD'd multiple times, often under a different name which makes it harder to find the AfD. Editors added incidents where large numbers of Palestinian civilians were killed - the edits were reverted. Clearly, some believe that Wikipedia must have an article called "List of massacres during the Second Intifada", and that the list must contain only killings of Israelis.

Blowing up a bat mitzvah with a nail-bomb strapped to a 17-year-old kid is a blatant atrocity and a massacre, is defended by nobody but the perpetrators, and is universally condemned by reliable sources as a deliberate mass killing of innocents. Blowing up a crowded apartment building with a 900 kilogram smart bomb is also a massacre in the views of most reliable sources, since "This was a deliberate attack on the site, knowing that innocents would be lost in the consequences of the attack." (That's Ari Fleischer speaking for Bush.) Nevertheless, there is a valid case that such acts are not morally equivalent - a case which is stronger for those incidents where civilians have been killed in genuine battles, where both sides are shooting and separating the combatants from the civilians is difficult.

What is being ignored here is that we don't write Wikipedia articles to prove a valid case. Not when there are other valid cases made by other significant sources of opinion. When multiple significant points of view exist on a topic, we accommodate all of them. That means we don't write an article called "List of massacres", and then use a provocative, highly selective definition of "massacre" which not only differs from what notable reliable sources say, but appears to be an ad hoc construction devised solely to make a WP:POINT.

Since there are well-founded objections to listing dissimilar events in the same list, the logical solution is to create two lists. This was, in fact, the recommendation of the admin Xoloz, who closed the August 29 AfD remarking, "the actions of one group are represented ... a list [of non-military individuals killed by Israeli forces during the Second Intifada] would convey equally encyclopedic information. Such lists might be linked to each other to provide a full view of the conflict." Of course, in order to create two lists, it is necessary that neither list claim to be comprehensive for both sides. Thus, this article should be moved to something along the lines of List of attacks on Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada. <eleland/talkedits> 22:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I support Eleland proposition. On other side I do not see reasons for this AFD. Situation is very clear and I do not see problem in moving article and then block return of article to this name (even I can block return of article to this name) !! --Rjecina 11:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that you don't see the need for the RfC (request for comment), or you don't see the need for the previous AfDs (requests for deletion)? <eleland/talkedits> 17:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If this article stay on wikipedia it must be moved to another name.

On other side I do not know if we are having article List of massacres commited by Israelis forces during Second Intifada (or something similar). If that article is not existing on wikipedia we need to delete this article so that wikipedia stay neutral. If it exist then this article can exist so that wikipedia is neutral. In my thinking neutrality need to be first wiki law. --Rjecina 18:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Your claim has a basic flaw - you assume Israeli forces committed massacres - but according to many definition, not a single Israeli actions falls into such a category (Israel's action do often hurt civilians, but unlike Palestinian actions, are not specifically targeting civilians). If Israel commits no such actions, there's no need for such a list, and it would be perfectly NPOV to have just this list - like it or not, only the Palestinian side uses certain tactics.

To the point - though I have not participated in the discussion for a while, I have been following it, as closely as I can. I still support changing the name, like Eleland suggested. I also find the use of the word "massacre" in this context unencyclopedic - while I do believe suicide bombings are massacres, it's not the factual phrasing we are expected to use. The facts can be conveyed just as accurately using neutral, not-loaded, terms, like "attack", "suicide bombing", etc. okedem 19:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"List of attacks on Israeli noncombatants..." can potentially include any incident of stone-throwing by Palestinian children. The point of this list, as I see it, is to limit it to massacres, i.e. incidents of deliberate mass murder of civilians. Beit Or 21:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of the stone-throwing you allude to is directed at IDF personnel and military positions, not non-combatants. All versions of the list that have been proposed, moreover, are limited to "major" attacks with significant casualties.

I think everyone is agreed that the use of the word "massacre" here presents POV problems. The questions we're dealing with are (i) whether to have separate lists or a single list for Palestinian and Israeli attacks, given that RSs agree that Palestinian attacks are "attacks on non-combatants," but are divided on whether Israeli attacks can be described this way.--G-Dett 21:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A "major" attack "with significant casualties" is a massacre, so your argument is self-defeating. "I think everyone is agreed that the use of the word "massacre" here presents POV problems." Does it present POV problems only when Jews are killed or in other instances too? The existence of the List of massacres does not seem to present any POV problems for anyone. Beit Or 21:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, only Jews, because we're all anti-Semites. Me, G-Dett, Burgas, Okedem, DBWikis, CasualObserver48, FearGod, in fact, anyone who disagrees with you. We thought we'd get away with it, too, but you caught us in the iron jaws of your logic trap. I doff my hat to you, sir!

