Talk:Second Intifada

2nd intifida ended in 2005

Second intifada (Al-Aqsa intifada) ended at Sharm el-Sheikh Summit of 2005, on feb 8, 2005.
A reference is eg. Pierre Razoux, Tsahal, p.468, Perrin, isbn 226202328X.
Another one (I haven't personnaly checked) is : Mideast ceasefire agreed, Financial Times, feb 9, 2005.
What is written in the article that it would not be finished is not sourced. It is a pov and more certainly a minoritary pov. 81.243.163.4 15:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That's silly. There are still shellings and suicide bombings. There has been a lull, but it hasn't seemed like much of one. But then again, I didn't watch the news much before 2000... The Evil Spartan 19:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The suicide bombings began in 1994, but if you check the first intifada page, you will se that it was supposed to be over in 1993. So this is not the criteria. The fact is that from Israel's point of view at least, the Intifada was over in 2005 and even 2004. Only very few attacks if any, no impact on everyday life, no impact on the economy, no popular uprising in the territories (the meaning of the word "Intifada" in Arabic). From the Palestinian POV, it is much more difficult to say because life did not come back to normal. So fixing a date for the end of the Intifada is arbitrary. It could be the death of Arafat or the evacuation of Gaza, but if we have here a sourced reference for February 2005, let's use it. Benjil 21:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see more evidence for an end date. To begin with, is there a scholarly and political consensus the intifada has in fact ended in 2007? <<-armon->> 22:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A survey of sources would be a good start to understanding what the academic positions are. Tewfik^Talk 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Casualties (I)

Tewfik has repeatedly removed the sourced stats that Armon and I added to the infobox and the "Casualties" section of the article.

Please see this diff and this one. Here is Armon's diff.

In his edit summaries Tewfik is saying that the addition of sourced stats is "well-poisoning". Tewfik has a longterm habit of mass reversions. This time Tewfik is now throwing around terms that he does not understand. In the vain hope of impressing somebody.

"Tewfik, if you delete the sourced material again I will report you (AGAIN!) to WP:ANI. You are blanking sourced material. Please see "blanking" under WP:Vandalism#Types of vandalism. --Timeshifter 04:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, third person for the spurious accusations and first person for the threat in the same message - who are you talking to exactly? And if you are going to accuse me of vandalism, then WP:AIV would be the appropriate venue. Regardless, the fact that you append an allegation about collaboration to the number of dead is the definition of well poisoning; that you then remove the whole statistic with the edit summary "This article is about the intifada, not the intrafada or crime." despite your previously adding it with the summary "More casualty details. More is better." because I had removed the allegation of collaboration, and then afterwards change your mind again and restore the figure with the allegation ("Stats for Palestinians killed by Palestinians are clearer with the additional info.") speaks for itself. As for the rest, this is not a mirror of B'Tselem, and we are under no obligation to reproduce all of their details, much less to only select some of. Their casualty count is the only detail that should be given prominence, as the rest is extremely controversial. Beyond that, the claims are not even being included accurately, but that is moot. Tewfik^Talk 17:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Typical incoherent reply, Tewfik. You did not address my main point. You are deleting sourced info from B'Tselem. My edit, along with Armon's, referenced and/or named B'Tselem. The rest of the casualty section uses several other sources. All of them are named and referenced in that section.

In the casualties section why are you removing the info about the total number of Palestinians killed by Israelis? And also the B'Tselem breakdown of Palestinian civilians killed versus combatants? Why This repeated deletion fits with your pattern of devaluation of all things Palestinian in Wikipedia. Your frequent attempts in the past to remove "Palestinian" from category names. Your attempts now to remove the "History of Jerusalem" category from being a subcategory of the "Palestinian history" category. Along with Category:British Mandate of Palestine and Category:History of the Ottoman Empire. See: Category talk:History of Jerusalem

The collaboration killings number was attributed to B'Tselem. I don't see how the number for other non-intifada murders is relevant to this article. If so, then why not also include the number of murders of Israelis by Israelis? Please address this directly without going into another one of your incoherent flights of fancy and conspiracy theory. Poisoning the well is what you are trying to talk about. It has nothing to do with anything here.

When I talk about including more casualties info, I am talking about more intifada-related info. Putting the total number of Palestinians killed by Palestinians by itself in the infobox makes it look like they were all killed as part of some intrafada aspect of the intifada. Some kind of factional fighting. That needs to be clarified with the collaboration numbers. Better yet, just put the collaboration killings in the infobox and elucidate the other Palestinian killings by Palestinians in the casualties section. But I guess this is too logical for you, and you prefer to believe it is some kind of evil, well-poisoning plot. --Timeshifter 19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be glad to answer you when you articulate a question devoid of insults and gross incivility. Tewfik^Talk 19:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to think that facts are uncivil. Sorry to confuse you with the facts. Why are you leaving in only the bogus civilian-to-combatant breakdown by a biased group called International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism? Are you going to duck that question too? The B'Tselem breakdown is more accurate since they don't attempt to count past militancy as being a combatant when killed standing around this time. --Timeshifter 19:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Casualties (II)

Greetings. Trying to grok your disagreement. You two seem to disagree on the following:

1. Which of the sources are reliable and deserve to be (potentially) included in the article?
2. What it the appropriate level of statistical breakdown? Specifically, whether to include (or how to name?) casualties between Palestinians?
3. How and/or where to put information about (alleged or inferred?) collaboration?

Please tell me if I've missed or overstated your concerns. Meanwhile, I have to say that, regardless of who is "right" about the evidence, the section itself is hard to read, because it is a series of facts w/o enough supporting encyclopedic text. Should I or you all add some text to put the facts, which are on the table (i.e., in the section), in a narrative or categorized order? Thanks. HG | Talk 02:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your additional explanatory introduction material helped clarify the section. Thanks. I fixed some minor typos and spelling. You have correctly named the points of disagreement. Your edits leave the section with all the data I wanted in the section. Except you left out the B'Tselem data about the number of Israeli civilians killed. Is there any reason this number should not be included in the article? This is the sentence I had in the casualties section: "704 of the 1023 Israeli dead were civilians according to B'Tselem."

And why should the number of typical crime-related murders be included in the infobox? And why only the ones on the Palestinian side? --Timeshifter 07:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A few suggestions for the Palestinian casualties part. This is my best guess judgment, though at the risk of trying to settle rather than mediating the disagreement over sources and breakdowns.

1. B'Tselem seems to be most up-to-date source and somewhat setting the pace. So, it would make sense to lead with their 2007 data. Move up the 2005-6 trend data in last para, but not the raw 2006 data. Then use other sources: (a) to show range of possible problems with their numbers. Since/if the date ranges don't match, then compare IPICT etc using only the percentages IMO. I'm assuming we can do this and still follow WP:NOR. (b) to show possible weakness with BTselem's methodology, e.g. the "criticised for not differentiating" sentence. Ok. Then:
2. Add data or breakdowns that are missed by BTselem, like the Shin Bet data by organization.
3. Boldly toss out data that doesn't fit the above presentation. Get rid of any remaining 2004 Ha'aretz data, outdated BTselem and IPICT data. Sorry guys! Maybe you can save it in a footnote. Next:
4. The critiques from Humanist and placing unarmed people -- do these belong in this section? Well, you might give this a subheading like "Factors that Shape Casualty Rates." Neutral, eh? Or maybe a section on "Views of Intra-Palestinian Casualties" I don't know.

Anyway, sorry if I've left anything out. And yes, I myself see no reason to leave out the 704 Israeli civilians and sorry if I deleted that. Let me know if this is useful or if you want me to make edits in the article. HG | Talk 04:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am all for more viewpoints and criticisms. As long as we use the normal wikipedia WP:NPOV pattern of saying who says what. I am against removing any of what little info and data we already have. If we need more room we can spinout a separate "Casualties of the Second/Al-Aqsa Intifada" article. See WP:NOTPAPER and WP:SPINOUT. I have long helped edit this separate casualties article: Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003. --Timeshifter 09:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter: Thanks. Sounds like you could accept my 1st and 2nd suggestions. You could also accept the 3rd, provided that we save out-dated and misc data in some kind of spinout. Is that right? Personally, a spinout sounds reasonable as long as you can recommend a way to logically arrange the data... but I'd save that q for later. HG | Talk 10:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

HG. Yes to 1 and 2. As for 3, instead of tossing it out, just push it down to the end of the casualties section. Or put it in a subtopic of the casualties section. We keep some yearly stuff at Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003. It provides a kind of timeline of both info and how it was reported on. Both of which are equally important. I think it will be awhile before we have so much info that we will need to spinout an article. As for 4, it can go in subtopics too. It would help people find the info too. Since it would be listed in the table of contents. Again, see Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003. --Timeshifter 11:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Looked. You've got a nice piece there. Still, I suspect you all still tossed out much historical data, because mostly you're presenting competing reliable sources on 2006. Very little from 2004, etc. Anyway, I think readers won't mind if you push the misc data to the end of the section, once you've given them the clearest and fairest (i.e., critiqued) current assessment. What neutral title do you suggest for #4? Thanks. HG | Talk 12:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember tossing much of anything. I think I started editing various casualty pages around the last few months of 2006, though. So others may have tossed some stuff. Take a look though at the contractors section. It has data for various years. It is all relevant because half the story has been the difficulty over the years of getting any info at all about the contractors. Plus the info provides a kind of timeline of the increase in contractors. But the latest stuff is on top of the contractors section. How about your idea of "Intra-Palestinian Casualties" for the title of the subsection to hold the #4 info? I don't think the unarmed people info belongs there, though. It is part of recruiting for the intifada, not the intrafada. --Timeshifter 14:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. When I made this edit I thought the source was considered OK all round. If it is, then as far as the infobox goes, I think we should just reproduce their numbers as they gave them in their "Fatalities 29.9.2000-25.7.2007" table. I think the foreigners' deaths should be included, (those people died too) but I don't think we need to massage the numbers further other than to add the Occupied Territories and Israel numbers together (it's the same conflict). Unless of course, there's objections to the source. <<-armon->> 05:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Armon: Thanks. Sounds like my 4 suggestions are reasonable to you. (Or did you have another referent?) And you're ok with B'Tselem data as the starting point in the section. Given the controversies here, reproducing their data as they present -- and then citing critiques afterward -- sounds like a smart way to proceed. You also bring up the Infobox, which I didn't address. Am I reading you right? HG | Talk 10:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I guess I should have been more clear. At the moment I'm agnostic on larger issues regarding the numbers, instead I was really just talking about the infobox. Assuming B'Tselem's numbers are considered sound, I favour the fatalities listed as I listed them. However, I'm really against picking out a further subset of their data in order to list only those Palestinians killed for "collaboration" by other Palestinians. Firstly, it's OR, and secondly it appears to be a justification for what are essentially lynchings. <<-armon->> 23:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not endorsing the info. Wikipedia is just reporting who says what. We are reporting the questionable International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism info also. --Timeshifter 07:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with using B'Tselem as a source for numbers, for the reasons stated above, and they have long served that function. However, B'Tselem is considered a partisan group and is subject to controversy; they publish a number of details about the numbers, and we are not under any obligation to reproduce all of their data, much less to select only some of it. The civilian numbers that are being introduced in this new edit are only relevant as an indirect measurement of whether a side is using force inappropriately, and serves to skew the picture when it is substituted for actual data on non/combatants. Including such unnecessary and potentially misleading information (something which has drawn published criticism and is not merely my own analysis) undermines the page's neutrality. If other editors believe that foreigners should be included, I won't object, as that data only distinguishes by nationality, and doesn't suffer from the problems I mentioned above. On the other counts, I think we should steer clear of OR where possible, but perhaps it is best to see what you have in mind first. Tewfik^Talk 06:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik: thanks. Though you didn't say so explicitly, sounds like you may be comfortable with all 4 suggestions above -- with the understanding that you are compromising by accepting B'Tselem and putting the critique afterwards. And you're making a concession about foreigners data, too. I agree with you on avoiding OR. Does this mean that you would, like Armon, write the B'Tselem data as reported, not massage it ourselves, and then use other sources to critique B'Tselem data? Sorry if I've misunderstood you. HG | Talk 11:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Rewind: Ok. I think Tewfik is agreeing only partly with #1. Lead with B'Tselem and main data elements. But some data elements would be treated differently. Again, I'm talking out of my hat, but q: Tewfik -- Do you want to propose which data elements ought to be omitted entirely, and which should be given with an opposing view? I'm hoping that you would not insist on omissions, since POV data can often be handled, but it's up to you. thanks HG | Talk 21:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting the total number of Palestinians killed by Palestinians by itself in the infobox makes it look like they were all killed as part of some intrafada aspect of the intifada. Some kind of factional fighting. That is purposely deceptive if left in the infobox now that I bring it up. Many of the murders could be just crime-related or personal grudges, not political grudges. That is better explained in the casualties section of the article.

And how many Israelis killed Israelis? How would that be relevant in the infobox? The collaboration killings of Palestinians is relevant to this Intifada article, since during wartime this is common in many conflicts, and are considered part of the casualties of the war. Just like fraggings in the Vietnam War. Separating out factional deaths from crime or personal grudge-related deaths is difficult. So it is OK by me to leave in the total number of Palestinians killed by Palestinians. But only in the casualties section of the article so that there is no false impression left. That is what is happening now when that info is left in the infobox. --Timeshifter 09:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I hear you feel strongly about the Infobox. Without meaning to take sides, I'd recommend that you all settle on the section's description before condensing it for the Infobox. Since it may be hard for folks to focus on the section knowing that the Infobox is getting read, maybe everyone could agree to simply remove casualties from the Infobox for now? Of course, that would make the article less informative, temporarily, but also not be risking perceived POV. Hmmm. Unless that's outside our jurisdiction? Or, unless Tewfik Armon etc are about to be quickly persuaded by Timeshifter? Meanwhile, I'm glad people are patiently not editing now. HG | Talk 11:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting the total number of Palestinians killed by Palestinians by itself in the infobox makes it look like they were all killed as part of some intrafada aspect of the intifada. Yes it does make it look like these deaths were due to the intifada, because that's how they're listed in the source. Your issue is with B'Tselem I guess. <<-armon->> 23:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

On that page B'Tselem just says 531 "Palestinians killed by Palestinians". Farther down on the same page it says 119 "Palestinians killed by Palestinians for suspected collaboration with Israel." The B'Tselem page has no more info or breakdown on that page concerning the circumstances surrounding Palestinians killed by Palestinians.--Timeshifter 07:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

See quote mining. Whether you mean to or not, this is what you end up doing when you pick out a subset of of their figures. <<-armon->> 08:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am reporting all their info on Palestinians killing Palestinians. You are the one who is quote mining by using quotes and info out of context to imply that all 531 Palestinians killed by other Palestinians were somehow killed as part of the intifada. You are the one picking out a subset of their figures on Palestinians killing Palestinians. --Timeshifter 10:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I used the figure they gave for fatalities in the intifada. It's 531 and each person is listed here. Your opinion on what fatalities "count" is irrelevant OR so you can read this, and drop it.

Another note -B'Tselem says the Hebrew language casualty list is the authoritative one, so we need someone who reads Hebrew to check it. <<-armon->> 11:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

But you are not also reporting this figure that they gave: "119 Palestinians killed by Palestinians for suspected collaboration with Israel". Please stop trying to spin the article. I agree that my opinion or your opinion on what fatalities count does not matter. WP:NPOV says that we just report who says what. I read the B'Tselem page you linked to. It does not give any more info on Palestinians killing Palestinians. Please do not tell me to "drop it." Please stop those kind of uncivil comments. You don't own wikipedia. Please see WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL.--Timeshifter 13:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC

I appreciate that you are both trying to talk this thru.Personally, again, I think this is hard to resolve this yet because it's harder to qualify, explain or contextualize stats in an info box. Not sure why you all aren't postponing this hard issue before easier steps of potential agreement. Anyway: Does B'Tselem or any other source unambiguously support your opinion(s) that specific data elements deserve to be reported together or not? Doesn't NPOV allow us to contextualize sources? (contra Timeshifter) Isn't quote mining a criterion but not nec. determinative? (contra Armon, because encyclopedia alway need to mine statistical data for the most salient facts). HG | Talk 13:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime can we just remove all the Palestinians-killing-Palestinians info from the infobox? I am not disagreeing with Armon's point-of-view about the "collaboration" killings being lynchings. Please, please, please put that info in the casualties section if a reliable source expressing that lynching opinion can be found. Wikipedia says that all significant viewpoints must be expressed in order for WP:NPOV to be satisfied. It is impossible to contextualize much in an infobox. Look at the Iraq War casualties infobox, and compare the tiny amount of data in the infobox compared to the more detailed info in the casualties section of that page, and the huge amount found in the main article, Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003?.--Timeshifter 14:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Timeshifter. If you are addressing me, I am recommending that removal of all casualties data from the infobox temporarily (not only P vs. P), with the hope that various concerns will be clarified and maybe resolved in the course of carefully sifting and presenting the data in the body of the section. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine for now. --Timeshifter 16:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: suggestion (4), here is a proposed subheading: "Intra-Palestinian Casualties." So far, Timeshifter wrote above that he likes the heading with this caveat: "I don't think the unarmed people info belongs there, though. It is part of recruiting for the intifada, not the intrafada." Would folks mind commenting on the title and the caveat for the content of the subsection? Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 16:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I entirely understood the above remarks, but to clarify, I believe that we should continue using B'Tselem's total numbers as they are the most current; we should continue stating B'Tselem's combatant breakdown alongside the other combatant breakdowns. I think the problem is with the newly introduced passage discussing some of B'Tselem's notes on civilians etc., which adds a second venue for their [controversial] position, one which is redundant to their combatant breakdown except to imply something that that data cannot say. While I have no problem with organising a subsection in the "casualties" section for discussion of the internal Palestinian death toll, it should remain in the infobox. As I said earlier, I accept the insertion of the foreign casualties as well. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So I believe you want to leave the data about the 531 Palestinians killed by Palestinians in the infobox. See my reply to Armon higher up concerning quote mining. You are including in the infobox only 1 of the 2 pieces of data from B'Tselem concerning Palestinians killed by Palestinians. That is misleading because it implies that all were killed somehow due to the intifada.

I don't think B'Tselem would appreciate the misrepresentation of their data. And I think if you are worried about providing a second venue for some of B'Tselem's info, then it makes sense to only provide one venue for this particular info subset in the casualties section. A subsection called something like "Intra-Palestinian Casualties" (name suggested by HG).

I have no problem with the foreign casualties data in the infobox. --Timeshifter 11:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

On (4), so far Timeshifter and Tewfik can agree to a subsection. The Timeshifter accepts "Intra-Palestinian Casualties" (which I floated but not stuck to), Tewfik did not specify a subheading and uses the word internal. Armon did not reply, I wouldn't assume tacit approval. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Casualties (III)

It's good not to ;) since I've put the causalities back as sorted by the source (well OK, I've added the counts Occupied Territories and Israel together). I still don't see what the problem is with this. The first point I want to make clear is: are B'Tselem's figures considered sound all around? <<-armon->> 02:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I returned the infobox stats format back to the longstanding version that has been up for a couple months. Please discuss before further changes. No one is perfectly happy with the existing format, but it seems to have been tolerable for the last couple months. --Timeshifter 07:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is non-responsive. <<-armon->> 11:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Second Intifada
Location {{{place}}}
Casualties and losses
1025 Israelis killed total. [1] 704 Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians; 321 Israeli security force personnel killed by Palestinians	4308 Palestinians total killed by Israelis. [2] The civilian versus combatant breakdown is highly disputed. B'Tselem reports that Israeli security forces killed 2028 Palestinian civilians, 1414 Palestinian combatants, 218 Palestinians as objects of targeted killings, and 606 Palestinians of unknown status. 41 Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians. An additional 541 Palestinians killed by Palestinians. Of those B'Tselem reports 120 "Palestinians killed by Palestinians for suspected collaboration with Israel." B'Tselem does give totals for how many are ordinary murders, accidental crossfire deaths, part of factional fighting, etc.. B'Tselem does list detailed info info here: [3]
53 Foreign citizens killed by Palestinians. 10 Foreign citizens killed by Israeli security forces.