Seriously, stop wasting everyone's time with this infantile crap. <eleland/talkedits> 22:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Or you could just answer the question. There's an obvious editorial inconsistency here. <<-armon->> 02:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no "question", just an egregiously insulting troll, and it deserved nothing but the mockery I provided. <eleland/talkedits> 03:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Best defense is a strong offense, eh? <<-armon->> 03:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we please not turn this into a political argument? I would recommend only wikipedians who do not have strong views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to give their opinion in this RFC. --Burgas00 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. <<-armon->> 03:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is no good reason to argue that this isn't, or couldn't be, a comprehensive list of attacks targeting civilians (well, other than those which had 10 or more fatalities). There's also no good reason why attacks by Israelis on Palestinians, or attacks by Palestinians on other Palestinians, or attacks by Israelis on other Israelis can't be included. The only "issue" is that it an attack has to be reliably sourced, had to have happened during the Second Intifada, and had to be an attack on civilians -this is not a list of civilian causalities. No matter what we name it, that is the list which survived the afd -like it or not. <<-armon->> 03:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon, as an experienced editor, you know well that an AfD does not result in some kind of binding fiat on the scope and character of an article. Articles "survive an AfD" all the time and then are radically changed, redirected, merged, etc. Furthermore, you know that the closing admin suggested a parallel list of Palestinian casualties be created, and mused that wikilinking the two might provide useful balance and context. You're persistently ignoring arguments based on policy and reliable sources in favor of a spurious smoke-screen. Perhaps because you know how weak your position is? <eleland/talkedits> 04:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There is of course a good reason why this can't be a list of attacks targeting civilians, but Armon isn't aware of it because he doesn't/can't read and is here to troll, endlessly.--G-Dett 04:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Like Burgas00, I don’t want to indent any more, but note that I already have been housed in one camp by reference. My encyclopedic view is that the best article should be Non-Combatant Deaths during the Second Intifada, but this seems to be impossible because of POV-pushers who want to highlight one side (by a very narrowly defined list that supports one side only). The subject is already basically described in Second Intifada#Casualties, but there ‘’’are’’’ differences which should be noted, and one side is pushing theirs with POV words like ‘massacres’, which must be changed. The word ‘attack’ is OK with me, because they are already separately listed per-group and type. My encyclopedic view is that we must seek a more equal balance of wiki-words-per-corpse for each side; as I noted before, one side has real attacks and the other just has real deaths.

The following comments relate to the indented argument (quite literally) above, from eleland’s 22:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC) to Burgas00’s 23:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC) cut-off. I agree with Rjecina, NPOV should be the prime wiki law, and I think (hope) it generally is. The list is OK (without ‘massacre’) but a similar list/article must be written to support the greater corpse-count on the Palestinian side, otherwise, it must be deleted. I disagree with okedem’s first paragraph. Most editors certainly hope and accept that generally no ‘massacres’ were intended by the Israelis, but high body-counts resulted. Some RSs indicated these did happen and the body-count shows that quite clearly. Whether this resulted from bad aim, collateral damage, accidents, offensive incursions, targeted assassinations, or less-than-advertised training, motivation and discipline, doesn’t really matter. The body count indicates something happened and Wiki must describe it if it really does want to be encyclopedic. On the other hand, I totally agree with okedem’s second paragraph (i.e. ‘massacre’ is too POV and should be changed). I disagree with Beit Or’s first post and let GDett’s rebuttal stand for my reply too. Moreover, I strongly object to BeitOr's second post. This discussion has gone on for 40 ‘page-downs’ without the J-word as a noun; it should be the last use. This is a discussion of Israeli and Palestinian body-count and varying methods of production. If this discussion comes down to Js, Cs and Ms, then we might as well pack up and go home. I very much understand eleland on his reply to that one. CasualObserver'48 07:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Please, someone, make that second red link into blue, it exists. CasualObserver'48 07:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks Okedem, now I see, but I am really wiki-dumb.

"Whether this resulted from bad aim, collateral damage, accidents, offensive incursions, targeted assassinations, or less-than-advertised training, motivation and discipline, doesn’t really matter." Being as every RS makes a clear distinction between Israeli operations with civilian casualties and Palestinian operations aimed at killing civilians, it does really matter for us, and we should not be attempting a false parity. The idea that this list would somehow be acceptable if only such an Israeli attack like the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre aimed at killing civilians had taken place during the Second Intifada only serves to highlight the problems here. Tewfik^Talk 11:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Two strawmen in particular have been pressed into repeated service and are getting very dry and crumbly, setting off my allergies and worse yet creating a fire hazard. The first is this silly idea that we are "attempting a false parity"; on the contrary, as has been reiterated dozens of times here, the proposal is to create separate lists, precisely because the RSs describe the two types of attacks in different terms. The second strawman is so makeshift and moth-eaten that if I do sneeze it'll go up in a puff of dust and filament – only, alas, to then be lovingly reassembled by its benefactor. Well – achoo! – here goes: there is no "idea that this list would somehow be acceptable if only such an Israeli attack like the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre aimed at killing civilians had taken place during the Second Intifada". Total BS red herring, that. The problem with this list, as has been clearly articulated to Tewfik and Armon maybe 35 times in the course of this discussion, is that its criteria are built along a fault-line of divided opinion among the RSs. The reliable sources are not agreed whether or not certain Israeli attacks can be properly described as "attacks on civilians." We must use editorial judgment when devising criteria for lists: criteria can't for example be concocted to make a point (e.g., List of non-WASP American presidents with JFK as the only entry) or to smuggle in assumptions that foreclose a debate still open among reliable sources (e.g., List of Florida counties who voted for Al Gore in 2000). Those pressing here for a single "list of massacres" or a "list of attacks on non-combatants," theoretically open to attacks by both sides but from which they plan to exclude all Israeli attacks on Palestinians, are both making a point AND foreclosing a debate still open among the RSs. Their proposed list titles, however, will prove equally vulnerable to POV-pushing from the opposing side, who will load up the list with Israeli attacks with large Palestinian civilian casualties, in order to foreclose the debate the other way, and drive home their point that attacks on both sides are morally interchangeable. This is exactly what happens when you deliberately build list-criteria along a fault line; you guarantee that the list will always be a POV-problem, either in one direction or another, depending on what faction owns the article at any given moment.

Our goal, for the 36th time, is to create a list or lists based on transparent criteria not in dispute among the reliable sources, and in that way to (a) avoid NPOV-violations, (b) forestall endless editorial disputes that serve no interest of the reader, and (c) avoid presupposing either parity or disparity. Such questions are unresolved and unresolvable by recourse to the reliable sources, who are divided on the status of Israeli attacks; and these are at any rate purely ideological questions, with no proper bearing on the proper goal of this list, which is not to persuade the reader of moral truths but rather to organize historical information in a format useful to him.--G-Dett 16:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This "dispute among the reliable sources" you keep referring to, and which you hang your "arguments" on, doesn't actually exist -a least in the case of the Jenin "massacre", which I've looked at. If you can give some other examples where there are disputes among RSs -fine. Otherwise, it's just more proof by assertion for an extremely dubious claim. <<-armon->> 22:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, but what's new. Investigations by major international human rights organizations found that the IDF had "deliberately and willfully" killed non-combatants in Jenin, as you would know by now if you ever read the source material for articles where you edit-war. The Shehadeh "assassination," in which an Israeli F-16 dropped a one-ton bomb on an apartment complex in a residential neighborhood, killing 1 Hamas member and 15 civilians, many of them children, was also widely described as an attack on civilians. There are of course countless reliable sources who describe Israeli operations as "attacks on civilians," and just as many others who say no, Israel takes extra precautions to protect innocent life, etc.--G-Dett 23:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. The IDF has been heavily criticized for killing civilians, and heavily criticized for its "targeted killing" actions -that much is true. However, there are no RSs which state that Israel was targeting the civilians, rather than Shehadeh. You continually try and obfuscate this key difference. <<-armon->> 23:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Rather than" Shehadeh? Interesting phrasing. Anyway, let's see. Arafat called it a "massacre," as did the PLO's legal advisor speaking on CNN, and that's how it's generally referred to by Palestinians. Ali Abunimah gives a pretty good representation of how it's seen by the Palestinian diaspora: "Such wanton disregard for innocent life, is the exact moral equivalent of the killing of Israeli innocents in bars, restaurants, buses and shopping malls, and it violates international law." White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer strenuously resisted any comparison with the collateral damage from American bombing in Afghanistan which "very regrettably included losses of innocent lives"; Fleischer contrasted this with the Shehadeh bombing, saying "This was a deliberate attack on the site, knowing that innocents would be lost in the consequences of the attack." What follows is from the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights' "Factual and Legal briefing on IOF Attacks on Civilian Objects during the June 2006 IOF incursion of Gaza":