(unindent). OK. I put the infobox casualty numbers in your format on BOTH sides. Here is the infobox to the right.

I also added totals. --Timeshifter 16:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I keep updating my working infobox to the right. --Timeshifter 23:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See below for the totals as the source actually gave them:

Fatalities

Link to source

As I've said before, I did add the "Occupied Territories" and "Israel" figures together, mainly for space in the infobox and the fact it's the same conflict. This is the only editorial judgement I made. Compare this to Timeshifter's version.

The first question is, how does 4204 + 63 + 541 equal a "total" of 4308? <<-armon->> 05:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on wikifying the detailed chart from btselem.org. I added up all Palestinian deaths by Israelis to get the 4308 total. 4204 + 63 + 41 = 4308. I separated the 541 Palestinians killed by Palestinians. I will try to clarify this in the infobox by moving it down. I moved it down in the article infobox, and in the working infobox to the right. --Timeshifter 06:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's clear you separated the 541 Palestinians killed by Palestinians. What's not clear is why. These people don't count? <<-armon->> 10:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians killed by Palestinians is different from Palestinians killed by Israelis. Otherwise why would btselem.org separate the numbers that way? I don't understand your bizarre leap to this question: "These people don't count?". Freudian slip maybe? --Timeshifter 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I raised the question because you appear not to want to count them. Anyway, I'm going to rv back with the addition of the totals. We need stick closely to sources and not add in our own interpretations of the data. <<-armon->> 00:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You deleted sourced info from the same btselem.org page that you are using for casualty numbers on the Israeli side. See this diff: [4]

I did not put in any WP:OR info as you accused me of. Please stop this deception, or I will report your incivility to WP:ANI. You deleted the civilian-combatant breakdown on the Palestinian side, but left it in on the Israeli side. I reverted this one-sided blanking.

I also am putting in the btselem.org breakdown for Palestinians killed by Palestinians. My concern has always been that just putting in the total number for that without further info makes it look like ordinary murders having nothing to do with the Intifada are being counted somehow as part of the Intifada.

I added this on the Palestinian side: "The civilian versus combatant breakdown is highly disputed. B'Tselem reports ..." --Timeshifter 14:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Casualties (IV)

Folks, sorry if I'm being stupid, but where in this B'Tselem report is it clear that the statistics are for the second intifada? The page for the 541 stat simply says "Palestinians killed by Palestinians in the Occupied Territories." If you look at the breakdown by year, the reason for the discrepancy between this stat and the suspected collaborators stat (120) becomes abundantly clear. 6 in 2000, 39 in 2001, 65 in 2002, 11 in 2003, 32 in 2004, 15 in 2005, 35 in 2006, then a whopping 318 for 2007.

The civil war in Gaza, folks.

Is the civil war in Gaza part of the 2nd intifada? Maybe it is – I don't mean this as a rhetorical question. Does B'Tselem clearly present it as such? --G-Dett 21:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes they do -see here. <<-armon->> 22:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't. See the page:

http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/Casualties_Clarifications.asp

All it says is "Regarding Palestinians who were killed, the data state whether they took part in the fighting, in the event that B’Tselem has this information."

B’Tselem does not have this info for many Palestinians. That is why B’Tselem reports on 603 "Palestinians who were killed by Israeli security forces and it is not known if they were taking part in the hostilities"

That is from: http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp

Also from that main page on casualties it reports on 120 "Palestinians killed by Palestinians for suspected collaboration with Israel."

B’Tselem does not say anything further about the 541 "Palestinians killed by Palestinians." --Timeshifter 22:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the best thing would be to give both numbers. Both are sourced to the same source and same document, so there'd be no question of OR. If we give the reader only the 541, my guess is most readers will assume that many were killed as suspected collaborators. I think most would not assume that casualties of the civil war in Gaza would be given as 2nd intifada stats. Giving both stats lets the reader form the picture.--G-Dett 22:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

First sentence on the page: Since the beginning of the current intifada, B’Tselem has published on its website the names of every person (Israeli, Palestinian, and foreign) who was killed in the violence.

Last sentence: The lists of fatalities relate to persons killed during incidents related to the al-Aqsa intifada, and are to be viewed solely in that light.

Emphasis mine. Case closed. <<-armon->> 22:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that's pretty clear. Would you agree that giving both stats, like B'Tselem does, would be a good idea?--G-Dett 22:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You are taking it out of context. B’Tselem was not referring to Palestinians killed by Palestinians in that section of that page. Here is that section:

"Regarding Palestinians who were killed, the data state whether they took part in the fighting, in the event that B’Tselem has this information. In some cases, the data provide a short description of the circumstances in which the individual was killed. B’Tselem emphasizes that the listing of a person as a civilian, or having not participated in the fighting, or the inclusion of any other details regarding the cause of death, does not indicate that the person or entity that killed the individual violated the law, or that the deceased was innocent, or that any other legal or moral conclusion can be drawn from the facts. The lists of fatalities relate to persons killed during incidents related to the al-Aqsa intifada, and are to be viewed solely in that light."

If a Palestinian is not indicated as a collaborator, and if that Palestinian was killed by another Palestinian, then it is an unknown murder. B’Tselem has no other info. --Timeshifter 23:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, B'Tselem does seem to specify that these are murders "related to the al-Aqsa intifada."--G-Dett 23:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In their summary data page for the Intifada all they mention is "Palestinians killed by Palestinians for suspected collaboration with Israel". Their clarification page is not that clarifying. :)

Their detailed list of Palestinians killed by Palestinians is much more clear. See:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties_Data.asp?Category=23

There one sees that many deaths are random, accidental, part of factional fighting, etc.. --Timeshifter 23:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm completely in agreement with you that the stat is confusing. I think it would be especially confusing if it were given without the other stat for "collaborators." I don't it's bizarre or outrageous to classify the Gaza civil war as part of the intifada; it certainly was catalyzed by those pressures. It's just that it's not all that obvious, and the average person wouldn't assume it; they'd assume 541 "collaborators" were executed.

To my mind, the solution is fairly simple: give both stats. Readers can sort it out, and there's no whiff whatsoever of OR. I don't like the idea of giving stats we've dug up elsewhere for Israelis killing Israelis. If the sources say nothing about the 2nd intifada, that could be seen as original research, or worse, WP:POINT.--G-Dett 23:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

But if we put in the infobox just the total of 541 Palestinians killed by Palestinians, then it could also be looked at as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It is much more clear in the detailed page at

http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties_Data.asp?Category=23

that many of these deaths are questionable at best as being related to the Intifada. Maybe tangentially related. But B’Tselem does not make that claim. It justs list the details it has and lets the reader decide. I think the infobox is the wrong place for explaining the info about Palestinians killed by Palestinians. That should go in the article itself where it can be explicated in a WP:NPOV way. --Timeshifter 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So we put in both, yeah? I mean, 541 and 120? The reader sees 120 collaborators, 541 total killed, and it dawns on her (correctly) that factional fighting in Gaza has quadrupled the number. And we don't violate POINT or OR. Wouldn't that make sense? Don't get me wrong – I agree with you that including the Gaza war as part of the intifada is a little strange, but the fact is notwithstanding their vague phrasing, that is exactly what B'Tselem have done, and Armon is going to hold them to it. :) --G-Dett 23:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhh no, we don't. There's a policy against original research which forbids us from altering sources in order to introduce some editors' analysis of the figures. <<-armon->> 00:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Armon, who are you talking to? I know there's an OR policy; I've just cited it, for heaven's sake. What does it have to do with citing statistics from B'Tselem? Who on earth is proposing "altering statistics"?--G-Dett 00:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking to both of you. Look, we have the chart of the fatalities that B'Tselem gave. We can do very minor stuff like formating or giving totals without breeching OR. If we start picking out subsets of the data for "clarity" because you want to make a point, it's OR -it's as simple as that. The source arranged the figures as they did, it's not up to us to "improve" it. <<-armon->> 01:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can be talking to me. All I've suggested is citing their statistics – not adding them, not "contextualizing" them, not calling special attention to one or the other, not "improving" them in any way. I just don't get what you're saying, Armon.--G-Dett 01:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The "collaborators" aren't listed in the main chart -they are a subset of the figures. Sure, you could argue that you haven't explicitly made a point, but it's still selectively presenting data to lead the reader to your conclusion. Still no good. <<-armon->> 01:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think citing statistics directly from a main source without editorial intervention of any kind can reasonably be called "original research," Armon, without inventing a very convoluted and POINTy application of that policy. There are two charts. The one you're calling the "main chart" comprises seven different stats. We use a couple of them, and add a couple of them together to create more general categories, etc.; in other words, we're "selectively presenting data" already. (All decent writing and editing, even the lowly sort we do around here, involves the "selective" presentation of data.) To say that introducing a statistic from the "additional data" chart constitutes a different kind of selectivity, and one that somehow violates OR, is an ingenious argument but not a reasonable or compelling one.--G-Dett 14:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The second chart is titled Additional data (included in previous table) -i.e. a further breakdown of the data. I've omitted nothing from the first chart, I've added nothing from any other one. If you want to highlight some, but not all, of the additional data, you're substituting your judgement for that of the source. <<-armon->> 22:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This is non-responsive. --Timeshifter 23:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Total red herring.--G-Dett 00:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've explained what the problem is, and the editor(s) who don't like the way the source presented the causalities have been explicit in stating it's because they have a POV they want to advance. You guys can contradict me all you like, but it doesn't make the OR problem go away. You want to call it pointy, fine, but it's just wikilayering to get the POV OR in. If you guys don't like B'Tselem's breakdown, take it up with them. <<-armon->> 00:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"None so blind as those who refuse to see." I don't have a problem with B'Tselem's 2 tables. You do. You WP:OR and WP:SYNTH by selectively choosing from only one of the 2 tables, and then try to BS everybody here. Nice try. Next... --Timeshifter 00:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, this has to be one of the silliest distortions/interpretations of WP:NOR I've ever seen. All writing from sources on Wikipedia involves "selection." And the version you keep sticking back in is a selection; it doesn't correspond at all to "B'Tselem's breakdown," so your OR-case here isn't even internally consistent – it's just plain old balderdash.

Drop the crazy wikilawyering, and just say which of B'Tselem's statistics you think are most relevant, and why. Other editors can do the same. Consensus about what's most relevant will emerge.--G-Dett 16:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not wikilawyering, it's sticking to the sources. If it's agreed that B'Tselem is a RS for the casualties, then we should use their count, end of story. We don't get say "oh these people count" and "no, these people don't count" according to your POV. It's really that simple. The no original research is a core WP policy and it is non-negotiable so if you'd like to continue throwing up specious objections about their count (such as, "Oh, did they really mean the Second Intifada?" and "Oh, can't we do a better count than they did? Let's selectively highlight a subset of their figures!") go ahead, but I'm done discussing it. I'll just remove it. <<-armon->> 11:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Citing B'Tselem's statistics is "using their count," and you've crossed from wikilawyering into trolling.--G-Dett 13:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk archives

Talk archives 1, 2, and 3 are now red-linked. Can an admin find these archives?

I just created talk archive 4 and a talk archive of Al-Aqsa and Second Intifada discussions. See the archive box at the top of this talk page.

Here are the link bars below for the article. They may help in finding lost talk archives.

• Second Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Al-Aqsa Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For help on archiving please see Help:Archiving a talk page. --Timeshifter 11:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"See also" links

Tewfik and Humus are repeatedly removing Occupation 101 (2006 documentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) from the "See also" links section. See Tewfik's last diff [5]

I returned the "see also" link. The "See also" link is to a wikipedia page. Wikipedia pages are WP:NPOV. They allow people to do further reading on wikipedia having to do with the subject of the article.

The documentary has won many awards. Its site mentions many well-known people in it. So it is info that meets wikipedia's reliable source standards. Its partisan or non-partisan nature is irrelevant. "See also" links are not limited to non-partisan topics, and never have been. Same as for the further reading sections. --Timeshifter 17:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Related documentaries

Hello? Hmmm, shouldn't you all be Talking about this here? I've got no substantive guidance on your disagreement, except why carry it on thru edit summaries, why engage in unproductive reverts? What are you policy or editorial reasons for inclusion or exclusion? Do you need third party opinions on whether an item belongs under the topic? Is this a POV or a sources dispute? etc. Au revoir, HG | Talk 17:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't think they merit inclusion because we should be pointing people to scholarly sources -not dueling POV documentaries. We could easily fill 10 or 12 screen-fulls of this kind of stuff, but in the case of controversial topics like this, we should raise standards to avoid disputes. <<-armon->> 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Armon wrote: "we should be pointing people to scholarly sources"

From: http://www.occupation101.com/interviewees.html - Here is the cast of the documentary Occupation 101:

The entire list of featured interviews:

• Dr. Albert Aghazarian (Birzeit University)
• Ambassador James E. Akins (Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia)
• Rabbi Arik Ascherman (Rabbis for Human Rights)
• Dr. William Baker (Christians and Muslims for Peace)
• Bishop Allen Bartlett, Jr. (Diocese of Washington)
• Phyllis Bennis (Institute for Policy Studies)
• Peter Boukaert (Human Rights Watch)
• Sharon Burke (Amnesty International)
• Noam Chomsky (Political Analyst - MIT Professor)
• Father Drew Christiansen (United States Catholic Conference)
• Cindy and Craig Corrie (Parents of late peace activist Rachel Corrie)
• Douglas Dicks (Catholic Relief Services)
• Richard Falk] (United Nations Fact-finding Commission)
• Paul Findley (U.S. Congressman 1961-1983)
• Thomas Getman (World Vision International)
• Neta Golan (International Solidarity Movement)
• Jeff Halper (Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions)
• Amira Hass (Israeli Journalist -- Ha'aretz)
• Doug Hostetter (Fellowship of Reconciliation)
• Kathy Kamphoefner (Christian Peacemaker Team)
• Adam Keller (Gush Shalom - Israeli Peace Group)
• Hava Keller (Woman's Organization for Political Prisoners)
• Rashid Khalidi (School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia U)
• Peretz Kidron (Yesh Gvul - Israeli Peace Group)
• Rabbi Michael Lerner (Tikkun Community)
• Rabbi Rebecca Lillian (Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace)
• Roger Normand (Center for Economic and Social Rights)
• Allegra Pacheco (Israeli Human Rights Lawyer)
• Ilan Pappe (Israeli Historian - Haifa University)
• Dr. Iyad Sarraj (Prominent Palestinian Psychologist)
• Yael Stein (B'Tselem - Israeli Human Rights Group)
• Gila Svirsky (Coalition of Women for a Just Peace)
• Ambassador Edward Walker (Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel)
• Alison Weir (If Americans Knew) --Timeshifter 07:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is also non-responsive. You've got a few scholars mixed with a of bunch of activists pushing a particular POV on the situation. This only proves my point. <<-armon->> 11:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Armon wrote in a comment higher up in this section: "we should raise standards to avoid disputes."

This documentary has won many awards:

The film has won several awards from various film festivals.

• Winner of the "Golden Palm" Award (highest honor given by jury) and for "Best Editing" at the 2007 International Beverly Hills Film Festival.
• Winner of the 'Artivist Award' for Best Feature Film under the category of Human Rights at the 2006 Artivist Film Festival in Hollywood.
• Winner of the Best Documentary Award (Special Recognition) at the 2007 New Orleans International Human Rights Film Festival.
• Winner of the Best Feature Film Award at the 2006 River's Edge Film Festival.
• Winner of the Best Documentary Feature Award at 2006 The Dead Center Film Festival.
• Winner of the Audience Award for Best Documentary at 2006 East Lansing Film Festival.
• Winner of the John Michaels Memorial Award at the 2006 Big Muddy Film Festival.

So this is one of the better external links we could use. And it is even better in that there is a wikipedia article on it. Wikipedia article topics require notability. So this is an external link that is notable, won many awards, and has scholarly input. --Timeshifter 16:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, this strikes me as passing notability and reliable source criteria. Assuming the film reflects an anti-Israeli gov't POV, perhaps Timeshifter would you accept putting this under a "See Also" subheading divided by the different points-of-view? I've seen the "See Also" categorized by POV in other articles. Would that be ok with Tewfik, Armon, et alia? Thanks. HG | Talk 13:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to categorize the "see also" section by POV. The external links section is broken down by POV. I have seen all kinds of breakdowns in the "see also" and external links sections of other articles. I haven't seen the film clips, but something tells me it is against the right-wing of Israeli politics. So I guess that is pro-Palestinian, but not necessarily anti-Israel. :) --Timeshifter 14:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought we agreed that "Occupation 101" was extremely notable - why is it not amongst the "See Also" links? PR^talk 18:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I believe I made a mistake. "External links" sections are divided by POV, but I'm not aware of such divisions for "See also" sections -- since all our articles should be presented in a neutral way. Instead, I suggest: put the external link under "Pro-Palestinian" and the article as an annotated link: "Occupation 101, a documentary favorable to the Palestinian view" -- ok? I'll WP:BRD it. HG | Talk 13:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Another mistake... I thought that the dust had settled on this question. I gather Tewfik and maybe others are still concerned about whether any documentaries should be added. So, I self-reverted on the link. In terms of the "See also", there are now 2 films. So, rather than undo both, I'd like to encourage Tewfik and others to advance the discussion. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if a doco won at some awards, film festivals, especially non notable ones, aren't anything like peer review. My objection still stands. <<-armon->> 23:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, it's hard for me to see the grounds for your objection. (1) You want to rely on "high quality" sources like peer review. A fine idea, but not applicable. The "See also" section is not a set of sources but rather related articles. WP:ALSO: "The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid." (2) You want to avoid disputes, which is admirable (believe me!), but not grounds to omit text or topics in Wikipedia. (3) In what I take to be hyperbole, you say we "fill 10 or 12 screen-fulls of this kind of stuff." Again, this doesn't strike me as an objection -- if the Second Intifada has so many related articles (like Occupation 101), then it should be a category. Anyway, please be real -- can you even name 5 other award-winning documentaries about the 2nd intifada that have articles? If you don't have a persuasive policy-based objection, then folks might infer that your objection is animated by dislike for the film itself. I look forward to your response. HG | Talk 02:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the fact that I deleted both docos. If you want to watch either, they are on You Tube see here and here. I don't see what either adds except to soapbox, and I don't see what the big deal is, unless some editors insist on it. <<-armon->> 01:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the "Related Documentaries" section in order to solve the dispute over including/removing Occupation 101. As long as an equal number of pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian documentaries are provided and documentaries on both sides are put in an order which does not place one side over the other, I see no issue with having such a section. Although I guess others may disagree. ← Michael Safyan 05:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, hi. Your comment seems unresponsive to the claim, stated immediately above, that Occupation 101 deals only marginally with the Second Intifada. (There's also been a concern about whether documentaries belong at all, but I don't see a policy basis for that concern.) In addition -- and this goes for people on both "sides" of the struggle here -- neutrality doesn't mean a quid pro quo of one "See also" source matched off against another. Sources be presented in a neutral fashion and be included if they are notable and relevant. If Occupation 101 passes muster, but no anti-Palestinian documentary of sufficient quality has an article, so be it. And vice versa. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