At approximately 11.45am on June 13, the IOF killed 11 Palestinians and injured 42 others in an extra-judicial assassination attempt in Gaza city. In this case it appears that the attack on civilians was intentional. Jet fighters fired twice at a car; the first missile hit a car on Salah Ad-Din Street, killing three Palestinians: Hamouda Al wadiayya, 38, Ramez Al Mbayed, 27, Shawqi Al Siqeli, 42. Following the explosion, citizens and paramedics rushed to the location to help the wounded. Three minutes later, a second missile was fired on the same spot, killing 7 Palestinians, including 4 paramedics, and injuring 42 civilians; 6 were in critical condition...While considering the scope of this extrajudicial execution attempt of 8 July 2006 which caused the massacre of a civilian family while they were sleeping in their homes, it is significant to draw for comparison a similar attack on civilians that was conducted in Al Daraj neighbourhood of Gaza City on 22 July 2002. In the Daraj attack, which occurred shortly before midnight, IOF dropped a one-ton bomb the neighbourhood whilst targeting Salah Shihadeh, aged 50, a senior member of Hamas and founder of its military wing Izz Ad-Din Al Qassam. Shehadeh was indeed killed, but 15 others were killed with him. 145 people were seriously injured and substantial damage to homes and property was sustained. This attack, which took place in the 21st month of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, was unprecedented in its reckless disregard for civilian life...Al Mezan strongly condemns the ongoing impunity in these attacks which severely target civilians. When efforts failed in the Israeli courts, the Daraj Case was taken abroad, and under universal jurisdiction was tried in a British court, where an arrest warrant was approved for IOF Major General Doron Almog. Almog had given command for the Daraj attack and a number of other severe attacks between 2001 and 2003, including the demolition of 59 homes in Rafah in January 2002. Almog was never prosecuted as he never returned to England following the charge...

My emphasis. The Al Mezan report also describes a number of other Israeli attacks as "attacks on civilians." Incidentally, Almog did return to England, but received a friendly alert by cell phone not to deplane lest he face criminal prosecution for war crimes.--G-Dett 01:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, so now you're attempting to argue that the PLO and other activist sources are "reliable" for a claim that Israel was going after the civilians. I can't imagine what the tactical purpose of that was supposed to be. The point of NPOV and reliable sources is to remove as much as is possible, as a service to the reader, the propaganda surrounding the conflict. This is how I read WP:SOAP. If the reader wants POV, there are a thousand websites preaching to their respective choirs. You obviously disagree, otherwise you wouldn't present this sort of "evidence". <<-armon->> 03:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon, what exactly are you claiming here? Al Mezan is not a reliable source? Are human rights organizations generally non-reliable, or just ones with Arab staff? That's not a rhetorical question; when I told you that HRW concluded that the IDF carried out "willful and deliberate" killing of civilians in Jenin, you changed the subject. Are HRW and AI also non-reliable? Do you really believe the point of policy is to remove as much partisan material as possible? That official Israeli statements are non-reliable, insufficient to establish that a Palestinian claim is contested? Please note that I've never – not once – added an official PLO statement to an article, or Electronic Intifada or MPAC or Ali Abunimah to mainspace. But this isn't true of you; a good deal of your time on Wikipedia is spent edit-warring in material from dubious partisan sources, as you're doing with the CAMERA crap over at Second Intifada this very moment.

Keeping on topic, do you really maintain that there is no RS-debate about whether Israel "attacks civilians"?

I'm asserting that WP is not the place to quote mine. "IOF dropped a one-ton bomb the neighbourhood whilst targeting Salah Shihadeh, aged 50, a senior member of Hamas and founder of its military wing Izz Ad-Din Al Qassam." Your "evidence" is from POV sources and doesn't say what you claim anyway. If you're attempting to argue that Israel was heavily criticized for killing civilians in the course of such targeted killings -congratulations, welcome back to reality. <<-armon->> 05:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"...a similar attack on civilians that was conducted in Al Daraj neighbourhood of Gaza City on 22 July 2002...Al Mezan strongly condemns the ongoing impunity in these attacks which severely target civilians" etc. etc. If WP isn't the place to quote mine, then why are you doing it? And why are you coupling your quote-mining with out-and-out lying?

Now, to be very clear, I don't put much stock in the statements of PLO spokesmen or White House spokesmen or Israeli spokesmen on the complicated question of what constitutes an "attack on civilians." They are reliable however for the ways in which the question of intent was officially contested. Many, perhaps most reliable sources saw the dropping of a one-ton bomb on one of the most densely populated residential areas in the word as an "attack on civilians," which is the proposed criteria of this list. As for what the "tactical purpose" of incurring high civilian casualties might be, there are those who say generally that the IDF wants to make clear the high cost of "harboring" militants in civilian neighborhoods ("We great regret the loss of whoever was innocent among them, but when they take civilians as their cover, then though it is difficult, they must know that this has a price," a reserve pilot told Arutz 7) and there were many who said specifically that Sharon was intentionally scuttling an imminent ceasefire. Many American papers followed Fleischer's suit in condemning the bombing in terms deliberately ambiguous with regards to intent: the Hartford Courant described it as an "atrocity," and wrote that "when Israeli civilians are killed in suicide bombings or other kinds of attacks by Palestinians, Israelis call it terrorism, and it is. But the killing of civilians and the assassination of Palestinian leaders are no less acts of terrorism. There is no way that an Israeli jet fighter can fire a missile at residences and not risk killing noncombatants." The Boston Globe wrote that ""At best this is the thinking of a tank commander with no grasp of the art of statecraft. At worst, it is the boasting of a hawk in power who deliberately launched his missile attack at a moment when high-level Israeli and Palestinian officials were meeting to discuss security cooperation and after Hamas leaders spoke publicly about stopping suicide bombings ... More than ever, American mediation is needed to rescue Israelis and Palestinians from their descent into pure vendetta." The dispute about Israeli intentions in the Shehadeh bombing is part of a larger set of disputes about what constitutes intent, and what constitutes the "deliberate" killing of civilians. As a legal and philosophical question, it is beyond the purview of Wikipedians compiling lists.

I disagree with your take on human rights organizations as non-reliable "activists." And with regards to your high-minded statements about removing partisan sources from Wikipedia, in light of your customary editing – for example your present edit-warring to include CAMERA's take on casualty statistics over at Second Intifada – my reaction is one of amused skepticism.--G-Dett 05:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

More Bullshit. #1 I haven't edit-warred over it (therefore, no diffs) #2 On the talk page, it was Gatoclass who brought CAMERA into the discussion not me. #3 My "take" on CAMERA -actually the issue of Btselem's changed methodology, for which CAMERA was offered as a cite is here and here. Actually, HRW and AI have been criticized by reliable sources -see here and here. This is should come as no surprise unless you hold such groups as somehow beyond reproach. The problem is I don't share your faith -no source is. <<-armon->> 11:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point G-Dett, particularly the illustration of list of counties that voted for al gore. But I would like to remind people that we are discussing changing the title at this stage, not deleting the article or modifying the content.--Burgas00 18:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes exactly, Burgas, I forgot to point out strawman #3 – the idea that we somehow aim to delete this article, when in fact we're proposing to preserve its contents unmodified and merely give it a non-contentious title.--G-Dett 19:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, if the paramount goal is to craft the article shielded from POV-pushing (and some contributors have hinted that WP:NPOV should be given super-authority to trump all other policies) then I really doubt it will ever succeed in quarters of Arab-Israeli conflict, even if you will try to mutilate the account into "historical information" divorced from any sort of interpretive qualifiers: after we will excize terms like "massacre" there remain politically motivated demands by both factions. I agree that the proper way of doing that will be first to agree on said transparent criteria and if there will be number of controversies then each one should be flagged and shunted out into its dedicated spot (e.g. Battle of Jenin). Maybe the foremost question raised is whether it should be one list or two. I've tried to argue that splitting into two seems to be greater evil but you still appear undecided since you say "list or lists" but this step should logically preclude working out of any criteria lest applying them. DBWikis 19:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