HG, I agree with your quid pro quo point. There is still the problem that neither is specifically about the Second Intifada, and as for "policy", the guideline for "See alsos" strongly suggests that they are for further exploration of the article's topic, not to highlight "must-see" films. <<-armon->> 00:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Good, so Armon and I agree that it's relevant to check the degree to which the film focuses on, and further explores, the Second Intifada. The film's website gives this synopsis: "A thought-provoking and powerful documentary film on the current and historical root causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.... The film covers a wide range of topics -- which include -- the first wave of Jewish immigration from Europe in the 1880's, the 1920 tensions, the 1948 war, the 1967 war, the first Intifada of 1987, the Oslo Peace Process, Settlement expansion, the role of the United States Government, the second Intifada of 2000, the separation barrier and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, as well as many heart wrenching testimonials from victims of this tragedy." Well, I wouldn't expect to see the documentary as a "See also" for each of these 10 or so subtopics. Instead, better to list the film under the broader article(s) about the Isr-Pal conflict and its overall causes. Sorry, Timeshifter, about changing my mind, but I had assumed the documentary focused on the intifada. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, HG, I believe the "many heart wrenching testimonials from victims of this tragedy" focus on the Second Intifada. The movie clip called "Gaza Reality" that I looked at on the official site showed some of those testimonials, and focussed heavily on the Second Intifada. There are several more clips I can view. The clips are at:

http://www.occupation101.com/multimedia.html --Timeshifter 04:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are narrowing down the disagreement (as least betw Timeshifter and Armon) to a factual question: Does the film focus heavily on Second Intifada. Personally, I'd be inclined to accept Timeshifter's reading of the film's testimonials. I don't think it's a WP:OR issue, assuming that the testimonials can be readily id'd as pertaining to the Second Intifada. (It's like identifying major vs minor characters in a book.) Nonetheless, I'd suggest that Timeshifter handle this question by first editing Occupation 101 to clearly mention the film's focus on Second Intifada. The source can be the film itself (and footnoting the relevant testimonials, if need be). As long as that mention stands (or withstands challenges), then the inclusion here should be acceptable to Armon. Right? HG | Talk 06:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

To be specific the "Gaza Reality" clip has interviews with kids discussing things happening to them the last few years during the time of the Second Intifada. Even if the film does not focus mainly on the Second Intifada it is highly relevant to a Wikipedia article on the topic. It would be useful to put some quotes from the kids in the article, and just link to the clip page directly as a reference. We have already established the notability of the film. A wikipedia footnote reference often has both external links and wikilinks. This may be a way to solve the problems here concerning those who are against putting the wikilink in the "See also" section. Instead we put the wikilink in the reference footnote along with the link to the clip page. --Timeshifter 07:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong to list Palestinians killed by other Palestinians

We know that some of the Jews in the Holocaust collaborated with the Nazis and were killed for it by other Jews - eg Warsaw Ghetto "One of the first acts of the ghetto resistance was to kill an officer in the Jewish police." But that's not high-lighted in any of the articles on the subject (I'm not sure it's mentioned in any of them)

So why are we insisting that killing amongst Palestinians, for this very same reason, be high-lighted? PR^talk 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Because an RS lists them as causalities of the conflict -which they are. Whether you think the extrajudicial killings were warranted or not is irrelevant. <<-armon->> 13:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, B'Tselem says they fatalities are "killed during incidents related to the al-Aqsa intifada", which isn't precisely "casualties of the conflict". I'd keep it but quote that in the footnote. <eleland/talkedits> 22:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That is taken out of context. See my related reply higher up. If a Palestinian is not indicated as a collaborator, and if that Palestinian was killed by another Palestinian, then it is an unknown murder (at least on the summary page [6]). B’Tselem has no other info on the summary page for Palestinians killed by Palestinians. There is more specific info here:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties_Data.asp?Category=23

But B’Tselem does not give totals for those detailed deaths. Totals for deaths due to crossfire, murder, factional fighting, etc..--Timeshifter 23:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Security is very poor in those parts, particularily Gaza, where Israel has particularily targeted police stations.[7]. In Jenin 2002, they first blew up the prison. PR^talk 18:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Israelis killed by Israelis.

I have found some info on the number of Israelis killed by Israelis during the time of the Intifada:

• http://www.unodc.org/pdf/research/9th_survey/CTS9ByCountryExtract.pdf (page 59)
• http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton56/st11_07.pdf

The number of Israelis killed by Israelis during the time of the Intifada should be discussed in the article if the number of Palestinians killed by Palestinians is discussed in the article.

The article lists the number of Palestinians killed by Palestinians. From the main B’Tselem summary page on casualties [8] it reports on 120 "Palestinians killed by Palestinians for suspected collaboration with Israel."

B’Tselem does not say anything further on the summary page about the 541 "Palestinians killed by Palestinians."

I don't see how most of these casualties are part of the Intifada. I can see how the collaboration deaths might be considered part of the Intifada. But do the deaths in Gaza in 2007 count as part of the Intifada? See Battle of Gaza (2007). And what about ordinary murders, or crossfire deaths, or factional fighting in the West Bank and Gaza?

And if Palestinians killed by Palestinians is mentioned in the infobox should we not also mention that many of these deaths were ordinary murders, crossfire deaths, factional fighting, or part of a separate non-Intifada struggle in Gaza?

There is more detailed info here:

• http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties_Data.asp?Category=23

But there are no breakdown totals for that info. --Timeshifter 23:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. Maybe we should find out the nationalities of the foreigners killed and add those countries' murder stats as well. If the guy in Tel aviv who got killed for screwing someone else's wife counts, then why not the guy who got shot in a robbery in Toronto? <<-armon->> 01:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should include people who didn't get shot in Toronto. It is too easy in these situations to forget what could have happened but didn't, in other places at other times.--G-Dett 01:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Including people who didn't get shot in Toronto is going to increase the "body count" by about 2.5 million. <<-armon->> 01:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's what we have to do to make this article comprehensive, then that's what we have to do. What about people who didn't get shot in places that aren't Toronto? What about them? The forgotten, I call them.--G-Dett 01:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You're obviously a specieist, what about animals and the saucer people? <<-armon->> 01:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

All of you are forgetting the people who didn't get stabbed. Not getting stabbed doesn't kill at least twice as many people yearly as not getting shot! <eleland/talkedits> 01:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well. Do folks actually agree w/Timeshifter that Palestinian (and Toronto) deaths, unrelated to intifada activities, should be excluded? (Glad to see you all have such fine senses of humor, but don't give up your day jobs....) If so, how should the data be excluded? (e.g., 120 but not the excess in the 541?) Boringly yours, HG | Talk 14:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Second Intifada
Location {{{place}}}
Casualties and losses
1025 Israelis killed by Palestinians. [9]	4308 Palestinians killed by Israelis. [10]
The civilian versus combatant breakdown is highly disputed. As is the relation to the Intifada of Palestinians killed by Palestinians. See the casualties section. 53 foreign citizens killed by Palestinians. 10 foreign citizens killed by Israeli security forces.

There is a discussion by the editor, Kirill Lokshin (on the ArbCom committee), of the military infobox template that might bear on all of this. See this section of the talk page. The "casus belli" field of the infobox may be deleted because it only confuses many readers. There is other discussion on that talk page about related issues. There is a long history of trying to compress too much info into the infobox. It often just can't be done in a WP:NPOV way. So we should not try to do it here in my opinion.

I think about the only thing we agree on for the casualties in the infobox are the total number of Israelis killed by Palestinians, and the total number of Palestinians killed by Israelis. That is short and to the point. All else is discussed in the casualties section of the article, and we already have consensus on the info in that section. I put a shorter working infobox to the right to illustrate this idea. Compare it to the longer version higher up that I am working on. The casualties section link will work when this infobox is placed in the article.--Timeshifter 16:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the best approach is to include both stats, the 120 and the 541.--G-Dett 13:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it still gives the impression that all 541 deaths of Palestinians killed by Palestinians are part of the Intifada. B'Tselem does not specifically state that. One can only imply that by trying to connect various disconnected statements on btselem.org pages. Or one can make a case for a tangential relation. As in the Gaza 2007 deaths being somehow connected to the Intifada. But it would be WP:SYNT and only an assumption on our parts. --Timeshifter 18:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Another infobox as an example

[Note: To see the infobox please see it at the top right of Iraq War.]

To the right is the current casualties section of another infobox. It is for the Iraq War article. Note the link to more info at the end:

"For explanations of the wide variation in casualty estimates, see: Casualties of the Iraq War"

Many people, myself included, have worked on that infobox. There is a LOT more info we could put in that infobox. More estimates from more sources. Many more details, etc.. But we just touched on the high points, and did not favor any estimate, high or low. As WP:NPOV requires, the reader decides. --Timeshifter 16:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to provide an example of a long casualties section in an infobox. Military article infoboxes come in all sizes. Some are very short, some are very long. --Timeshifter 22:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox. Civilian versus combatant breakdown of deaths.

It seems that Tewfik and Armon are currently trying to include only the Israeli civilian versus combatant breakdown in the casualties section of the infobox. See these diffs: [11] [12]

Their source, B'Tselem, also has the Palestinian civilian versus combatant breakdown on the same source page.[13]

It is against WP:NPOV to only include the info for one side when it is easily available for both sides. I agree though, that it is controversial and highly disputed. That is why I suggest keeping that info out of the infobox. It is already in a fuller context in the casualties section of the article. --Timeshifter 22:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

2nd table on main B'Tselem casualties page

2nd table from B'Tselem casualties page:

The title of the table is Additional data (included in previous table). It is a subset. You really need to review WP:SYNT. We also need to refactor this page. <<-armon->> 11:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I will let stand your deletions of the tables copied from other articles since people can go to the articles to see them. I deleted the table you copied from another article.

I returned the infobox table I am working on for this article. This table is not duplicated elsewhere. So do not delete it, Armon. See WP:TALK about editing others' comments.

Call the second table at B'Tselem casualties page what you want Armon. It is still additional source info from a reliable source.

WP:SYNT states: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[1] 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

You are the one synthesizing a spin in the infobox, Armon, by selectively including some stats and not others. You include a total for Israeli civilian deaths, but not of Palestinian civilian deaths. --Timeshifter 18:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Any "selection" was done by B'Tselem's research team, not me. Rubbish. <<-armon->> 23:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges once wrote a story about a Frenchman, one Pierre Menard, who undertakes to rewrite Don Quixote in the 20th century. The twist is he wants his "rewrite" to be verbally identical to the original. First he plans to "know Spanish well, recover the Catholic faith, fight against the Moors or the Turk, forget the history of Europe between the years 1602 and 1918" – in short, to become Miguel de Cervantes – but then decides that would be too easy; a more compelling work of art would be produced by remaining Menard, and writing his own novel uniquely representing his world view, but which through a process of rigorous revision would become the Quixote. Along the way he burns his drafts, so in the end what’s left is Don Quixote, which is – by this sort of planned coincidence – identical word-for-word to Cervantes’ novel, only it’s Menard’s. On one level Borges’ story is a Carrollian joke about a Quixotic enterprise. On another level it’s a (semi) serious philosophical game, asking us to consider the idea that every time we read a book we transform it. Or put another way, that a book’s "context" is more than the printed symbols on a page; its context includes its milieu, the world in which it is read, the collective historical experience brought to bear upon it. To read an old book is to "quote it out of context," as it were; and reading it very closely, far from restoring the original context, in fact makes the book your own.

Armon’s theory that citing B’Tselem is "original research" seems to be a parallel philosophical jeu d’esprit. Perhaps the point is that at some level, all writing from sources (that is, all of Wikipedia) is "quoting out of context," and that any Wikipedian who cites a source is engaging in a Menard-like "original" synthesis or composition. Borges is deadpan; perhaps Armon is as well.

If however there’s anyone here who thinks Armon means this seriously and finds his theory compelling editorial advice, could they please explain it to me? I’ve read his various formulations of it, and maybe I’m missing a gene or something but I can only understand it as a joke, or a philosophical puzzle, or – but this seems least likely – genuine good-faith idiocy.--G-Dett 02:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC on WP:NOR

We're having a dispute on this page about whether citing multiple statistics from a single report by a single source constitutes original research. The report in question is B'Tselem's statistics on fatalities. The report, as you'll see, consists of two charts plus added notes. All parties are agreed that our chart is to be "selective" – i.e., that we needn't and shouldn't reproduce B'Tselem's chart(s) en toto. One editor's position is that we may select and compile (i.e., add together) statistics from the first chart, but to include any statistic from the second chart (which B'Tselem describes as "additional data" and the editor describes as a "subset") constitutes a violation of synthesis. In my understanding, WP:SYN refers to synthesizing material from source A with material from source B in order "to advance position C." In the case at hand, there is only one source – the B'Tselem report – and there is no "position C," only multiple statistics from the same report. To my mind, saying that we may only quote one of two charts from a single report is akin to saying we may only quote the first paragraph of a New York Times article.

The statistics in question are the number of Palestinians killed by Palestinians (541) and the number of Palestinians killed by Palestinians for suspected collaboration with Israel (120). B'Tselem gives the first number in the first chart, the second number in the second. Several editors believe that the second stat is relevant to this article. At any rate, given that all are agreed that we must select which of B'Tselem's statistics we present, it seems to me that discussion should focus on which are relevant and why, and that where there is only one source and no novel conclusions, WP:SYN doesn't enter into the equation. Comments welcome.--G-Dett 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Since there's some dispute about what a subset is (and I'm accused of wikilawyering!) I guess that we need to establish what a subset is. If every member of set A is also a member of set B, then A is said to be a subset of B. For example, if you had a table entitled Additional data (included in previous table) those figures would therefore be a subset of the previous table. <<-armon->> 01:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, there's no dispute about what a "subset" is; there's just a sort of bemusement at your talismanic repetition of the word. Are you under the impression that WP:NOR or WP:SYN forbids the use of "subsets"?--G-Dett 14:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading on some policy page -- maybe it was WP:OR, but the page doesn't currently say so -- that very simple, straightforward calculations are not considered original research. For instance, if the source says, "some 10% of the city's population are Afro-Caribbean", and lists the population as 93,000, then we are justified in saying that around 9,300 Afro-Caribbean people live there. Of course, this is something of a slippery slope, as all the WikiCranks would love to start from established figures and then apply fifth-order differential calculus to prove their pet theories. But in this particular case, we're dealing with statistics from the same source, and the calcs do not appear to be any more complicated than addition and subtraction. Thus, while there may or may not be valid arguments -- I haven't looked closely enough to see -- I don't think that WP:SYNTH applies here. We have to actually discuss the assumptions and the calculations logically and try to come to a conclusion.

Oh, here's the policy (Wikipedia:Attribution#What is not original research?): "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions. For example, if a published source gives the numbers of votes cast in an election by candidate, it is not original research to include percentages alongside the numbers, so long as it is a simple calculation and the vote counts all come from the same source. Deductions of this nature should not be made if they serve to advance a position, or if they are based on source material published about a topic other than the one at hand." <eleland/talkedits> 17:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that no one seems to be disputing the straightforward calculations; I think we are all agreed on those. The argument seems indeed to be that selecting, adding, compiling stats from the first table is fine, but a stat from a table of "additional data" in the same source cannot be cited (not added to any other, just cited). I've seen many fractious debates about OR on contentious pages, but I've never before seen it argued that WP:SYN construes "subsections" or sentences or paragraphs within a single article or report as separate "sources," but that is precisely what's being argued here.--G-Dett 17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

When you ask for an RfC, doesn't that presuppose that you're all trying to discuss and not edit war over this? Really, you folks should be spanked for edit warring. How about waiting for some comments by uninvolved parties?!HG | Talk —Preceding comment was added at 14:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify for the people coming in for the RFC. The issue is that some editors want to selectively highlight one subset of B'Tselem's statistics in order to advance a point about which fatalities "really count". It's really not that complicated. This is clearly the WP:SYNTH variation of original research. <<-armon->> 01:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of deceptive clarification above. All editors involved in the dispute want to cite B'Tselem's statistics "selectively" rather than en toto, and no editor has proposed to "highlight" anything. Armon is arguing that we may selectively cite the report's first chart but any material from the report's second chart is off-limits as "original research." This RfC applies only to Armon's theory that citing two tables from the same report is a violation of WP:SYN. The RfC is not about which stats from the B'Tselem report are most relevant and appropriate to this article. The which-stats-are-most-pertinent-here question is a much more important one, but for the time being Armon has refused to discuss it, vowing instead to edit-war on "original research" grounds ("I'm done discussing it. I'll just remove it."). The point of this RfC is to address and hopefully dismiss Armon's peculiar OR/SYN theory, so that we can return, without prejudice, to a serious discussion of which stats to include.--G-Dett 19:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Second Intifada
Location {{{place}}}
Casualties and losses
1025 Israelis killed by Palestinians.	4308 Palestinians killed by Israelis.
For more info see the casualties section. 53 foreign citizens killed by Palestinians. 10 foreign citizens killed by Israeli security forces.

In reply to HG, I removed nearly all the casualties statistics and explanations from the infobox until this is resolved. See the infobox to the right. Several editors are claiming that other editors are spinning the infobox by selective use of stats from the source organization. If any remaining stats I left in the infobox to the right seem like spin, then I suggest we remove those too and allow the discussion to continue. We seem to agree, for the most part, about the casualties section of the article. I am happy with having no casualties info in the infobox if we can't agree on an "unspun" version. --Timeshifter 01:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon added back statistics to the infobox that puts a spin on the casualties picture. By ignoring Palestinian civilian casualties. See this diff: [14]. At some point Armon needs to stop over-representing the far-right of Israeli politics that denies Palestinian civilian casualties, and does not want the high numbers of civilian Palestinian casualties to be given equal coverage in the media and wikipedia. This is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV.

So I just removed all casualties info from the infobox. HG requested further discussion before further editing of the infobox anyway. --Timeshifter 01:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC clarification. Selective removal of casualty stats from infobox

Second Intifada
Location {{{place}}}
Casualties and losses
1025 Israelis total: B'Tselem reports 704 Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians; - 321 Israeli security force personnel killed by Palestinians	4,849 Palestinians total: B'Tselem reports 4,267 Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces; - 41 Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians; - 541 Palestinians killed by Palestinians B'Tselem reports that 2028 of the Palestinians "did not take part in the hostilities and were killed by Israeli security forces". B'Tselem reports 606 Palestinians "killed by Israeli security forces and it is not known if they were taking part in the hostilities".
63 Foreign citizens total: - 53 Foreign citizens killed by Palestinians; - 10 Foreign citizens killed by Israeli security forces

Just so people know another issue covered by the RFC concerning selective use of stats from a source page.... Armon has again put back a one-sided infobox. Armon keeps removing the stats in bold in the infobox to the right.

The RFC states: "Is citing statistics from multiple tables in a single report a violation of WP:SYN?"

Armon says that the civilian versus combatant info for the Palestinians should be deleted from the infobox because it comes from a different part of the source page. This is absolutely ridiculous, and comments from outsiders to this article are requested.--Timeshifter 02:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with the version you've provided, except that I'd like to add the clarification somewhere. A ^* note would be appropriate, or we could drop the quotes and right "not currently taking part" (without the italics). It is reasonable to object that we're using statistics that don't have precisely the same standards for each side. However, this is obviously a reflection of the difficulties of obtaining statistics, and the asymmetric nature of the conflict (ie, Qassam brigadiers are technically civilians). It would be nice to have a "combatant" and a "noncombatant" column for each side, but we don't have it. Them's the breaks. <eleland/talkedits> 16:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dropping the quotes sounds fine. The clarification is fine, too, concerning not taking part in hostilities at the time of their deaths. That is true also for Israeli civilians too. --Timeshifter 04:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see "B'Tselem Figures" at the bottom of the page. ← Michael Safyan 19:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Section on Jenin

I've done a certain amount of fixing up of this section – for NPOV, to reduce tendentious original research, to make sure claims match sources, to clean up non-idiomatic language, and finally, to eliminate the ADL commentary (nowhere else in the timeline do we include pundit commentary, and it would obviously become unmanageable were we to do so). I spread these changes out over four or five edits, each with clearly reasoned edit summaries. A trollish blind revert by Armon has all but reverted them all in one fell swoop, leaving a non-sequitur edit summary about "blanking" the ADL that suggests he hadn't looked at what he was reverting. At any rate, I'm going to briefly itemize the changes so that serious editors can look them over, discuss them collectively, raise objections and so on. I gather Armon intends to edit war over this, but with any luck we can avoid seeing the page locked.

First, I rewrote the following sentence –

The battle remains a flashpoint for both sides, due to false allegations of a massacre of thousands of Palestinians that surfaced during the IDF's operations in the camp.

so that it read:

The battle remains a flashpoint for both sides, due partly to rumors of a massacre of Palestinians that surfaced during the IDF's operations in the camp, and partly to allegations of war crimes made in the aftermath of the siege.

Reasons: "False allegations" is POV, strongly suggesting duplicity; the Amnesty report explicitly used the phrase "rumors of massacre" and attributed them not to dishonesty or exaggeration but to siege conditions (residents under 24-hour curfew and no outside media or medical access); and "thousands" reflects a tendency toward exaggeration and fabrication not on the part of Palestinians but rather on the part of Wikipedians. It is self-evident that war crimes allegations are also a major factor in why Jenin is still a "flashpoint"; the ADL statement that Armon restored illustrates that, as could any other of a hundred sources.

Next, there's this sentence:

These allegations were disproved by international agencies that placed the actual death toll at below 55.

The massacre allegations were not "disproved" any more than war crimes were "proved"; the relevant HR org's found strong evidence for the latter and no evidence for the former, that is all. It has been settled at Battle of Jenin that HR org's are not in the business of adjudicating crimes (i.e. proving or disproving them), and Armon has given his thumbs-up to a series of statements hashed out in mediation that make this point explicitly. "Below 55" is idiomatically strange; you use these "below X" formulations when the number is a round ballpark figure like 100 or 1000; you don't use "below 55" to mean 54. At any rate, the figure is 52-54; let's just say it. Finally, the vague phrase "international agencies" followed by a reference to the UN report suggested that the UN weighed in on whether a massacre took place. They did not. Human Rights Watch did. So I put the massacre conclusion in the appropriate sentence, the sentence about HRW's conclusions, and rewrote the passage as follows:

Subsequent investigations by international agencies placed the actual death toll at 52-54. In the ensuing controversy, Human Rights Watch found no evidence of a massacre, but evidence that "Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes,"[30] while Amnesty International similarly found evidence that Israel had committed war crimes.

The only substantive change here, other than putting the no-massacre finding in the proper sentence, was to fix the non-idiomatic phrase "Amnesty International similarly alleged evidence so that it read found evidence. This brings it in line with found no evidence of massacre, so it's more NPOV – but more importantly, idiomatically you never allege evidence. You find, gather and publish/present evidence, thereby making allegations.

I moved the ADL quote commenting on the investigations to its own paragraph, to keep it separate from investigative findings, but then upon realizing that it was the only pundit commentary in a timeline of several thousand words, I removed it entirely.

Finally, I added that Time Magazine's investigative report on Jenin supported HRW's conclusion that no massacre had occurred. Armon liked this part – fancy that – and so was kind enough to leave it in.--G-Dett 11:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, perhaps a bit of patience would be helpful. If only out of respect for the time I've put into your (and others') dispute at Talk:Battle of Jenin, I would appreicate it -- fancy that -- if you would hold off redoing summaries of Jenin in various places -- until we've settled the issue more at the main article. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry HG, I should not have invoked our deliberations and proposals over at that article. The point was not to rewrite this in line with what is at the moment only an inchoate solution from a different article. The point was rather to deal with egregious problems in this section, period (remains a flashpoint because of "false allegations disproved," yadda yadda). Likewise the question of whether to quote the reflections of pundits here (a big deviation from the rule here) is entirely separate from what evolves at Battle of Jenin.--G-Dett 15:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of your corrections may be fair, but some of them can be argued about, and one certainly shouldn't assume that some consensus on all of this wording was already reached, even if the right phrasing may be clear to you. Regarding the infobox, the question of why people were killed is a big one, and most of the other numbers can also be qualified with a "but" piece of information, many of them with several. That discussion is meant to be had in the body, not the infobox, which is just a what. Tewfik^Talk 20:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do take some of G-dett's points, especially about disproved, Below 55 and alleged evidence, so I'll try to be more careful. However, AI does not have the final say on the subject and it's an advocacy org just like the ADL. I took out "false allegations" myself, but using AI's POV that the massacre claim was due solely to the fog of war, is just that, their POV, and doesn't explain why the propaganda about a massacre is still asserted. <<-armon->> 23:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Link to detailed info on individual cases of Palestinians killed by Palestinians

Why is this being removed from the casualties section of the article?:

B'Tselem maintains a list of deaths of Palestinians killed by Palestinians with details about the circumstances of the deaths. Some of the many causes of death are crossfire, ordinary murders, factional fighting, etc..

Reference link used:

• "B'Tselem - Statistics - Fatalities". Detailed B'Tselem list of Palestinians killed by Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.

This is uncontroversial info. Why would anybody remove a link to this info? It is detailed info. It gives details, in many cases, of how people died. It lets readers decide how those deaths relate to the intifada or not. --Timeshifter 00:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Because this is also your original analysis and commentary on B'Tselem's figures. For example, why would B'Tselem include "ordinary murders"? And who says they did? Timeshifter did. <<-armon->> 01:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the list. Some of them are ordinary murders. What would you call them?--Timeshifter 01:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Modifying the disputed Palestinian-Palestinian data and its phrasing might be acceptable, but using the disagreement to "trade" your data for uncontroversial data which is not part of this discussion is inappropriate. To be clear, killed because they were collaborators is a why. Civilian or combatant is a what. Tewfik^Talk 01:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not making any sense. I am not trading anything. I am trying to put out sourced info concerning Palestinians killing Palestinians. See the next section. I have been discussing all of this for a long time. --Timeshifter 01:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

TS, I also suspect that some of these deaths are simple criminality, but it's original research to make this kind of editorial comment without a source. Nothing in the list says "killed by ordinary murder", "killed in inter-familial feud", etc etc. Some of them do say "killed accidentally" and the like. We should say something like, "B'Tselem maintains a list of Palestinians killed by Palestinians, with details about the circumstances of the deaths. The names of those killed, the circumstances, and the exact dates, are not always available." That's about as far as we can go, sticking to the sources. Unless you can quote some listed deaths that I've missed, where it really does say "killed by ordinary murder"? <eleland/talkedits> 15:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I will have to look at the list anew to find and bookmark the exact wording for various deaths. I vaguely remember some that could be called ordinary murders. In the meantime feel free to edit the info in the article to show more precisely what you have found so far in the list. --Timeshifter 04:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

New subsection of article. Palestinians killed by Palestinians

I moved the info to a new subsection called "Palestinians killed by Palestinians". Here is the current info. Is there any problem with this info between the lines:

---

B'Tselem reports that through September 30, 2007 there were 541 Palestinians killed by Palestinians. Of those, 120 were "Palestinians killed by Palestinians for suspected collaboration with Israel." B'Tselem maintains a list of deaths of Palestinians killed by Palestinians with details about the circumstances of the deaths. Some of the many causes of death are crossfire, ordinary murders, factional fighting, etc..

Concerning the killing of Palestinians by other Palestinians a January 2003 Humanist magazine article reports:

According to Freedom House's annual survey of political rights and civil liberties, Freedom in the World 2001-2002, the chaotic nature of the Intifada along with strong Israeli reprisals has resulted in a deterioration of living conditions for Palestinians in Israeli-administered areas. The survey states:

Civil liberties declined due to: shooting deaths of Palestinian civilians by Palestinian security personnel; the summary trial and executions of alleged collaborators by the Palestinian Authority (PA); extra-judicial killings of suspected collaborators by militias; and the apparent official encouragement of Palestinian youth to confront Israeli soldiers, thus placing them directly in harm's way.

The Humanist article also reports: "For over a decade the PA has violated Palestinian human rights and civil liberties by routinely killing civilians—including collaborators, demonstrators, journalists, and others—without charge or fair trial. Of the total number of Palestinian civilians killed during this period by both Israeli and Palestinian security forces, 16 percent were the victims of Palestinian security forces."

Internal Palestinian violence has been called an ‘Intra’fada during this Intifada and the previous one.

---

It is a subsection of the casualties section.--Timeshifter 01:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

B'Tselem Figures

I have just undone an edit in which B'Tselem's "taking part in the hostilities" or "not taking part in the hostilities" was referenced. This particular information is problematic because, as B'Tselem notes on its clarification page, the phrase "did not take part in hostilities" does not actually imply that the individual never took part in hostilities, rather that the individual was not taking part in hostilities at the time he was killed. Therefore, without noting the B'Tselem clarifications, the were or were not "taking part in hostilities" is misleading and, in my opinion, may be construed as a violation of WP:NPOV. ← Michael Safyan 05:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

At the time they were killed they were not taking part in hostilities. The B'Tselem clarification page you link to says:

"Regarding Palestinians who were killed, the data state whether they took part in the fighting, in the event that B’Tselem has this information. In some cases, the data provide a short description of the circumstances in which the individual was killed."

We can add to the infobox something like:

"at the time of their death, B’Tselem reports..."

This is also true for Israeli civilian casualties, because many Israelis have served in the armed forces. --Timeshifter 05:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I will go ahead and put the Palestinian civilian casualties back in the infobox, and will add something like "at the time of their deaths they were not taking part in hostilities". --Timeshifter 04:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Are we going to include commentary/punditry in the timeline?

I removed the ADL's comment regarding the Jenin investigations because of its anomalousness: as I wrote in my edit summary and reiterated here several times, "there seems to be no other pundit commentary in any of these yearly summaries; readers can find this in the main Jenin article." First Armon reverted it with an edit summary non-responsive to the issue I raised: " rv blanking of source". Now Tewfik has joined in, reverting without addressing the issue here, and leaving a non-responsive edit summary: "restore criticism".

Tewfik and Armon, I wonder if you'll be so kind as to discuss the matter, preferably here, but failing that at least with cogent, on-point edit summaries, instead of launching directly into yet another edit war? My feeling is that if we include commentary on events in the timeline, the section is going to become unmanageably long, not to mention an ideological battleground. Obviously you disagree, hence the reverts, but could you talk through your reasoning here? Thanks,--G-Dett 21:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the current text is not only unbalanced, it is seemingly nonsensical. "The Anti-Defamation League questioned how HRW and AI could both acknowledge the lack of a supposed Israeli massacre and the endangerment of Palestinian civilians by Palestinian gunmen and still maintain its accusation of Israel" - wha? I don't know if that's a strangely worded summary of a meaningful criticism, or an accurately worded summary of a strange criticism, but either way it's off base. There is no logical contradiction there to question. It's like saying that you "question how HRW and AI could both acknowledge the lack of officially articulated Palestinian support for suicide bombings and the endangerment of Israelis by Israeli provocations and still maintain its accusation of Hamas". It's unaccountable. <eleland/talkedits> 21:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rephrased to moderate criticism per HG <eleland/talkedits> 22:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't quite put my finger on it, but this whole exercise seems a bit odd. You all appear to be working constructively at the Jenin page, whereas I find this conversation more negative, less cooperative, less substantive. What gives? Are you all trying to work together in good faith to write an encyclopedia article? Is there something else going on that I'm missing? Am I over-reacting? Feel free to reply on my Talk rather than muck up the gears here. HG | Talk 22:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

HG, you know how eminently wise and reasonable I think you are; this is one of the first times I've thought you were off. I think the ADL quote is totally out of place in a section devoted to a factual timeline. I've given a simple explanation why – there are no other such commentaries anywhere in the timeline. What I'm getting in return is edit-warring reverts with non-responsive edit summaries. I'm not edit-warring in return, and I've opened a discussion section devoted to the matter, inviting my opponents to share their views on why we should include commentary of this kind.

You are the essential man on this page (I write that without irony): if you say this isn't the time for this discussion I'll remove it (with Eleland's consent). But please know that I posted this in the hopes of moving forward cooperatively.--G-Dett 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll second G-Dett's compliment to HG, he's made a huge effort to resolve the disputes here, and related pages. G-Dett, the reason I reverted you is simply because HRW and AI's findings (i.e. their commentary) is disputed. That is a fact. It is not proper, therefore, to erase the fact the dispute exists. If you don't like current wording, I have no problem with you making an attempt to write for the enemy and fixing it. Simply blanking it, on the other hand, isn't acceptable. <<-armon->> 04:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "simply blank it," Armon, but you did simply (and blindly) revert it. As you know. It is a rhetorical truism, not an analytical argument, to say that this or that aspect of the history of the 2nd intifada is disputed, and your invocation of "wording" is a total red herring. The fact is that the ADL is not a comparable organization to Amnesty or HRW, and they never carried out any investigation of any kind. They, like hundreds of others, offered their armchair partisan opinion, which within the present structure and editorial mandate of our "timeline" manifestly does not belong. Every aspect of the I/P conflict, from ordinary RS journalistic coverage to HRW's findings of "no massacre," is disputed, and you need to make a decision whether the "timeline" is to incorporate such disputes or not. I gather you think it should. Very well, I disagree. We'll need to hash the matter out here. But be aware of the implications of your position; if you prevail, the timeline will change dramatically.--G-Dett 05:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks to both of you for your kind words (and to Eleland for rephrasing). As I look at this article, the text we came up with at Talk:Battle of Jenin could be very useful. Currently, the text here mentions massacre, then war crimes, then Time on massacre, then ADL on war crimes (a-b-a-b). Better to have massacre (2 items if you wish) and then war crimes (a-a-b-b). Moreover, instead of balancing the AI/HRW with ADL, it would be better to make use of our agreed upon "charges" language balanced by "IDF disputes" and "no trial held". This latter balancing strikes me as superior in terms of sourcing and content. Stylistically, I also wonder whether we need a "Jenin" subheading (or a new subheading thereafter) in order to use the "Main article:" summary style. Anyway, since the same folks are involved in the Battle of Jenin discussion, I do implore you all to not get into a dispute over the Jenin wording here. If both "sides" feel comfortable with my efforts (re:Jenin), then how about giving me some leeway to edit the Jenin paragraph here? I'll try to do the balancing I've suggested here (i.e., IDF, no trial). Instead of reverting me, just raise your concerns here and I'll be as responsive as I can, ok? Thanks again for your encouraging and kind words. HG | Talk 05:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Reasons why Jenin is still a "flashpoint"

HG, your edits to the Jenin section are an improvement overall, but I wonder why you removed the bolded words from the following: The battle remains a flashpoint for both sides, due partly to rumors of a massacre of Palestinians that surfaced during the IDF's operations in the camp, and partly to allegations of war crimes made in the aftermath of the siege.--G-Dett 19:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good pt. War crimes can certainly be part of reason for flashpoint, I just didn't see a need for the last clause given what was to come. So now I'd like to put the war crimes section right after the massacre, and add something like "In addition" to show that it's an additional cause for flashpoint. This would move the causalties info down the paragraph, ok? If this works, then maybe we can get a neutral copyeditor to fix it up, too. Thanks GDett, let me know if you have further suggestions or if my edits muck it up again.HG | Talk 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Now I have a few minor changes. Why say "remains" a flashpoint? I tend not to like the kind of writing because "remains" always refers to the reader's present time, but the encyclopedia shouldn't be written as if it needs to be constantly updated/checked. So I changed it to "became" a flashpoint. Also, I'm thinking maybe the war crimes point should come first, it's more solid than the rumors item. Accordingly, I've changed the flashpoint 2 reasons into a "Notably, ... Furthermore..." structure. Plus, I took the body count sentences from our agreed-upon paragraph in the Jenin article. The result does read a bit choppily, but is this good enough to keep things calmer than before? Thanks for your confidence in me, sorry about my struggling with the specific edits, take care HG | Talk 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've submitted a rewrite/copyedit. Hopefully there won't be major issues with it:

Between April 2nd and 11th, a siege and fierce fighting took place in Jenin, a Palestinian refugee camp. The Jenin battle became a flashpoint for both sides. During the IDF's operations in the camp, Palestinian sources alleged that a massacre of hundreds people had taken place. In the ensuing controversy, the United Nations issued a report that found no evidence of a massacre, and criticized both sides for placing Palestinian civilians at risk. However, based on their own investigations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that IDF personnel in Jenin had committed war crimes. Both human rights organizations called for official inquiries; the IDF disputed the charges. After the battle, most sources, including the Palestinian Authority, placed the Palestinian death toll between 52 and 56. The IDF reported that 23 Israeli soldiers were killed. (Actually, I tweaked it a bit more, and added another ref to the NYT, so I've updated it here) <<-armon->> 10:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no good reason to present the UN's findings in terms different from the ones they chose. Other than massaging the UN report, the proposed rewrite offers no substantive or stylistic improvement over the current version.--G-Dett 18:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Jenin UN

G-Dett, please stop undoing my edits. The UN did confirm that a massacre had not taken place; section 56 notes that reports that 500 Palestinians were killed has not been substantiated. ← Michael Safyan 00:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, hi there. Would you mind checking the main Jenin article and see if your point is made there? I think we haven't worked out the 'massacre' write-up yet, so maybe you could bring this up and work it through at Talk:Battle of Jenin first? Thanks. HG | Talk 01:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, the UN report makes no reference to "massacre." As "massacre" has no legal definition under international law, and its application in ordinary usage is subjective and context-specific, it is original research to use the term where the sources don't. Indeed Amnesty cited the term's ambiguity in explaining why they eschewed it in their report, and for all we know the UN report may have avoided it for precisely the same reason; at any rate it is clear that they didn't use it. Human Rights Watch did use the term in their findings, as did Time Magazine in their investigative report, so it's appropriate for us to report their respective findings on that question. The word "massacre" is central to partisan debate about the significance of Jenin, even among those who acknowledge the accuracy of the 52-56 body count; to present sources as having weighed in on the legitimacy of that word when they didn't is a violation of WP:NOR as well as WP:NPOV. For more on the delicacy with which investigative findings regarding Jenin are presented, see Talk:Battle of Jenin.--G-Dett 21:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

2028 non combatants killed by IDF -- deleted as WP:UNDUE

Second Intifada
Part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Date September 2000 - Location West Bank, Gaza Strip, Israel Result Ongoing, but largely halted
Belligerents
Israel	Palestinian National Authority, 22px Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Popular Resistance Committees
Commanders and leaders
Ehud Barak Ariel Sharon Ehud Olmert	Yasser Arafat† Mahmoud Abbas Ismail Haniyeh Mohammed Deif
Casualties and losses
1025 Israelis total: -704 Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians; - 321 Israeli security force personnel killed by Palestinians	4,849 Palestinians total: - *4,267 Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces; - 41 Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians; - 541 Palestinians killed by Palestinians
63 Foreign citizens total: - 53 Foreign citizens killed by Palestinians; - 10 Foreign citizens killed by Israeli security forces
The civilian/combatant breakdown of Palestinian casualties is disputed. According to B'Tselem, Israelis killed 2028 Palestinians who were not taking part in hostilities at the time of their deaths and 606 Palestinians who may or may not have taken part in hostilities at the time of their deaths.

User:Tewfik deleted the following referenced text from the article:

B'Tselem reported that 2028 of the Palestinians killed by Israelis were not taking part in hostilities at the time of their deaths. For 606 deaths it is not known if they were taking part in hostilities.

This is a fact that zionists some editors want to brush under the carpet for obvious reasons. But WP:NPOV dictates that it should be included. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 23:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not much into talk of "Zionists." But I am curious, Tewfik, how did you decide this falls short of notability?--G-Dett 23:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability? I said undue weight, as the information is already included in the entry once, and in the proper place with the proper weight. Tewfik^Talk 23:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The info is not in the infobox now, because you removed it. That is the proper place, because that is the same place that the number of Israeli civilian deaths is found. It is a violation of undue weight for you to remove the number of Palestinian civilian (at the time of their deaths) info. --Timeshifter 23:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Tewfik on this one. This should not be posted without a link to B'Tselem's clarification page and without putting a similar box for Israelis. Otherwise, it is WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. ← Michael Safyan 23:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Israeli side of the table does distinguish between Israeli civilians and soldiers. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Safyan. Please see what you wrote in the #B'Tselem Figures section farther up that you started:

"the phrase 'did not take part in hostilities' does not actually imply that the individual never took part in hostilities, rather that the individual was not taking part in hostilities at the time he was killed."