DBWikis I really dont understand that last post. We are happy with the content excluding Palestinian deaths and for the moment, creating a second list is not the issue. "of Israelis" is all that is needed in the title. Im not even that bothered over the use of the word "massacre".--Burgas00 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the word "massacre" is quite POV, whether it is used to describe the deaths of Israelis or Palestinians. I support Eleland in the proposition, but suggest a more accurate one: List of killings of Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada.Bless sins 20:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Burgas00, I am not happy with exclusion of any death regardless the nationality of the victim, I just had an issue with labeling results of IDF actions which albeit being regrettable still do not quite fall in my view under caregory of "massacre"; along with it I agreed that word massacre is too loaded and should be avoided; as for certain controversial instances like Battle of Jenin I was truing to argue that the only way it can be included here probably is with explicit flagging of the unresloved controversy and focussing on it in its dedicated article; same applies to other incidents too e.g. regarding killing of Shehada the account is not settled as well, since Israelis have opened a criminal probe last month, and so on. DBWikis 21:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand the objections to the word "massacre". Frankly, I find it a bit emotive myself. I would point out though, that there are centralized discussions like WP:WTA, and List of massacres to work out the appropriate use. The "parallel list" idea doesn't work because if an incident with Palestinian causalities was in fact "parallel", then it should simply be included here. The civilians killed during the assassination of Salah Shahade or other "targeted killings" is probably the closest comparison. <<-armon->> 23:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi DB. A couple clarifications re your post above. I'm not undecided; I think the best option would be separate lists with differently phrased criteria (on vs. involving). The second best option would be a single list with the more open-ended and non-contentious formulation, "involving." Third and least attractive would be a single list with the contentious formulation, "attacks on non-combatants," with qualifying language in the lead pointing out the various controversies regarding how to categorize Israeli attacks on Palestinians. The only red-line unacceptable proposal in my eyes is a list of Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians that tries, through the cute strategem of a seemingly inclusive title, to nudge the reader with the coy suggestion that we would have gladly included Israeli "attacks on non-combatants" if only had there been some. Coy suggestions of this sort violate WP:POINT in the best of times; and when they are predicated, as in this case, on assumptions not shared by a consensus of RSs, they violate WP:NPOV as well.

Of course you're right that when it comes to the I/P conflict you can never fully shield material from POV-pushing, that there's no "'historical information'" divorced from any sort of interpretive qualifiers," etc. etc. Please don't think me so naïve :). But I do think that a great deal of headache can be avoided if we take a step back and think in terms of the interests of readers rather than the rights of editors. That is, instead of asking What do I and like-minded editors have a right to say in this article, per WP policy?, we should be asking what is the most organizationally useful and least ideologically intrusive format for the presentation of this information? What are readers likely to be looking for, and what's the best way to give it to them with a minimum of fuss? It seems to me that what readers will want from this list and the related one we're contemplating is a thorough run-down of Palestinian terrorist attacks on the one hand, and major Israeli operations controversial for high civilian casualties on the other. Whether it's one list or two linked ones is inconsequential. A refresher on the bloodshed-related grievances of the last seven-years, a quick, clear point of reference for the millions of readers who are very aware of this conflict but don't obsess over it the way we do. These readers don't need our moral guidance and insights, and they are not well served by our primly withholding information about major controversies like Jenin and the Shehadeh "assassination" because they don't fit our criteria, criteria we've coyly contrived to provide a pretext for primly withholding such material in the first place, so that we can make clear our moral take on comparative infamy in the Israel-Palestine conflict.--G-Dett 23:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Since my post of yesterday (and six more ‘page-downs’), I’ll comment as follows: Unfortunately, it appears strawmen and red herrings do exist; I had to look at Propaganda to find out and tend to feel that the tight-titling issue of the current list tends toward the Big Lie. I don’t mind BlessSins’ suggested title of List of killings of Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada, and just change the nationality for the second article. To be fair, however, this might also downplay the ‘on versus involved’ argument. I made my titling suggestions 06:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

I also want to give G-Dett a big ditto for her last two paragraphs (it sure saves a lot of typing). I especially agree with “I do think that a great deal of headache can be avoided if we take a step back and think in terms of the interests of readers rather than the rights of editors….we should be asking what is the most organizationally useful and least ideologically intrusive format for the presentation of this information? What are readers likely to be looking for, and what's the best way to give it to them with a minimum of fuss?” (But what’s the source of the italicized portion?)CasualObserver'48 09:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Outside input