So why did you delete (see this diff) this new rewrite of the info? It meets your requests. If all it needed was a link to the clarification page, why did you not just add the link, rather than delete the rewritten info? --Timeshifter 23:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the box below and to the right is very, very clunky. ← Michael Safyan 03:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your version to the right is an adaptation of another version. I agree that these versions with the longer right side are clunky. There have been versions with the note put in the bottom single-column note section. I adapted one of those, and just now put it in the article. You can see what it looks like in this version of the article:

03:59, 1 November 2007 Timeshifter.

Please edit the infobox in the article itself rather than delete the info in the infobox in the article. Wikipedia does not allow labeled inline external links in the text of an article. So I used a standard reference link to the clarification page. --Timeshifter 04:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Without discussion or consensus, Armon removed the sourced data from the infobox. See this diff. His edit summary was "rm OR from infobox." So even when the info comes from Michael Safyan's discussion, and is not clunky, Armon still removes reliably-sourced info in a one-sided manner. --Timeshifter 12:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have altered the InfoBox on this talk page slightly, using the "notes" field instead of an addition to the "casualties2" field. This improves the layout. <eleland/talkedits> 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Eleland. I have no objection to this box (especially with clunkiness removed). ← Michael Safyan 21:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

B'Tselem has one breakdown, which is itself disputed, while other groups have other breakdowns. An entire section of the entry discusses this and I see no reason to move the discussion into the infobox, but if that is done, we can't just move one part of it. Tewfik^Talk 00:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I know of no other estimate of the number of Palestinians killed who were not involved in hostilities at the time of their deaths. --Timeshifter 02:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Twefik. The article, not the infobox is the place to discuss whatever reliably sourced commentary on the the figures exists. This holds true even without the WP:SYNTH issue. <<-armon->> 09:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As you like to say, this is "non-responsive". I am using the same source, B'Tselem, that you use for the number of Israeli civilian deaths in the infobox. Your repetition does not change the fact that putting civilian casualties for only one side in the infobox is a violation of WP:NPOV. And since you will not allow the POV to be removed from the infobox by removing the number of Israeli civilian casualties also, then your comment is even more "non-responsive." --Timeshifter 12:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You are taking two different tables, and slapping them together to make a pov editorial judgement that the source didn't -WP:SYNTH. You are also stuffing it up with commentary. When are you going to drop this, I wonder? <<-armon->> 22:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Same source, same report, no slap, no synthesis. You haven't found a single editor who supports your strained and eccentric interpretation of WP:SYN; let it go.--G-Dett 22:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Without regard to insertion of commentary or analysis, can you explain what is WP:SYNTHetic about combining information from a table marked "Additional data (included in previous table)" with... the previous table? This argument strikes me as tendentious at best. Simply picking which facts to highlight based on neutral and encyclopedic principles is not a problem, in fact, it's what we do here. WP:SYN refers to advancing previously un-published positions by tying together disparate sources, not to re-formatting or re-arranging material from one sources in a content-neutral manner. B'Tselem is not an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is, therefore we will not always be presenting our data in exactly the same format used by B'Tselem. <eleland/talkedits> 22:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a formatting issue, this is selectively putting forward a subset of the source's data. It is not "content-neutral", it has been done to to make a point beyond what the source did. If I wanted to, I could highlight other subsets in order to make other points. That is not our job, WP is a tertiary source. The only defense I've seen to the SYNTH problem is that the two tables, the main and the subset, are on the same web page. I'm sorry, but this is just wikilaywering in an attempt to violate the spirit of NOR because not every conceivable situation has been codified into policy. Instead of filling up this page with yet another 4000 words on the infobox, why don't we just stick to the source? <<-armon->> 23:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Not "the same web page," Armon, but rather the same damn report. "Synthesis" refers to drawing on multiple sources to advance a novel argument. It does not refer to citing some, but not all, of the information a source gives. That's called "editing," and you've done it yourself by deciding which parts of B'Tselem's report you want to include and which you don't. But instead of defending your selection, and saying why you think it's better than our selection, you've come up with this stupid theory about "original research." It doesn't even deserve to be called "wikilawyering," because the stupid theory isn't even true to the letter of WP:NOR or WP:SYN, much less the spirit. It is evident that you don't even take the theory seriously yourself, and if you did, you wouldn't be able to take a detail from paragraph one of a New York Times article, and include it along with a detail from paragraph 3, because to do so would be "selectively highlighting," and to use editorial discrimination in this way would constitute "original research." Please, Armon, please stop wasting our time with this crap.--G-Dett 23:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Same damn report" is irrelevant. See quote mining. <<-armon->> 00:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Quote mining is the practice of compiling frequently misleading quotes from large volumes of literature or speech." We're talking here about a single one-page report by B'Tselem. No one wants to present the whole thing – not you, not me, not anybody. Everyone wants to select what to present. You don't want to have to defend your selection, so you've come up with this fatuous theory about "original research" that hasn't fooled anybody. There's no synthesis, no novel argument, no multiple sources, no "slap," no large volume of literature, no quote mining, just a single statistical report from a single source, B'Tselem, and a whole lotta BS and a whole lotta trolling coming from another single source – you. Say why you don't think B'Tselem's stat for Palestinians killed for suspected collaboration with Israel is relevant for an article on the 2nd intifada, or get out of the way and let serious people edit the encyclopedia.--G-Dett 02:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see, it can't be quote mining because it's from a small volume of literature -interesting. BTW, I've defended my position as being exactly as the source broke the figures down. If you want to do OR, do it at school, not here. <<-armon->> 03:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said, G-Dett: "We're talking here about a single one-page report by B'Tselem. No one wants to present the whole thing – not you, not me, not anybody. Everyone wants to select what to present. You don't want to have to defend your selection, so you've come up with this fatuous theory about 'original research' that hasn't fooled anybody." --Timeshifter 09:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Convenience break

Second Intifada
Location {{{place}}}
Casualties and losses
1027 Israelis total: -704 Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians; - 323 Israeli security force personnel killed by Palestinians	4,901 Palestinians total: - *4,304 Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces; - 41 Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians;; - 556 Palestinians killed by Palestinians
63 Foreign citizens total: - 53 Foreign citizens killed by Palestinians; - 10 Foreign citizens killed by Israeli security forces
*The civilian/combatant breakdown of Palestinian casualties is disputed. B'Tselem reported that 2043 of the Palestinians killed by Israelis were not taking part in hostilities at the time of their deaths, and that for 608 deaths it is not known if they were taking part in hostilities.

(unindent) Here is the casualties section of the infobox to the right that Armon reverted to his POV version. Armon's version does not have the number of non-combatant Palestinian casualties.

What is wrong with this infobox to the right? Armon deleted the bottom note. Notes are common at the bottom of infoboxes. See the infobox at Iraq War.

See the military conflict infobox template:

• Template:Infobox Military Conflict

At the bottom of the parameter options is

|notes=

Let's use it. Otherwise let us remove the number of Israeli civilian non-combatant casualties also in order not to present an obviously biased infobox.

I temporarily emphasized the non-combatant civilian casualties numbers. Others can tweak the wording. --Timeshifter 10:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What "obvious bias" do you think the source, B'Tselem, has that you need to to "interpret" for them? <<-armon->> 10:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I did not interpret anything. I copied their data.

If we want to, we can ask for advice at Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict.

I just updated the numbers in the infobox to the right. B'Tselem now has casualty numbers through October 31, 2007. --Timeshifter 10:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. You're happy to use that infobox, using the main table's figures so long as the note's included -correct? <<-armon->> 14:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I can live with it. I think, though, that it would be better if the number of Palestinians killed by Palestinians is not added into the total number of Palestinians killed. B'Tselem does not total them that way. In other words, the total of Palestinians killed (by Israelis) would be 4345. I think your last edit to the infobox in the article has a similar total around 4300. --Timeshifter 14:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I just updated the figures as you did (please check them, and update the numbers in the note if needed). OK well I think the note is a reasonable clarification and not SYNTH so I don't have a problem with it. Let's go with that. <<-armon->> 14:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

OK I've put it in. <<-armon->> 14:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Timeshifter 15:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. <<-armon->> 15:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this edit. It's not SYNT, but there are clearly disputes about the breakdown. Therefore it's better just to link to the causalities section rather than giving a single source's figures. <<-armon->> 23:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You knew that there were disputes before. Why did you change your mind now after your previous agreement? Nothing has changed except that Tewfik removed the note without discussion. It is still against WP:NPOV to put a number in the infobox for civilian casualties only for the Israelis. My edit summary when I returned the note after Tewfik's typical reversion-without-discussion was "I returned it per agreement with Armon, Eleland, G-Dett, HG, Abu Ali, and Michael Safyan." --Timeshifter 00:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I was focusing on the SYNT issue exclusively. Anyway we all know that those particular figures are disputed, so noting it, and linking to that part of the article makes sense. I don't really think that there is either the room or the scope to deal with that issue in an infobox. <<-armon->> 01:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This is disingenuous on your part. The note, and the discussion about the note, has long mentioned the disputed nature of Palestinian civilian/combatant casualty numbers. Please stop following Tewfik in lockstep in his tag team. --Timeshifter 02:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Whatever. <<-armon->> 02:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As you like to say, "This is non-responsive." --Timeshifter 06:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Btselem

The software ate half my last edit summary, so I'm posting the reasons for my edit here instead. The two links that criticize Btselem are five years old and are criticizing a methodology Btselem no longer employs. Presumably Btselem changed its methodology precisely because of criticisms such as these that it failed to distinguish adequately between combatants and noncombatants. It used to count as "civilians" any Palestinian killed who wasn't a member of a militant group, now it takes account of whether or not individuals were "participating in hostilies" when they were killed.

I fail to see how criticism of a methodology that is no longer employed by Btselem can in any way be relevant to the page. On the contrary, it can only serve to confuse the reader and obfuscate the issues. Gatoclass 08:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not know much about how B'Tselem changed their reporting over time. That is useful info to know. I would like the history of that to be explained a little in the casualties section. With references, etc.. --Timeshifter 09:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any information about that on the Btselem website. They simply changed their methodology. It's actually only my assumption they did so because of criticism of their earlier methodology, so I've altered my comment above to clarify that. However, whatever the reason may be for it, the fact remains that their methodology has changed and that the links criticizing their previous methodology are redundant. Gatoclass 10:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link from CAMERA confirming that Btselem changed their methodology. It says (I quote):

B’Tselem identifies most (but not all) casualties as follows: “Killed when participating in hostilities” or “Did not participate in hostilities when killed.” B’Tselem made a deliberate policy choice to note whether casualties were involved in fighting at the time of their death and to refrain from labelling them as civilians or not. B’Tselem spokeswoman Sarit Michaeli confirmed this policy to CAMERA by phone last year.

...As late as 2002, B’Tselem did provide separate lists of “Palestinian civilians” killed. In many instances, this label was completely inappropriate. As documented by CAMERA in 2003, B’Tselem’s loose definition of the term “civilian” included countless Palestinians who were killed while they were in the process of attacking Israelis, including opening fire at a bat mitzvah celebration in Hadera, killing six and injuring 35, setting off bombs, infiltrating Israeli communities and killing or injuring residents, and fighting with Israeli troops. B’Tselem has since abandoned that policy – perhaps in face of CAMERA’s criticism – but is the current practice any more credible?

This CAMERA article is from January 2007 and would obviously be a much more appropriate link to include than the two earlier links which are thoroughly out of date. If someone wants to include this link I would have no objection (assuming it's done in accordance with policy). I think B'tselem may also have issued statements defending itself from such attacks by CAMERA though, and if so they should also be included. Gatoclass 11:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the casualties section concerning this issue. It seems like you have studied this particular issue more than anybody else editing the casualties section. --Timeshifter 12:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what's being criticized here. "Combatant" and "civilian" are different concepts. Osama bin Laden is a civilian. A 25-year-old Israeli male killed in a suicide bombing is more than likely not a civilian, but not a combatant either. There's no "loose definition" in operation here, by contrast, B'Tselem appears to have been criticized for using an accurate definition. If anybody other than CAMERA picked up on this "criticism", we might want to include it. But I don't see why we would use CAMERA alone. CAMERA's whole shtick is to come up with reasons to criticize anyone and everything which doesn't agree with an Israeli hardline policy. It's a flak battery, not a source of continued opinion. As Charles Senott of the Boston Globe said — for a critical piece on CAMERA in the Jerusalem post, of the kind you will never see in American media — "CAMERA has made itself irrelevant by being hypercritical and shrill ... If CAMERA isn't criticizing your work, you're probably not doing your job." <eleland/talkedits> 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That is useful info. If it can be referenced it also would be a good edition to the casualties section in my opinion. I have done a lot of editing of Casualties of the Iraq War, and the individual articles about the various casualty estimates of the Iraq War. I also help edit the casualties section of Iraq War. All this type of criticism and countercriticism is part of meeting WP:NPOV in my opinion. Wikipedia just puts out the info in the form of X says Y, and lets the readers come to their own conclusions. --Timeshifter 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

B'tselem's civilian and combatant breakdowns have been disputed -this is cited. If they have altered their terminology somewhat in response to it, it's still relevant. However, criticism of CAMERA is out of scope. BTW calling OBL a "civilian" (i.e. a person following the pursuits of civil life) is a pretty novel interpretation. 00:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Actually, to explain why I think it's relevant. There's an obvious problem in sorting out who are the participants in unconventional warfare so it's no wonder such breakdowns are disputed. <<-armon->> 01:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the past criticism doesn't become irrelevant, it just needs to be qualified and granted proper weight. Perhaps, Gatoclass, you have an idea of how to shorten it? Similarly, we needn't pick one from among the disputed opinions to appear in the infobox. Tewfik^Talk 19:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to have paid attention to my posts above Tewfik. The articles from '02/'03 are completely irrelevant, because they criticise a methodology Btselem no longer employs. Btselem has backdated all its data using their new methodology, so these critical pieces are not even relevant anymore for the timeframe in which they first appeared.

I provided a link above to a very effective and much more readable critique from CAMERA that is thoroughly up-to-date and which criticizes the methodology Btselem uses now, not the methodology they have abandoned. I suggest you use that for your critical countersource. Regards, Gatoclass 20:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Was this ("You don't seem to have paid attention to my posts above Tewfik.") necessary? As I said above, the past criticism doesn't become irrelevent, though you are invited to fix it if you think it is granted to much weight (it seems very short to me, but by all means). On the other hand, your sterile revert removed the link that you provided among other things. Tewfik^Talk 20:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The methodology is no longer in use. Therefore, criticism of that methodology is redundant. That seems like a straightforward enough principle to me.

You are correct that I removed the CAMERA source by mistake, I didn't realize you'd included it, so I've rectified that now. Regards, Gatoclass 20:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Gatoclass, I don't really understand what the problem with the version you changed is. Considering that the section is discussing the differing breakdowns, I think it makes perfect sense to mention that Btselem has adjusted it's methodology. <<-armon->> 23:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just assuming for a moment that your reasoning was valid - the CAMERA article already does that, and much more succinctly. The reader doesn't need to churn his way through a couple of highly turgid articles about Btselem's previous methodology when the CAMERA article already summarizes those changes for him in a paragraph. So either way, it's pointless to include those two older articles. Gatoclass 01:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The reader doesn't have to churn through anything unless they want to read the cited sources. The point I'm making is that your version of the article doesn't note that their methodology has changed over time. <<-armon->> 01:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's important that their methodology has changed. It's how they collate their statistics today that's pertinent - not how they went about it five years ago. Gatoclass 01:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well here's where we disagree. Considering that the section details the various breakdowns which have been given, I think it highly pertinent that Btselem has adjusted it's methodology over time. I don't regard this as so much of a criticism of Btselem, as it is an indication of the problems inherent in making these divisions. That's why I think it should be mentioned. <<-armon->> 02:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is pertinent to include some of the history of B'Tselem's numbers, and CAMERA's criticisms, then it is also pertinent to note the countercriticism of the hypercritical, highly partisan nature of CAMERA. See Lancet surveys of casualties of the Iraq War to see examples of this type of criticism and countercriticism. I am beginning to note a pattern in your edits, Armon. They frequently end up presenting the rightwing Israeli viewpoints more favorably than the Palestinian viewpoints and the leftwing Israeli viewpoints. This is against WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter 02:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In a hypothetical article on B'Tselem surveys of casualties of the Second Intifada maybe Criticisms and countercriticisms would be pertinent. As for rest, again, whatever. <<-armon->> 03:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV applies in all parts of wikipedia, not just the parts you choose. Please stop the insulting incivility of your "whatever" remarks, and engage instead in good faith discussions. --Timeshifter 06:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the biased, anti-Israel nature of B'Tselem, I do not see why it is appropriate to cite their numbers at all. They are an advocacy group, not a legitimate research organization, and therefore they are not a reliable source for statistics. 6SJ7 04:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How can they be anti-Israel? They are an Israeli peace group. And why can't advocacy groups count casualties? The Israeli government puts out info. We put that info in wikipedia articles. The Israeli government has biases too. WP:NPOV says that we put out all the significant viewpoints. Wikipedia does not just put out the viewpoint of the far-right of Israeli politics. --Timeshifter 06:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

6SJ7 has it exactly backwards. CAMERA is an advocacy group; they are devoted entirely to pressuring the media, and other related state-PR work. B'Tselem is a highly respected human-rights organization, devoted to research and widely recognized as the most authoritative source for statistics of this sort. It is very misleading to describe them as an "advocacy" group; they are an advocacy group only in the trivial and tautological sense that they advocate for human rights. Every human-rights organization in the world is described as an "advocacy group" by those embarrassed by their data, who then turn and cite them as authoritative when their data embarrasses someone else. We should give B'Tselem's stats and leave out CAMERA entirely, unless there are major reliable sources (Haaretz, the New York Times, etc.) attesting to the impact and significance of CAMERA's complaints. Otherwise it really is neither here nor there, and it's totally inappropriate to set up he-said-she-said parity between B'Tselem and CAMERA in this way. We don't "balance" material sourced to the New York Times by mentioning that Electronic Intifada finds that newspaper biased or questions its methodology. And more broadly speaking, when we're giving stats for example on Saddam's Iraq or ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, we don't mention that the findings of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have been challenged by MediaLens or similar groups. Ideological criticism of human rights organizations belongs in the articles about those organizations, not in articles like this one.--G-Dett 15:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone can ask about how to deal with info from CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Timeshifter 18:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The reliability of CAMERA was discussed there at great length a while back, unfortunately with little input from uninvolved editors. The question there was a bit different, having to do with whether CAMERA could be sourced for factual information. My position here is not that CAMERA is a non-reliable source, only that it's silly to proceed as if CAMERA and B'Tselem were both advocacy organizations whose "views" should be "balanced." B'Tselem is a major source for basic statistical information about the intifada; easily one of the top five sources. It is the nature of the I/P conflict that every single report by every single major source is criticized for "bias" by much less significant partisan groups on either side. It's not necessary or helpful to "balance" all of the basic information we provide with criticism of this kind, and it's a violation of NPOV to do it selectively. There are, for example, sources far more respected than CAMERA that have criticized the neutrality and methodology of mainstream media coverage of the conflict, but we don't insert these critiques into the basic factual presentations of ours that rely on the mainstream media.--G-Dett 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that strongly about defending putting CAMERA's main criticism into the casualties section. Mainly because its criticism is no longer relevant. B'Tselem now doesn't use the word "civilian" in reference to Palestinian casualties. B'Tselem now just states whether Palestinians killed were involved in hostilities at the time they were killed.

I would argue that the same logic could be used concerning Israeli casualties. But I haven't looked for a reliable source that has made that criticism. It is possible that some of the Israeli civilian casualties were members of the military reserves.

CAMERA's other criticism is more relevant. It points out a few possible mistakes or discrepancies in how B'Tselem categorized some Palestinians as involved in hostilities or not. I think that criticism should be referenced. It would be good to find B'Tselem's response to some of these criticisms. Maybe B'Tselem decided to believe some sources over others. I don't know. I would like to know. --Timeshifter 22:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA, B'Tselem, ADL, AI, HRW etc. etc. are all advocacy organizations. The fact that you may, or may not, share their views doesn't alter that fact. <<-armon->> 00:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, my opinions alter nothing. The fact is that major human rights organizations are considered by the overwhelming majority of scholars and reliable sources as the most credible source of information about human rights abuses. At any given time and with regards to this or that report, there will be state apologists embarrassed by their findings who then try to selectively discredit them. A good example of this can be found on Wikipedia, when editors like yourself present HR groups as authoritative arbiters of truth when they find no evidence of massacre in Jenin, but then demote them to the status of "advocacy groups" when they find evidence of war crimes. To say that media pressure groups like CAMERA or the ADL are on an equal footing with internationally recognized human rights organizations is as absurd as putting Electronic Intifada and the New York Times on the same footing.--G-Dett 01:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your straw man arguments alter nothing. #1 In the case of the "massacre" in Jenin, there are no RSs, not just the Human Rights groups, which assert that a massacre actually happened. #2 The fact that some advocacy organizations are more respected than others, doesn't therefore make the "respected" ones the final arbitrators of the "truth". If there has been significant objections to their methodology (regardless if it's from "disreputable quarters") and especially if they've adjusted their methodology due to the objections -then it's notable. <<-armon->> 00:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance of your links to articles on strawman or argument from authority, but then I doubt very much that you do either. Just more BS from a tireless font of BS, I'm guessing. If there are sources saying B'Tselem adjusted their methodology due to media-pressure groups like CAMERA, then it may be appropriate to mention that (though it would probably be more appropriate in the articles on B'Tselem or CAMERA). If not, not.--G-Dett 04:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe those links were a reference to the repeated assertion that because HRW and AI agreed with the Israelis and every other RS regarding the lack of a massacre in Jenin, that their every other claim somehow then binds the Israelis and everyone else, as well as the idea that to disagree with that appeal to authority fallacy somehow makes Armon and myself inconsistent. I've raised this point previously, and something other than discussion of manure fountains might be helpful. Tewfik^Talk 11:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. If the reference was to "the repeated assertion that because HRW and AI agreed with the Israelis and every other RS regarding the lack of a massacre in Jenin, that their every other claim somehow then binds the Israelis" yadda yadda, then the link to "strawman argument" was indeed helpful and appropriate. Indeed you and Armon might consider building that link into your signatures.

Still a little puzzled by "appeal to authority fallacy." Of course the fact that B'Tselem (or the New York Times or Britannica or a consensus of academic historians or whoever) says something doesn't make it true. But there is a very crisp distinction between an argument about truth and an argument about editorial principles; if there weren't, then the entire reliable sources policy would be an example of the "appeal to authority fallacy." We're not discussing absolute truth, neither in the HRW/Jenin case nor in this one about B'Tselem. Rather, we're discussing how to present certain reliable sources, how to hierarchize them, and so on. If, in a discussion about historical truth, I said Well the New York Times says it happened this way so it must be true and Noam Chomsky must be wrong, that would indeed be an example of the "appeal to authority fallacy." But if the discussion was not about historical truth but rather about how to edit a Wikipedia article, and I said Look, I know Chomsky contests the New York Times on this, but the New York Times is one of the most respected newspapers in the world, and Chomsky is a controversial partisan media-critic; we shouldn't be "balancing" reports from the Times with Chomsky's critique of them, as these aren't comparable sources, that would not be an appeal to authority fallacy; it'd just be good solid common-sense and policy-based reasoning about how to edit an encyclopedia article. Pretty clear, yeah? Now substitute B'Tselem for NYT, and CAMERA for Chomsky, and once again consider the distinction between an argument about final truths and an argument about encyclopedia editing. And then please, if you can bear it, stop trying to pump fresh life into Armon's dead red herrings.--G-Dett 15:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. 2 macho guys in a tag team (Armon and Tewfik). Beaten by a woman (oh dear) with their own fish (red herring). --Timeshifter 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Convenience break

From B'Tselem#Response to Criticism:

The B'Tselem organisation replied to criticism from the mentioned organisations with the following reponse :

"B'Tselem stands behind the accuracy of its data, all based on independent fieldwork by its own well-trained staff. In all of the cases cited by CAMERA, the initial media reports or statements from the IDF were inaccurate. In fact, in some of these cases the Israeli military itself subsequently issued revised statements, and in at least one of these cases – the killing of Jamil al-Jabji – the military opened a criminal investigation, something they do very rarely regarding Palestinian deaths.

B'Tselem's methodology is completely transparent; indeed much of CAMERA's "ammunition" was taken from our own website. Palestinians employing potentially lethal force (guns, rockets, explosives, Molotov cocktails) are listed as having participated in hostilities at the time they were killed. The fact that a person carried a weapon but did not actually take it out and use it does not make that person a combatant. Likewise with regard to stone-throwing; in most situations, stone-throwing does not constitute lethal force. This does not relieve the stone-thrower of criminal liability, and his crime is plainly noted in our statistics. However, a 14 year-old boy throwing stones at an armoured jeep from a distance of over 50 feet – as was the case when soldiers shot Jamil al-Jabji – is not participating in an armed conflict, and the military does not need to respond with live ammunition (the fact that the military has initiated an investigation into this case would indicate that they retroactively agree). The devil is in the details. In those cases, where stone-throwing does indeed endanger lives (dropping cinder blocks from a roof, for example) this is classified as participation in hostilities.

B'Tselem no longer classifies Palestinians into civilians and security forces simply because all Palestinians are civilians. This same position was recently articulated by Israel's own High Court of Justice. Civilians are not always innocent - indeed B'Tselem does not claim that any particular victim was "innocent." Nor do we say that all of these killings constitute a breach of relevant law – though in many of the specific cases that we investigated in 2006 we did reach this conclusion. The High Court simply reiterated that there are only two categories of people in international humanitarian law: combatants and non-combatants. Palestinian civilians who engage in hostilities do so illegally and it is Israel's responsibility to arrest and bring them to justice. Before CAMERA advocates defining Palestinian militants are combatants, they should understand that this would acknowledge their right to engage in combat against Israeli soldiers, and to be recognized as prisoners of war, rather than being prosecuted."

Maybe someone can email B'Tselem and ask for the title and date of the article this is from. --Timeshifter 16:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a huge block of uncited text. Who put that in? It's informative, but it really shouldn't be in WP if we can't verify it. <<-armon->> (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

B'Tselem vs. Remember the Children

The B'Tselem figures, controversies aside, are much more widely accepted and relied upon than the Remember The Children statistics. Therefore, the B'Tselem statistics and not the Remember the Children statistics should appear. Additionally, the last edit intermingled the B'Tselem and Remember the Children statistics, in violation of WP:SYNTH. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Basically I agree, but I removed the figures which are harder to determine and subject to dispute. It's better to just link to that part of the article. <<-armon->> (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The Remember the Children statistics expand the B'Tselem points further. It talks about the number of children casualties which is relevant for the readers. It is not conflictory. Nor is it subject for dispute, since if you read their site, you will see they are independant and also all the names, date of birth, how they died, when they died are written for each child on both sides. I would request for it to be added again please.--Waqas1987 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. See the Iraq War infobox. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Children in infobox

Um, while I'm sure the information is factual, can anyone explain the reasoning for listing specifically the number of children or minors killed in the conflict right in the infobox? It's cluttered enough. The infobox is to summarize the bare facts of the situation, not to highlight information which gives a certain emotional effect or makes an interesting point. I've never seen any other conflict infobox break down casualties in this way. Thoughts? <eleland/talkedits> 08:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, why is only the total number of Israeli civilians killed listed in the infobox? It "gives a certain emotional effect." Just because the number of Palestinian civilians killed is disputed is no real reason not to include it in the infobox. People can still read more on the dispute by going to the casualties section of the article.

See the Iraq War infobox. It breaks down casualties in many ways. There are many disputed casualty numbers in the infobox there. There is a link from the infobox to more info about the disputed numbers. If there were a breakdown by number of Iraqi children I could include it in the infobox. I have done a lot of editing on that infobox and on Casualties of the Iraq War. Offhand I don't know of a total number of Iraqi children killed. Even if there is such a number for Iraqi children it will not be as accurate a number as the number of children killed on both sides of the Second Intifada. "Remember These Children" lists the name of every child killed:

http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2000.html --Timeshifter (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Was it? I didn't notice. It certainly isn't now. <eleland/talkedits> 22:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm also inclined not to support listing of fatalities amongst minors in the infobox. That is rather too much detail. However, I do think the number of noncombatant fatalities on each side should be listed. They used to be listed there but someone must have removed them. Gatoclass (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"the number of noncombatant fatalities on each side should be listed." I agree only if we do it with each. Its completely unfair to list Israeli non-combatants, but not Palestinian ones.

I think that we should list fatalities amongst minors, but only if they've been reported by reliable sources.Bless sins (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That counts out Remember these Children -a non-notable advocacy website. The reason for the "disparity" in noncombatant fatalities in the infobox is because sorting out the fighters/civilians among the Palestinians has been problematic. That's why there is the note which states: The civilian/combatant breakdown of Palestinian casualties is disputed -see Casualties. I don't know why this is still an issue. <<-armon->> (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism is an advocacy group, too. Its casualty data is included in the article. Wikipedia allows use of info from advocacy groups as long as they meet WP:RS, and as long as the info is referenced so that people can see the source. Remember these Children meets WP:RS standards. See the comment farther down from Gatoclass. I have no problem putting the info from Remember these Children in the casualties section of the article. Along with the civilian/combatant breakdown info. Most people agree with that. It is fair to put controversial info in the casualties section of the article where it can be described in more detail. Why do you keep putting it back in the infobox? See this diff. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Remember the Children" is a website maintained by the American Educational Trust, which also publishes the Washington Report of Middle East Affairs and whose editorial staff are highly qualified academics and diplomats. Clearly a reliable source. Gatoclass (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's non notable and is obviously a POV source -see here. If someone put in content from an equivalent pro-Israeli-group-sponsored type website which, for some reason, had hundreds fewer fatalities, it's a safe bet there'd be objections to that as well. Let's just use the best sources available. <<-armon->> (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not it's a "POV source". Many reliable sources have a very strong POV. You are conflating two completely different issues.

If "POV source" was a legitimate disqualification, then the references to CAMERA and the ME Forum would be the first to go. Gatoclass (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that the objections by CAMERA and the ME Forum were notable and led to the adjustments of B'Tselem's stats. B'Tselem, as far as I can tell, is generally considered reliable and notable except for the objections regarding those particular breakdowns. <<-armon->> (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Remember these Children" meets WP:RS standards. See Washington Report on Middle East Affairs which is put out by the same people. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you start a stub page, Gatoclass, for "Remember These Children"? You seem to have studied them a little. I, and others, will try to fill it in too. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

All I know about RTC is that it's a site maintained by the AEC. I don't think an article on the RTC would be justified, but perhaps mention of it should be made on the WRMEA page. Gatoclass (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of part of casualties section

Armon has deleted info from B'Tselem and "Remember these Children". See this diff. These 2 sources meet WP:RS standards.

He also blindly reverted to an old version of the CAMERA info and deleted references.

This POV warring by Armon needs to stop. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox without controversial stats

Second Intifada
Location {{{place}}}
Casualties and losses
1027 Israelis killed by Palestinians.	4,304 Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces. 41 Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians. 556 Palestinians killed by Palestinians
*For the civilian/combatant breakdown please see the Casualties section below.
63 foreign citizens killed total: - 53 killed by Palestinians. - 10 killed by Israeli security forces.

Check out the infobox to the right. All the controversial stats have been moved to the casualties section.

Here is the article version with this short infobox. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

While the change of position is interesting, there is still zero controversy about the Israeli combatant/noncombatant breakdown. The MIFTAH numbers are not just "killed", of which we already have ample discussion, and remember the children is far from an encyclopaedic source, lacking the most basic statistics. Tewfik^Talk 11:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My point all along was fairness in the presentation of casualties stats in the infobox. Let the readers decide about the MIFTAH info in the casualties section of the article. Same for the info from "Remember These Children". --Timeshifter (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA

Why can't this info below written by Gatoclass be added to the casualties section? Tewfik keeps deleting it, and putting in the old version of CAMERA info. I suggest combining both sets of CAMERA info.

The Israeli advocacy group CAMERA has questioned the reliability of B'Tselem's figures, pointing out that some of the individuals cited as noncombatants by B'Tselem were reported by mainstream news sources to have been killed while participating in hostilities.

Combining the CAMERA info should make more people happy I would think. The combined text would need to be tweaked of course. I am not interested in doing all the combining and tweaking though.

I tried combining the CAMERA info in the article a little bit, and deleting some of the duplicate info. It needs to be further tweaked. Please keep all the references. Wikipedia is not paper. See WP:PAPER. The references give the info perspective over time. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I maintain that the two links I deleted are a total waste of time, however your rearrangement at least makes the account more readable and I might overlook my objection to their inclusion on that basis. Gatoclass (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon blindly reverted to the old version of the CAMERA info. See this diff. He also deleted your references. Maybe Armon could try some actual collaborative editing rather than just POV warring. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's try not to personalize the issues. There are some differences of opinion here about content, and I have no reason to think at this stage that they cannot be resolved by talk page discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you have a better experience with Armon concerning collaborative editing. I may have had longer experience with him than you. Hope springs eternal...--Timeshifter (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) By the way, in your last edits you mistakenly used old stats from B'Tselem. Please see the latest stats here:

• http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp

Also, you removed this "see also" link: Category:Israeli casualties during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. It is normal to use them at the top or bottom of article sections. Please see this example:

• Iraq_War#Casualty_estimates

Note the main article, and "see also", template code there:

{{main|Casualties of the Iraq War}} {{see also|Suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003|Foreign hostages in Iraq|List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006|List of insurgents killed in Iraq}}

It produces this:

Main article: Casualties of the Iraq War

See also: Suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003, Foreign hostages in Iraq, List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006, and List of insurgents killed in Iraq

One adds new links after each vertical line in the code. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? I may have inadvertently restored a less recent version, but since I've already made three reverts of the section in the last 24 hours I thought it best to do no more on the section today. You are perfectly welcome to restore the missing material though if you wish. Gatoclass (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass, if the child statistic is accurate, then we should be able to find a good source that can provide not just a number, but more importantly, information about the combatant breakdown of that number. Regarding MIFTAH, even if it were a good source, it is not just discussing killed, but includes people whose death it indirectly ties to the conflict. Tewfik^Talk 18:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Let the readers decide, Tewfik. Rather than blanking info that meets WP:RS. B'Tselem includes people "whose death it indirectly ties to the conflict." I am talking about the info about Palestinians killing Palestinians. We let the reader decide, Tewfik. You are not "the decider." --Timeshifter (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to you, Gatoclass. You are correct to be careful. Armon and Tewfik operate as a tag-team, whether Armon knows it or not. Tewfik will take it to the 3RR board, and has gotten blocks for people on this article and others even when they only did 3 reverts, not 4. Even when this was appealed, the admin used their discretionary power to block anyway in spite of no strict violation of the 3RR rule. Since there is a systemic bias on wikipedia, as in the Western media, towards favoring Israel over Palestine, some admins will back up others. It is almost unconscious on their parts. Other admins will not block. But Tewfik has repeated 3RR requests, and managed to successfully find a sympathetic admin. Sometimes only a few days apart. This occurs in spite of the fact that Armon and Tewfik together do 4 or more reverts in the same time period. It is a common tactic across wikipedia, especially in situations with ultranationalist editors. It is mentioned repeatedly on WP:ANI. Ultranationalist editors are mentioned often there. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean ultranationalist Canadians -or Kiwis? <<-armon->> (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

POV warring

It seems that Tewfik and Armon do little editing lately on this article. Their contribution lately seems to be mostly blind reversion, selective blanking, and occasional tag-team obstructionism. See the diffs I left previously, and check the history of the article lately. After all the discussion about not putting the controversial civilian/combatant breakdown in the infobox, Armon put it back! Tewfik also put it back. See this diff. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon, you repeatedly asked that non-controversial info not be put in the infobox, and then you put in controversial info yourself. Why is that? --Timeshifter (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. The infobox has been discussed ad nauseum and it's exactly as the source presented it. Accusing me (or anyone else who disagrees with you) of "POV warring" is incivil and frankly, boring. <<-armon->> (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Reread the talk page. Many editors have pointed out the POV nature of your edits of the infobox. Your version of the infobox almost always ends up favoring Israel's points of view (POV).

It is not required to have an infobox. It may be better to do without casualties in the infobox. A much more balanced and nuanced presentation occurs in the casualties section. Almost everyone agrees with that.

The "casus belli" part of the template for the infobox was relatively recently eliminated by the infobox template editors due to the many disputes over it in various military history article infoboxes. It was impossible to fairly summarize the stated and unstated reasons for wars in a few lines. The same is obviously true for the casualties section of this article's infobox.--Timeshifter (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Take it up with B'Tselem -not me. You know very well that's how they presented the stats and I've seen no objections to considering them the best source available. Your opinion that B'Tselem is "POV" or unbalanced is irrelevant, and altering the stats according to your own unsourced opinions is OR. Can we please drop this now? <<-armon->> (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using stats from POV sources. In fact, WP:NPOV requires their inclusion too. That way the info is balanced by the various source POVs. It is your selective use of B'Tselem stats in the infobox that is POV, and it is undue weight to one POV - the WESTERN media POV that only Israelis have suffered substantial civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. B'Tselem has stats for Palestinian noncombatant casualties, too. They should be included in the infobox too, if the Israeli stats are in the infobox. See my comments farther down for more info. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Blind reversions

Tewfik did another of his many blind reversions. See this diff.

Tewfik frequently goes back to old versions, without regard to many totally uncontroversial, intermediate housekeeping edits.

In his last BLIND reversion he removed my innocuous improvements of some reference link details. Unbelievable.

He, of course, also did his usual removal of facts disliked by ultranationalists. Such as the number of Palestinian and Israeli children killed. As reported by "Remember These Children". That was in the casualties section of the article.

And he, as usual, returned a biased, POV-favoring infobox, with the number of Israeli civilians killed, but without the number of Palestinian noncombatants killed. He had an amusing edit summary mentioning NPOV and consensus. All while imposing his POV, and doing it without consensus.

Tewfik also removed this quote (added by Gatoclass originally) concerning Palestinians killing Palestinians:

The Humanist article also states:

It isn’t, however, surprising that such conditions should prevail. Subject, oppressed, or embattled peoples throughout history have commonly turned on themselves. The occupation and war conditions under which Palestinians currently live readily foster internal hostility and the loss of civil liberties.

Hmmm. Tewfik again removes something in order to favor his POV. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. Review WP:TALK. This is not the complaints department and it unclear what you're even talking about. <<-armon->> (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It is clear to anyone who has been paying attention to this talk page. The diff shows what is being removed or changed. I suggest you review WP:RS and WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said... <<-armon->> (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Current disputes

Okay, let's see if we can sort out some of the current disputes.

Infobox

Although I personally think the Btselem breakdown for Palestinian combatants/noncombatants should be up there, on reflection I think I can probably live with the current version that says the figures are disputed, because it's not an inaccurate statement. Just as long as the statement is not buried in such a way that it can be overlooked, and I think with the current version it's probably evident enough.

I don't think it makes much sense to remove the Israeli breakdown when it's a breakdown that is generally agreed upon.Gatoclass (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You did not completely address the WP:NPOV issue concerning balanced presentations of info. To put only the number of Israeli civilians killed in the infobox is a violation of WP:NPOV. It is a POV fork to put the balancing info only in the casualties section of the article. Because many people skim the infobox of articles and may not notice the balancing info unless they read carefully. So it is undue weight on the Israeli civilian casualties, and reinforces systemic bias in the WESTERN media, ... of which English wikipedia is a part. There is no rule that undisputed info gets such privilege in Wikimedia. The Iraq War infobox has a LOT of disputed casualty info. See the wide variations in the casualty estimates.