OK I think we need more input on this issue. I suggest we post a message about this on the talk pages of those who voted on the AfDs. Any objections? <<-armon->> 00:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for bringing in more voices here, though I have two reservations. (1) There is a wide range of participation here already, and frankly the extensive arguments for retitling this list have not been adequately engaged by Armon or Tewfik. If we could clearly articulate the nature of the impasse here, targeted requests for comment might be appropriate, but groping around for a game-changer should not be the motive. (2) I am wary of Armon polling participants in deletion discussions for their opinions about retitling, especially given his unfortunate track record of presenting this is as a deletion discussion when it isn't.--G-Dett 02:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate other comments, but dont know the possible editing crew. This is not a deletion exercise. I think editors with a known 'satisfactory solution' record should be involved, if they have the view/knowledge of the I/P issue and are still willing. We need an editing crew not a camera crew. CasualObserver'48 09:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Having been asked for some input, here are my thoughts:

Article title I do not like the inclusion of the word "massacres" in the title - this is hard to define, and whilst the article has done so, it is only the author's POV of what constitutes a massacre. Personally I would be in favour of renaming it to List of terrorist attacks during the Second Intifada.

Content With my proposed renaming, the article should also be expanded to include all terrorist attacks during the period in question, including ones where no-one died except the bomber (such as the Be'er Sheva bus station one in 2006(?), which I was unfortunate enough to witness) and attacks carried out by Israelis such as Eden Natan-Zada's Shfaram attack. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with above. Massacres is a hotbed of POV and hot emotion. Let's pull back and properly label it as what it is, a list of terrorist attacks. Kyaa the Catlord 14:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Number 57, the word "massacre" should not remain in the title, it is too vague to describe the myriad acts listed, plus it's a divisive term that will result in long-term complications regarding the article. --Agamemnon2 15:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have been asked to offer input here as an uninvolved party. I am admittedly not well-schooled in many of details of the incidents in the list, receiving my knowledge of current events primarily from the American media (which, for reasons wholly unrelated to the Middle East, I have learned to distrust in general.) As an historian, I recognize that there has never been a conflict in the history of the world wherein one party has been entirely blameless, and the other wholly guilty. I think I'm about as neutral on this subject as it is possible to be.

• In this context, massacre is a word to be avoided. There are places in the encyclopedia where -- disputes having passed into history -- the word might be used. In presenting the course of an ongoing conflict, this label is inappropriately connotative and imprecise, bearing a host of implications, of moral judgments, which are the proper domain of a NPOV encyclopedia.

• In this context, terrorist is also a word to be avoided. In ongoing disputes between states and non-states, a state may label its opponents "terrorist" as a means of demeaning them. Many times, this action of the state is justified; sometimes, it is not. Editors at the United States' most famous "terrorist" attack have acknowledged this difficulty, and opted for a dispassionate title. It is important to note that dispassionate labeling does not constitute an endorsement of a particular cause. Judgment is merely reserved for the reader; he or she, in reading and evaluating the offered sources and evidence, is left to conclude the moral weight properly assigned to the "terrorist" group. In cases where the moral truth is obvious (a hypothetical bombing of an orphanage for unwanted newborns), the condemnation in readers' minds will be rightly universal and unequivocal. In real-world cases, the actual result will be less marked, with by far most readers disdaining the killing of civilians, and a few finding justification in some motive or another. The important thing -- and our job as editors -- is to ensure that these judgments do not arise as a result of the terminology selected, leaving the reader in the fairest position to judge the facts. Dispassionate writing is also the only way that two opposed partisans in any conflict can come together, and it is the job of a NPOV encyclopedia to bring as many editors of every partisan position together as is possible.

• I support eleland's proposal, "List of killings of Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada," as the most dispassionate available here. I also continue to support the creation of a parallel "List of killings of Palestinian noncombatants during the Second Intifada." This list presently has a criterion requiring the deaths of ten or more individuals. This need not be explicitly stated in the title, as a basic assumption of the encyclopedia is that all detailed events are notable, and (sadly) single deaths are rarely ipso facto notable. If the consensus here nevertheless desires a more explicit title, "List of mass killings of Israeli noncombatants during the Second Intifada" would be appropriate. Upon request from a consensus here, I will be happy to move (and move-protect) the article. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)