Even with the link to the casualties section of the article it could be made easier to find the civilian/combatant info. A subsection titled "Civilian/combatant breakdown" would be helpful. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, as I said I agree that combatant/noncombatant breakdown for both sides should probably be there, with a range for the Palestinian side. It's just that I don't think it's an issue worth squabbling over. The infobox says the Palestinian noncombatant estimate is disputed, isn't it enough that the reader is informed that an exact breakdown is not known and that he has to read the appropriate section to avail himself of the details? I would have thought it was. Maybe not ideal, but sufficient - providing the Casualty section itself gives a reasonably NPOV account, that is. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not sufficient. The casualties section is under frequent change, and finding the combatant/noncombatant info there is problematic at the best of times. We need a subsection to fix that problem permanently. Otherwise this vagueness favors systemic bias. What is wrong with removing the combatant/noncombatant altogether from the infobox, creating a subsection in the casualties section farther down in the article, and then never having to squabble over it again?--Timeshifter (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to remove the Israeli combatant/noncombatant breakdown from the infobox, because those figures are not disputed. That is not the case however with the Palestinian noncombatant casualties.

As for having a separate subsection discussing the Palestinian combatant/noncombatant breakdown, that's fine by me - in fact the more I look at the Casualties section as a whole the more I think it could do with a complete rewrite - but I'd prefer to reach some sort of consensus on this page over how to go about that first rather than risk embarking on another sterile edit war. Gatoclass (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think more subsections would help tremendously. We can also link directly to the subsections from the infobox.

You mentioned putting a range for the total of Palestinian noncombatant deaths in the infobox. That is acceptable by me. But I didn't know there were any other numbers for that total than B'Tselem's number. Other numbers mentioned whether the dead had ever been members of various militia and reserve groups. If one did that for the Israeli civilian dead, then we would have a range for them, too. Many Israelis have served in the military or the reserves. I think it is ridiculous to count that as being "combatant" at the time of their deaths for either side. They were either noncombatant at the time of their deaths or they were not. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I put a direct link from the infobox to the "Combatant versus noncombatant deaths" section of the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Casualties section

However, if we are going to be content with a "see casualties section" for the infobox, then we have to ensure that the casualties section itself gives an appropriately NPOV account. I have voiced my objection to the inclusion of two old links referencing a methodology no longer used by Btselem. I've said I don't believe these links have any place in the article, but perhaps I should expand on the reasons I think so.

Firstly, one of the old links is a CAMERA article, which means we have two articles from CAMERA criticizing Btselem. Secondly, the later CAMERA article summarizes the earlier article in any case (as well as making new points) so the earlier article is completely redundant. Thirdly, the other old link is a dense analysis of long out-of-date casualty figures that can't possibly throw any light on the subject for the reader.

More importantly though, I think it's obvious that having three individual links from Israeli advocacy groups is a clear case of undue weight, particularly when one link is analyzing totally redundant figures and the other two are from the same organization and saying virtually the same thing. It misleads the reader into thinking there are more (and more credible) critics than is actually the case.

Even with all these objections however, I was prepared to concede on the inclusion of these links based on Timeshifter's rearrangement of their order of presentation. I believe that's a very substantial concession on my part, and I would encourage Tewfik and Armon to take a good look at Timeshifter's version and ask themselves if it is really so bad as their reverts indicate they think it is. I submit that in fact it gives both sides of the debate a fair hearing (more than fair for the Israeli side in my view as I've indicated above).

What is transparently not NPOV in my view, is to sandwich the Btselem statement between these critical links in a way that marginalizes the statement by reducing it to a mere sentence in the middle of a paragraph of criticism. Gatoclass (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well the ver I reverted to was better -I not going to argue it was "good". As I said before, I think the changes in BT's methodology are notable, but I do take your point about there being too much back and forth. What we really need to do with this section is to work out what we need to cover, what we agree are decent sources, and to give it a narrative flow. I haven't even looked at Taimut's current ver at the moment, but what I think we should do is get consensus on those issues and maybe sandbox the section. <<-armon->> (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think narrative flow is sorely lacking. It's very disjointed and as you say with too much "back and forth". I've been thinking about taking a shot at a rewrite but it's a matter of finding the time. Gatoclass (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember the children

The issue here for me is not whether "Remember the children" is the best available link or not, although I think it probably is. The issue is that the number of minors killed on each side is hardly something that can be legitimately ignored on this page, although I have agreed it should not be in the infobox. We probably don't need both MIFTAH and RTC though, and if one should go it should be MIFTAH since that is a partisan Palestinian website with an obvious questionmark regarding objectivity. Gatoclass (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said previously. I have no problem including the numbers of children, I just don't think that "Remember the Children" is a good source. Its major problem is a misreporting of combatant casualties as noncombatant. There would be no problem with including a source that accurately reports not just numbers, but a statistic about how many were noncombatants, which is ultimately what is relevant. Tewfik^Talk 13:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Where does it give a breakdown of combatant and noncombatant casualties at RTC? I didn't see one, and I very much doubt they would even consider one. Gatoclass (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Its major problem is a misreporting of combatant casualties as noncombatant." Please give an example, Tewfik. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism is a partisan Israeli "website with an obvious question mark regarding objectivity." That does not disallow pointing out their casualty info and analysis. We summarize it in the form of X says Y, and let the readers decide. We let them follow the references for more info. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, but what I'm saying is that it doesn't really matter which source is used, so long as it's a reasonably credible one. I think Remember the Children would be better because it bases its own numbers on a number of different reliable sources. Perhaps a word should be added to say the number of minors killed on each side are not really disputed, which IMO they are not. The important thing is that the numbers are there, not which source is used, so long as the source is a credible one. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

All the sources don't have the same range of stats. So it is good to summarize info from all the semi-credible sources that meet WP:RS, and to allow the readers to follow reference links for more info. It gives a bigger picture, provides more perspective, and shows readers that casualty numbers can change depending on the source. Casualty stats is not always science, and after editing Iraq War casualties articles for a long time, I know that certainty is not likely to be found. Wikipedia is not paper. See WP:PAPER. We can always spin out a separate casualties article if the length of the casualties section becomes a problem. See WP:SPINOUT. There are many casualty articles for the Iraq War. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing the info from all semi-credible sources will just make for an overlong, quotefarm, dog's breakfast of an article. We're supposed to be using reliable, not semi-reliable sources. <<-armon->> (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

More wikilawyering on your part. WP:RS allows reliability of varying levels. The pro-Israeli sources for casualty stats, and the pro-Palestinian sources, and the peace group sources, etc. all have varying credibility in the eyes of others. --Timeshifter 15:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember these children. Notability info

Armon made a baseless claim that "Remember these children" was not notable.

One of their pages with casualty info and stats for children:

• http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2000.html

I did some Google searches:

• http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Remember+these+children%22
• http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Remember+these+children%22

The Google News search pulled up these articles:

• http://www.wrmea.com/archives/November_2007/0711058.html
• http://www.wrmea.com/archives/November_2007/0711056b.html

The articles are from the November 2007 edition of Washington Report on Middle East Affairs which is a magazine published 9 times per year.

Here is a more focussed search: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Remember+these+children%22+israel

"Remember these children" is mentioned in this May 2007 Z Magazine (an independent monthly magazine since 1987) article:

• http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12824

I could go on, and will probably pull up more articles later. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As The Washington Report is published by the American Educational Trust -one of the groups in the website's "umbrella" -the www.wrmea.com links are self reference. As for ZNet, it's a far left "alternative" magazine and not an RS for anything other than for that POV. <<-armon->> (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

More incorrect wikilawyering on your part. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is a reliable source by itself. So is Z Magazine put out by ZNet. So when those 2 print (and online) publications write articles concerning Remember these children, then they establish the notability of it. --Timeshifter 15:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

MIFTAH

I removed the MIFTAH info below from the article pending further discussion.

A MIFTAH special report states the figures of people killed between September 28, 2000 and November 19, 2007 as 4931 Palestinians and 1113 Israelis. Of the Palestinians 969 were children, 305 women and 3657 men. Of the Israelis 113 were children, 305 women and 603 men. Most Palestinian death was due to shelling (840) while 117 death as the result of being denied medical help and 31 babies born dead at checkpoints.[15]

I think we need to check out their sources, notability, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Blind reversion of major rewrite of Casualties section.

Tewfik did another major blind reversion. See this diff.

I did a major rewrite of the Casualties section, and Tewfik ignored it all.

Tiamut, on the other hand, improved on my rewrite. Here is Tiamuts last version before Tewfik's blind reversion.

My rewrite broke up the casualties section of the article into several subsections, making it much easier to follow. I added relevant info, quotes, charts, reference link details, etc..

What exactly is Tewfik's purpose lately on Wikipedia? --Timeshifter 15:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Civilian casualties bias in infobox.

Armon put back only the number of Israeli civilian casualties in the infobox (without also including the number or range of Palestinian noncombatant casualties). See this diff. Armon also removed my direct link to the "Combatant versus noncombatant deaths" part of the casualties section farther down in the article.

That was before Tewfik blindly reverted the major rewrite of the casualties section, and eliminated that "Combatant versus noncombatant deaths" subsection heading altogether.

The question is why is there this effort that results in obfuscating or burying the info about the number of Palestinian noncombatant deaths? Either put the Palestinian noncombatant deaths number (or range) in the infobox, or remove the Israeli civilian casualties number. Fair is fair. We must meet WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter 15:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

I have twice removed this paragraph:

However, the relative success of the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit, the truce agreed on by President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian militant organizations, the construction of the Israeli West Bank barrier, and the relatively low levels of violence during 2005, were considered by many to mark its effective end, commonly attributed to the change in Palestinian government following the death of Yasser Arafat and the Israeli unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria in the West Bank.

It is referenced to

1) Pierre Razoux, Tsahal, p.468, Perrin, isbn 226202328X 2) Mideast ceasefire agreed, Financial Times, feb 9, 2005

Does anyone have a copy of the text attesting to the claims made in the paragraph? Can anyone explain how the word "However" is justified here? or the phrase "commonly attributed"?

As far as I am aware, the idea that the Second Intifada is over is a fringe minority viewpoint if one that is current at all. It is dangerous to mislead our readers about what most of the world views as an ongoing conflict. So I've been proactive and removed this. Before anyone reinserts it again, I'd like a response to the questions I've raised and a copy of the text in question. If it turns out that these views do enjoy currency, we need to attribute them so as to avoid weasel words. Thanks. Tiamut 19:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'd like to see some more evidence for the view that it's over. It may well be a notable minority view, in which case we should present it, but clearly describe it as such. <<-armon->> 10:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ariel Sharon in the infobox

I've just noticed that Ariel Sharon is marked as being deceased in the infobox, yet his article states that he is still alive,, albeit in a vegetative state. Does this need changing? A-Nottingham | Talk 19:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Even if he's brain dead, if he's not dead dead, he's not dead. <<-armon->> (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverts of 3,902 bytes

Tewfik, Beit Or, would you care to explain your reverts of this material? [16] Things are getting restored that have not been verified despite request (just above) to provide the text in question. Minor language edits that improved flow and readability are being reverted there as well. Can you try to isolate the specific problems and discuss? Tiamut 19:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Another round of major tag-team reverts. Ultranationalist POV-favoring

Tewfik intitiated another round of tag-team reverts. He reverted many of the changes made in the last few weeks. He did this after the page had been basically stable for 16 days since Tiamut's last edit before his major blanking reversion. See this diff: [17]

Armon piled on, too. Hey Armon, how come you waited 16 days before you made any edits?

Tag-team reverts are not a productive way to edit wikipedia. This type of support for ultranationalist POV-favoring in Israeli-related articles is against WP:NPOV.

Ultranationalist POV-favoring has been mentioned many times at WP:ANI and elsewhere concerning various topic areas. Jimbo Wales has spoken out against this type of ultranationalist POV-favoring in various topic areas.

Please use the talk page, Tewfik and Armon.

Here are many examples of ultranationalist POV-favoring on wikipedia::

• http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia+ultra+nationalist
• http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia+ultranationalist

A lot of productive time of admins and arbitrators is wasted due to the stubbornness of supporters of ultranationalist POVs. If they understood WP:NPOV better then there would not be a problem. We can express all significant POVs in the form of X says Y. But no POV can be favored. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been busy. Anyway, the changes you've made aren't improvements in my and other people's opinion. The reverts should tell you that. There's a bunch of bold changes that you (or Tiamut) have made so you'll need to break them down into small bites so you can explain your rationale for each and we can discuss them. <<-armon->> (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No Armon. First off, you were aware of my deletion of the passage on the end of the intifada. Indeed, you participated in the discussion above and agreed that we needed to verify the information. But in your reverts and those of Tewfik, you keep restoring that passage. When you edit this way, I have reason to believe that you are "blind reverting". Both Timeshifter and myself invited editors to discuss the changes. Those who fail to take up that offer, can't come in days later and "blind revert" and put the onus on us to defend every sentence added (all sourced to reliable sources). Please isolate specific issues that require discussion and stop restoring information you yourself agreed did not meet WP:V. Tiamut 11:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK I've removed the "however it's ended" bit as well. That's something specific. If someone wants to restore it, they can present their evidence. <<-armon->> (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We certainly cannot say definitively that it is over based on just a pair of sources, but that is enough to present theposition that many hold, which is what I changed the wording to. Tewfik^Talk 23:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Armon, but that's just not enough. First of all, you proved my point by first reverting again (including once again the unverified paragraph) and only afterward changing your edit to remove that paragraph. That leads me to believe you are reverting before even reading the talk page.

Second of all, how are we supposed to improve the version you keep deleting, if we cannot understand what the specific problems are? There are a number of edits there. Am I supposed to guess which ones are offensive or below par to you? I can't read your mind. Please discuss the specifics of the edits that were made, and what specifically is wrong with them. Tiamut 16:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What she said, Armon. Almost all of the current talk page is about casualties. I initiated many of the discussions. I believe I participated in all of the discussion sections dealing with casualties.

Armon. You have been editing other wikipedia articles most days since November 30, 2007. We have basically had the same stable edition of this article since November 30, 2007. You did a blind revert only after Tewfik did one.

Armon. Your major complaint was that you did not want info about the number of Palestinian noncombatant/civilian casualties to be in the infobox. I allowed this obvious favoring of the ultranationalist Israeli POV, but only because the casualties section of the article had a subsection that dealt specifically with the issue of noncombatant/civilian casualties. This infobox bias is an unfair favoring of one POV, but I let it slide due to the improved casualties section of the article. Now you want to go back to an even more POV-favoring version of the article. This is against WP:NPOV, and people have been banned short and longterm for such tendentious editing that continually favors one POV. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm ignoring you until you decide to discuss the article -not me. <<-armon->> (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not call you any names. I said you were favoring an ultranationalist Israeli POV. You obviously aren't Israeli, since your user page says you are a Canadian living in New Zealand. Saying you are Canadian is not a personal attack either. As your user page states: "Check out the userboxes. I've restored them in the interest of full disclosure of my POV. I still strive for NPOV, but I accept that I, like everyone, have intellectual blind spots. This may help you to identify mine and point them out to me when necessary."

So, Armon, I now have pointed out your "intellectual blind spots" in the case of your conscious or unconscious favoring of ultranationalist Israeli POVs on articles dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This issue has been discussed many times on WP:ANI concerning many users, so it is not a taboo subject.

Armon. You wrote: "... I'm ignoring you until you decide to discuss the article. ..." I have now emphasized the part of my previous comment that discusses the article.

Armon. As I noted on your talk page you are again in violation of 3RR here (see the previous 3RR notice on November 28, 2007 [18] from Gatoclass higher up on your talk page). I will give you time to self-revert before reporting it to the 3RR noticeboard.--Timeshifter (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Armon has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. See this diff: [19] --Timeshifter (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Now Jaakobou (talk · contribs) is blind reverting without engaging in discussion. Can people please respond to the good faith requests to actually discuss the specific issues that are objectionable, without using edit summaries that are difficult to decipher and impede our ability to come to a consensus version? Thanks. Tiamut 23:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for "discussion" that pretend there was no discussion and that then reinstitute all of the same edits against the prior consensus over the course of months are not requests meant for actual resolution of disputes. Parties interested in such resolution would 1) stop adding the disputed sections and 2) respond to the problems discussed previously. Tewfik^Talk 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Tewfik, but I've reviewed the talk page and I still have no idea what you are referring to. Further, as you can see here, the article has been changed significantly since the last comment you made an unresolved issue (29 Nov above - something about the info on child casualties being fine but the source bgein weak. There was no consensus out of that discussion). In order to move forward here, you have to be explicit about what it is in the over 5,000 bytes of material that you are deleting that warrants this kind of mass blanking. Tiamut 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik. The article was stable for over 2 weeks until YOU started the latest round of revert wars. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

craziness

instead of edit warring over two very different versions - [20] - i suggest we first agree on one or two of the easier issues and then move on to discuss each of the other larger issues.

feel free to open up (and attempt to resolve) more issues based on the issues. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

flag icons

flag issue seems to be closed with a silent agreement on this version: [21] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[22] - is it really necessary to include all the flags? i feel that this listing -- Flag of Israel Israel Defense Forces, Flag of Israel Israel Air Force, Flag of Israel Israel Navy, Flag of Israel Shin Bet, Flag of Israel Israel Border Police -- is a bit of an overkill. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. An Israeli flag should suffice. <<-armon->> (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the box and the shading. Discussion is never closed on a talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

civilian/combatant breakdown

civilian/combatant issue seems to be closed with an agreement on this version: [23] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[24] - i don't even understand what the edit war here is all about - this is obviously a POV issue and i feel the best way to avoid it is to admit that this is a contentious issue (is it not?) and find a phrasing that is acceptable to everybody. I suggest:

For the controversial issue of the Palestinian civilian/combatant breakdown, see Casualties.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I substituted your suggested text into the infobox.--Timeshifter (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the real difference is between that, and saying it's disputed, but OK. <<-armon->> (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the box and the shading. Discussion is never closed on a talk page.--Timeshifter (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

intifada (uprising)

[25]

Version 1:

...began in September 2000. It is the second major wave of violence between Palestinians and Israelis following the First Intifada.

Version 2:

...refers to the second Palestinian uprising which began in September 2000. (see also First Intifada).

• if i'm not mistaken, the conflict here is about the use of the terms 'uprising' and 'violence'...? from an israeli perspective, the term 'uprising' is contentious in regards to the second intifada -- there is no contest to this regarding the first intifada, but there is regarding the second one. personally, since we have text explaining the term in the following paragraph, i suggest we leave out the word 'uprising'. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• personally, i prefer the insertion of 'first intifada' into the text over the () version. i'd like to hear replacement suggestions for how to describe the violent clashes so that we can resolve this dispute also... suggest 'second major wave of clashes between ... First Intifada'. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the term "violence" should be used instead of "uprising." In my opinion, "uprising" violates WP:NPOV and suggests a justified action against oppression; whereas, "violence" does not connote any form of legitimacy or justification for either side. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think that characterizing it just as "violence" robs it of any context, implying that the violence is meaningless. I don't think uprising implies anything at all, but regardless, the intifada most definitely *is* an uprising against the Israeli occupation and it's not at all POV in my opinion to describe it as such. Gatoclass (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct; the term violence robs it of any context (i.e. point-of-view). The removal of point-of-view is, to state the obvious, necessary for writing a neutral article. That the Second Intifada "*is* an uprising against Israeli occupation" is a pro-Palestinian take on the events of the Second Intifada; from the Israeli viewpoint, the Second Intifada is a wave of Palestinian terrorist attacks, instigated by Yassir Arafat. All can agree, however, that violence did take place. Hence, the term "violence" (a neutral term) should be used in place of "uprising" (a non-neutral term). ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

the term Intifada is contentious in regards to the second wave of clashes (it is noted that, unlike the first one, it was organized by the palestinian leadership). being that the term is explained in the next paragraph; I suggest we leave the discussion on this to that paragraph and not use the word in this paragraph.

p.s. am i to understand that the issue of dispute is only about the use of the 'uprising' word and not about the word 'violence'? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean, it was allegedly organized by the Palestinian leadership, don't you? But in any case, it doesn't matter, as there is nothing to say an uprising cannot be organized. I'm sure there was plenty of organization that went into the Warsaw ghetto uprising, but people don't quibble about use of the term there. Gatoclass (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

the word 'uprising' is the name of the ghetto event and the word 'intifada' is the name of this event. no one is trying to delete the word intifada and we have a discussion on the term in the following paragraph. to be frank, this seems like a pushing of a WP:POINT. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "pushing" anything Jaakobu. I am simply making a point. The point being that "violence" alone is prejudicial, and that since "intifada" means uprising I cannot see what the problem is with using it. I mean, as you yourself note, it's used in the very next paragraph anyhow, so what is the problem? Gatoclass (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

On National Public Radio today in the USA there was a piece about tourism in Bethlehem around Christmas time. They discussed that there was only one suicide bombing, if I am remembering correctly, in the last year in the "second uprising". Those are the exact words used. I don't see how it makes any difference whether an uprising was sparked, planned, spontaneous, justified, unjustified, or a combination of all the above. It is still an uprising. To me it sounds like any spark could have set it off, especially if there were some elements willing to provoke the IDF to the point of live ammunition being used in response. That the IDF used live ammunition makes one wonder if this was a mutually-desired war. It seems that way to me. Sharon certainly had a history of whipping up the hard line to get elected, and dashing hopes of a continuation of substantial negotiations. Then he backed up his bravado with provocative visits to his enemies' religious site with obvious relish and lack of respect. But it is all speculation. In my opinion there are a bunch of psychotic war mongers on all sides. But hey, someday, I or others will need to find some more reliable sources to back that up. I am more interested in reliable sources that record the casualties that result from all the little boys with the toys. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides accusations against National Public Radio of anti-Israel bias [26][27], the Second Intifada did not begin last year, but in the year 2000 (some even consider the Second Intifada to have ended in 2005). In the year 2002, alone, which -- at least from the Israeli perspective -- was the height of the Second Intifada, there were more than one hundred attempted attacks and some sixty successful ones [28]. I'm not suggesting that we use Jewish Virtual Library over NPR; rather, I'm suggesting that we follow Wikipedia guidelines and consider how our words can subtly introduce POV. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Is English really your native language? I know the Intifada has been going on since 2000. Read this talk page and the talk archives. I have been editing the casualties section here for a long time. NPR was talking about the last year in reference to why Bethlehem tourism was increasing. The level of violence in the last year is a lot less. This is undisputed. So there is no need to reference CAMERA, a hyper-critical pro-Israeli advocacy group like many others. Look up "uprising" in a dictionary and stop wasting our time. This is just more systemic bias from supporters of the ultranationalist Israeli POV. Isarig was banned from this topic area for 6 months for biased POV support for the ultranationalist Israeli POV. See my user talk page for more info on this campaign of systemic bias.--Timeshifter (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, English really is my native language. I am not denying the decreased level of violence in recent years. I am pointing out, however, that the recent lower level of violence is irrelevant and does not make the term "uprising" any less POV. You seem to misconstrue my statements about the Israeli viewpoint as endorsement of the Israeli viewpoint. A dictionary is only helpful in terms of a word's denotation; a word's connotation depends on associations created by its common usage. I do not contest the definition you have provided, but rather the implications of the word's usage. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

And what does the level of violence have to do with my point? My point was that NPR, a major news outlet, used the phrase "second uprising". I don't care what your POV is, as long as you support WP:NPOV. A misinformed minority viewpoint in Israel concerning the meaning and connotation of the word "uprising" does not allow us to mangle logic and the English language in order to avoid a "connotation" that does not exist. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Safyan is correct. Version 1 (violence) is better because it's neutral. Any concern about "context" isn't a problem because there's the whole rest of the article to expand on it. <<-armon->> (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Safyan wrote: "from the Israeli viewpoint, the Second Intifada is a wave of Palestinian terrorist attacks, instigated by Yassir Arafat." I don't understand the point. It is still an uprising whether terrorist attacks are involved or not. Maybe a minority Israeli viewpoint is offended by the term "uprising", but I am sure most Israelis are not so deluded as to believe that it is just random violence and terrorism without the goal of rising up against Israeli occupation. WP:NPOV says that we don't give minority viewpoints more prominence than the main viewpoints. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

<Sigh> NPOV is why we don't term it "terrorist attacks". What it is, indisputably, is violence. whether one considers the violence to be legitimate or not, is a product of one's POV. "Uprising" is therefore inappropriate as it clearly has connotations that the violence is legitimate. <<-armon->> (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"Uprising" does not connote legitimacy. An uprising is a word that simply means "rebellion against the prevailing authority". It doesn't make a judgement about whether or not that authority is good bad or indifferent. It simply indicates that the authority is not accepted or regarded as legitimate by those participating in the uprising. Gatoclass (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; the term "uprising" does connote legitimacy. The term "uprising" may denote "rebellion against the prevailing authority," but it implies that the prevailing authority is cruel and oppressive and it also connotes that the rebellion is justified. That we are even having this dispute should suggest that the term "uprising" conveys a point-of-view. Let's put it this way: are there any objections to using the term "violence"? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

When the Mahdi Army staged an uprising against the Iraqi Coalition in 2004, did that "connote legitimacy"? Of course it didn't. "Uprising" is a neutral term that simply means "rebellion against authority".Gatoclass (talk) 08:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

some would just call it "islamist terrorist jihad" against the jewish people's right for self determination - i.e. trying to push them into the sea. read the following comment, and try to consider consensus building. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the violence and terrorism is from fundamentalist settlers. Some of it is from fundamentalist Islamists. Some of the violence is from non-Islamist Palestinians. Some Palestinians want Israel driven into the sea, and some want a 2-state solution. Some on both sides just like violence. Some are psychotic on both sides. All of this is true, and should be in the article, along with reliable sourcing. But in any case it is an uprising. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Armon, please stop with the bogus condescending "sigh" crap. The argumentation tool of condescension only works when it is obvious that the person using condescension is more knowledgeable. Obviously, you are not.

See http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Auprising - "rebellion: organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another". wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Armon, there are no, as you said, "connotations that the violence is legitimate." --Timeshifter (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

comment - no one is disputing (best i'm aware) that the word 'intifada' translates to 'uprising'. there is however, contest on whether or not the second intifada amounts to one -- not by name, but by structure. please consider this and look for a solution that will satisfy both POVs. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

partial break - clarification

[29]

Version 1:

...began in September 2000. It is the second major wave of violence between Palestinians and Israelis following the First Intifada.

Version 2:

...refers to the second Palestinian uprising which began in September 2000. (see also First Intifada).

• Question 1: i believe we should try and avoid the () if it's possible; and i believe this is such a case. are there any objections in regards to this issue? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • reply -
  • reply -

• Question 2: i believe that we can leave the dispute (and clearly, there is a dispute) over the issue of the word uprising to the following paragraph. are there any objections in regards to this issue? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • reply -
  • reply -

definitions and connotations of "uprising"

Let's get to the point, and stop wasting time. See http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Auprising

• "rebellion: organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another" - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

So using the word "uprising" implies no connotations of legitimacy or illegitimacy. This particular discussion is just more hyper-critical misinformed criticism similar to much of the CAMERA criticism of NPR, BBC, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• "an act or instance of rising up; especially : a usually localized act of popular violence in defiance usually of an established government" - Merriam-Webster Online

A dictionary provides a word's denotation, not connotation. Hence this exercise cannot possibly establish the word's connotation. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit my comments. It confuses things. I moved your Merriam-Webster dictionary definition to your comment, and out of my comment. The Google search does not pull up the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition. In any case either definition does not imply any particular connotation. Prisons have uprisings. We don't automatically assume all prison uprisings are justified. The word "uprising" does not lean toward connoting either a justified or unjustified uprising. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not realize that was supposed to be part of your comment; I thought we were simply compiling a list of dictionary definitions. As for your statement that "either definition does not imply any particular connotation," that is quite obvious; dictionaries only provide denotations, not connotations. I provided a dictionary definition to help in compiling a list -- even though I don't think such a list will establish anything with regard to connotation -- and not to establish a connotation (which could not be established by a dictionary, anway). As for your statement that you did not find the Merriam-Webster definition in Google, please keep in mind that Google is not the be-all-and-end-all of reality, and that we should not restrict ourselves to what Google has to say. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You keep going off on hypercritical, illogical tangents. I did not say that Google was the one true way to godhood, enlightenment, and fundamentalist truth. Please stay on topic. And you did not respond to my point about the use of the term "prison uprisings". --Timeshifter (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The term "uprising" brings to mind the "Warsaw Ghetto Uprising," not some "prison break" or "prison mutiny." I suppose you could describe a prison break as an "uprising"; however, doing so would imply justification and legitimacy. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You say that English is your native language. Yet you don't believe the phrase "prison uprising" is common? See:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22prison+uprising%22

And are you so illiterate in English that you believe that all prison uprisings are justified? I don't think we need to waste any more time with one obstructionist. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Was it really necessary to accuse me of being illiterate? That you can find instances of the phrase "prison uprising" in Google doesn't prove the neutrality of the term, and I stand by my assertion that the term "uprising" conveys the Palestinian POV. Might I also add that, even were "uprising" to not connote legitimacy (which I still believe it does), the term would nevertheless introduce the Palestinian point-of-view, because the word suggests that the "prevailing authority" over the Palestinians was Israel (instead of the Palestinian Authority) and it suggests that Palestinian violence was directed against that authority (rather than against the civilian populace of Israel). ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

My (casual) review of the sources show that intifada is almost always translated as uprising, although some sources note that it literally means shaking off as in "shaking off sleep" or "shaking off chains". We should adhere to what the sources say, even if there is some apparent problem of POV in the views of editors. <eleland/talkedits> 01:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing about the translation of the word intifada. Please see Jaakobou's earlier comment: "no one is disputing (best i'm aware) that the word 'intifada' translates to 'uprising'. there is however, contest on whether or not the second intifada amounts to one -- not by name, but by structure." At issue, here, is whether the Second Intifada should be described as "the second Palestinian uprising" or the "second major wave of violence between Palestinians and Israelis." In other words, this is really a dispute about this diff. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is about what this is. It is an uprising. It is not random violence or simple criminality. And in reply to your earlier comment: Who do you think the intifada is against? Israel or the Palestinian Authority? Get real. And it is still an uprising even though Israeli civilians are targeted also. And in this war some Israeli settlers have targeted Palestinian civilians. The USA firebombed many cities in World War 2 with the direct intention to kill as many civilians as possible. Our country, the USA, also nuked 2 cities. All that is irrelevant to the fact that this intifada is an uprising. Please stop going off on tangents. This is not a political forum. Please see WP:TALK. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The translation of the word intifada is a different issue. That it's usually translated as "uprising" or "shaking off" is a fact. Stating that is not a problem, what's a problem is using WP's voice to describe it as such when it's clearly one side's POV. Can we drop this now? <<-armon->> (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. It seems self-evident to me that the intifada (whether contrived or not) is an uprising against Israeli dominance. If it's not about that, what is it about? Gatoclass (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

comment/request - can editors please participate in this subsection? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your proposals have certainly been noted, but I don't particularly want to confine myself to addressing the issues in the terms you have outlined in that section right now. I'd like to try and establish some basic principles first, as outlined in my previous post, because I'm having trouble understanding what alternatives there are to viewing the intifada as an uprising against Israeli occupation. Gatoclass (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it goes back to the denial on the part of some supporters of the minority ultranationalist Israeli POV (a minority even in Israel) that there is an Israeli OCCUPATION. So since in their minds there is no occupation, then there can be no uprising against an occupation. See my user page for some of the long history of the obfuscation of the issue of "Israeli occupation" on wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

assuming it is indeed an uprising against occupation (rather than an attempt to kill the jews and take the jewish land for arab ownership). is it neccesary to add the word "uprise" into each and every paragraph? if so, then i suggest we add the text "terrorist" into each and every paragraph regarding such attacks. in the words of timeshifter: "I think it goes back to the denial on the part of some supporters of the minority" to claim that molotov cocktails launched randomly at civilians while the perpetrator creates his base of operations inside residential areas are not terrorist activity. if you want the page locked, we can do it easily. if you want to create a neutral encyclopedia that addresses both perspectives in a non inflammatory, bloggish sense of "there is no other way to look at it", let me know the terms you 2 would be willing to discuss consensus building. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to block the fact that there are terrorist activities involved in this conflict. On both sides. Israeli settlers have targeted and killed civilians also. Neither am I trying to block the POV that some are trying to "kill the jews and take the jewish land for arab ownership". Neither am I trying to block the POV that Israelis are trying to kill Palestinians and take Palestinian land for Israeli ownership. WP:NPOV is followed by showing all significant viewpoints in the form of X says Y. Minority viewpoints are not given prominence over mainstream viewpoints. It is a small minority viewpoint (in Israel and worldwide) that believes this is not an uprising against Israeli occupation.

I count 2 uses of the word "uprising" in the article itself, and they are in the first 2 paragraphs where they should be since they are the lead paragraphs telling what the article is about. This article is about a Palestinian uprising and the Israeli response. There is another use of the word "uprising" in an image caption. I count around 17 uses of the word "terror" and its derivatives in the article. So there is no censorship of that common reliably-sourced POV. When I do a Google phrase search for "Palestinian uprising" I come up with around 160,000 results:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Palestinian+uprising%22

The Jewish Virtual Library has a page with "Palestinian Uprisings" in the title:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf19.html

As I said, it is only a small minority in Israel and worldwide that do not acknowledge this as a Palestinian uprising. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

we can resolve this issue without soapboxing right here: this subsection. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who is not trying to resolve the issue. The issue is being openly and fully discussed in a much fuller manner in this section. You are now following in the footsteps of Tewfik and Armon in doing mass deletions of large parts of the casualties section. Why? Because people aren't discussing the issues in the manner you want to impose? The casualties section with several subdivisions stood for over 2 weeks without objection until Tewfik started the latest revert war. You are approaching 3RR. I suggest you self-revert and return the subdivisions of the casualties section that you deleted. Please return to your previously-honorable editing. You can be blocked for 3RR violations even at your current number of blind reversions in one day. You even reverted updates to the casualty numbers in the infobox in your blind reverts. This is why they are called "blind" reverts. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the version with all the subdivisions of the casualties section (before you deleted them), and with the updated infobox casualty numbers (before you blind reverted it). --Timeshifter (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to try to explain the problem with using Wikipedia's voice to describe the Second Intifada as an "uprising." The name Intifada translates to "uprising." This is not disputed. However, this word is an Arabic word and reflects the Palestinian point-of-view. From the Palestinian perspective, the Second Intifada (which they call the "al-Aqsa Intifada") was an uprising against a brutal Israeli military occupation. From the Israeli perspective, however, the Second Intifada was a violent rejection of Israel's right to exist and series of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. It seems, that since both sides can agree that violence occurred, that Wikipedia's voice should describe the Second Intifada as violence between Israelis and Palestinians. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to describe the Second Intifada, in Wikipedia's voice, as either an "uprising" or a "wave of terrorist attacks." Obviously, Wikipedia should note and describe these perspectives (which the current version already does); however, such viewpoints should appear with their proper attribution and should not be endorsed or dismissed by Wikipedia. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that the second intifada included a lot of terrorist attacks. What I was asking for, however is your explanation for why this wave of terrorist attacks occurred in the first place. Surely you don't believe that, after seven years of peace negotiations, Palestinians suddenly reverted to a deliberate campaign of terrorism for no reason at all? Gatoclass (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the terrorist attacks is irrelevant and hotly contested. The point is this: how is it any less biased to claim that the main feature of the Second Intifada was an uprising than to claim that the main feature of the Second Intifada was terrorism? This depends entirely on one's point-of-view. Since Wikipedia is supposed to maintain a neutral point-of-view, it would be inappropriate to select either as the primary characteristic of the Second Intifada. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Safyan. You are veering from support of the nationalist Israeli POV to support of the ultranationalist Israeli POV. This is twisting the common use of English to the point of ridiculousness. This article could just as well have been titled "The second Palestinian uprising." It is a common title for this uprising. See my previous Google search. Wikipedia uses common names for the titles and descriptions of articles. There are at least 3 common names for this conflict. Second Intifada, Al-Aqsa Intifada, Second Palestinian uprising, etc.. They are all used by the mainstream news media. The main stated purpose of most of the Palestinian combatants is to liberate all of the West Bank and Gaza of Israeli occupation. Fatah already acknowledges Israel's right to exist. Some of the combatants also want to take back Israel too. But they all are rising against the Israelis. So in either case it is an uprising. It is a plain neutral fact. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please give me a break, Timeshifter. I just used the phrase "brutal Israeli military occupation". Are you seriously accusing me of pushing an "ultranationalist Israeli POV"? I think I've kept things pretty evenhanded; I'm simply trying to keep this article as neutral as possible. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Safyan. In your case it seems that you are favoring a minority far-right Israeli POV. You wrote (emphasis added) in a previous comment: "From the Palestinian perspective, the Second Intifada (which they call the 'al-Aqsa Intifada') was an uprising against a brutal Israeli military occupation. From the Israeli perspective, however, the Second Intifada was a violent rejection of Israel's right to exist and series of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians." I seriously doubt that the mainstream Israeli POV is naive enough to believe that the focus of the conflict is mainly about "Israel's right to exist". If it is, then that itself is news, and I would like to see it in the article with quotes from reliable sources, and some poll numbers to back it up. No, as far as I know, the mainstream Israeli view, and the mainstream world view, is that it is an uprising against Israeli occupation. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

On the Phrase "Ultranationalist POV"

Certain individuals have been using the term "ultranationlist POV" to describe any point-of-view with which they disagree. The way in which individuals have employed the phrase "ultranationalist POV" is in many ways reminiscent of McCarthyism. Such accusations are rarely accompanied by an explanation of why such a point-of-view is allegedly "ultranationalist" and are frequently employed in the defense of a point-of-view which could be equally accused as such. Therefore, I ask that all parties refrain from the use of this phrase. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a commonly used phrase at WP:ANI. Because it is common on wikipedia. I have thoroughly explained my points. Next... Please stop going off on hypercritical tangents. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A commonly used phrase by whom? The phrase does not appear on the page even once. And just because certain individuals, who wish to push their own POV, choose to use the phrase to intimidate those who intend to block a POV-edit, this does not imply that one should use such a phrase. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "ultranationalist" is inappropriate. It basically means extremist and thus operates as a term of disparagement. If you must characterize your opponents' position, then I think "nationalist" gets the point across just as well without the inflammatory implications. Gatoclass (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Safyan. Here are the previous examples I gave of its use on wikipedia:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia+ultra+nationalist

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia+ultranationalist

You do not seem to be participating in the blind revert war, so maybe you are just a supporter of the nationalist Israeli POV. But Tewfik and Armon have a LONG history of these kind of revert wars that consistently favor the ultranationalist Israeli POV. They follow along similar lines as the sockpuppet revert wars of Isarig and his sockpuppets. Isarig was banned from this topic area. See the section on my user page about that. Tewfik and Armon just openly game 3RR without the sockpuppets. They have long used blind reverts that revert intermediate edits too by many people. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Blind reverts

The blind reverts by Jaakobou (talk · contribs) and others seem to be continuing despite repeateds requests to isolate problem areas and work towards compromise. Please engage in specific and substantive discussion so that we can stop edit-warring and work towards actually improving this article. Thanks. Tiamut 11:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

a blind reverter accusing another person of blind reverting him? please try resolving the disputes without reverting and then you won't feel an itch to mention my username with spurious accusations.

personally, i feel several editors have breached some WP:NPA and WP:CIV due to hitened sensitivity and inability to understand the positions presented by "their opponents". it would be far elpfull if everyone remained civil, would try and avoid personal accusations (that include finger pointing) and focus on suggestions that will resolve the dispute rather than promoting the ideology they believe in. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)