Talk:Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Removed text book material

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

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

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

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

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

Why in the world would any of those three paragraphs be removed? They all made valid points extremely relevant to the topic at hand, child indoctrination. These paragraphs are crucial in giving a rounded overview of the topic as they elucidate claims of child indoctrination by Hamas (which, unlike claims against the PA and Israel, had not been addressed in the former paragraph). The first article addresses indoctrination in an academic setting, the second indoctrination through government propaganda (Hamas run children's magazines), the third indoctrination within Hamas' teenage military training program, which they themselves admit "is aimed at fostering a new generation of leaders in the struggle against Israel." These three paragraphs, along with those already present in the section, are all necessary for anyone looking to receive a rounded picture about child indoctrination from all parties at hand (Israel, the PA, Hamas) and thus need to be returned to their proper place; their omission is completely unwarranted. Sammy1857 (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Question left on brand new users talk page. However, to answer generally, there's just as much on Israeli children indoctrination but I didn't feel like adding it at the time and just got tired and took the easy out. Plus maybe people are tired of accusations back and forth by the time they get down here. I added material balancing the one paragraph you put back. Maybe that will be sufficient to make point. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Please see your talk page and revert you last two edits for 24 hours per 1rr - see Arbitration tag on top of page also.

If you didn't add something back, I can't mind read why. I remember my point I forgot when writing above: text books are not only indoctrination; there are plenty of charges that Israelis teach their children very negative attitudes as well, just seemed like there had been enough "mudslinging" already. But I guess we can balance it out if you like.

That Israeli school children know they face if arrest if they resist conscription is relevant somewhere, if not there. Will look at tomorrow. CarolMooreDC🗽 12:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sammy1857 on this point. The information on Hamas is relevant to a section on indoctrination, but the part about one adult resisting conscription does not seem related to this subject. Unless you can find a reliable source that links the arrest of Yoni Ben Artzi and child indoctrination, I think this bit should not be included in the article. --1ST7 (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Added info on draft refuser group representative talking about child indoctrination, Israel arresting resisters and therefore an aside that a speaker in second paragraph had a son who was arrested is Relevant. Other articles infer that arrest is a fear or known consequence, but I don't think we have to find a totally explicit reference to an obvious factoid about conscription in general. :-) Of course, if mentioning the stick of prosecution as well as the carrot of indoctrination is really such a big problem in that section it always can be added to the earlier mention of IDF. Mandatory conscription is generally seen as abusive; I also got idea from one ref that Palestinian kids more willing fighters than Israeli since most of the world sees them as more oppressed and with greater grievances and that feeling on their part might be made more explicit, if found. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Making article more NPOV

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

• Unbalanced casualty examples in relevant sections and elsewhere in article really are themselves a media manipulation and wonder if we should use them at all, especially since there is a disproportionate number of Israeli examples. Let's think of a less exploitive way to deal with this.
• This is a big problem in the school disruption section that doesn't even mention the disruption of having most of your schools bombed, not being allowed to import supplies to rebuild them, problems with check points, etc. Didn't have energy to deal with either issue right now.
• I cut out the WP:undue in PTSD section whose redundancy was pretty easy to just remove. CarolMooreDC🗽 05:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits, avoiding duplication, etc.

Hopefully User:1ST7 most recent sent of edits will be reverted, but they do consist of some problematic edits I'd like to resist before it is "legal" for the editor to put them back:

• Diff 1 I agree that the Hebron detained children was a bit redundant, but actually hadn't read that section lately to catch it.
• Changing Israeli weapon strikes have destroyed or damaged hundreds of Palestinian schools. to "numerous" when clearly the following sourced numbers of 93 and 300 add up to "hundreds" seems to be quite POV.
• Removing "Three teachers and 86 children registered with the Agency were killed." and adding new sentence "There is a dispute as to the number of casualties that resulted, particularly those from the Al-Fakhura school incident. First, if there was just one incident (not clear from my source) then lets discuss it and both sides claims. Don't delete the one claim. Kids killed at school are mentioned in Israeli paragraphs of section so relevant here. The issue is structuring, not inclusion.
• And of course names of Israeli operations must be identified as such to not convey the Israeli POV on the topic. Let's not get too much into the 1500 puny Palestinian rockets hardly killing anyone compared to the 1500 plus big Israeli bombs killing hundreds debate if we can avoid it, or at least be sensible about it if we do.
• Diff 2 Ok, now we get into adding some back ground, though won't try to analyze per above. Re: Dershowtiz, let's be careful of getting not getting into professional opinionators opining battles. News sources best for conveying Israeli govt accusations.
• "Violence perpetrated by children" new section. First, an opinion piece in The Blaze is not very WP:RS and the leftists opinion and the response irrelevant here. However, creation of the section is duplicative to material under background (though I do think the fact that young people were so active leading the first intifada is an important background issue; just like adults later taking over is). So the question is, how do we make it clear that Israeli children also are encouraged to engage in violence once they get to be 18 year old soldiers and to kill with far more lethal weapons? Should we rename the IDF section "IDF and Israeli abuse of children" and make a subsection with same name mentioning military training of teenages and the Settlers kids attacking Palestinians. I don't have any firm thoughts, but let's be thinking about it, not just throwing in duplicative/POV sections. CarolMooreDC🗽 01:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and reply to your message on my talk page here. First, I forgot to add the part about the 280 damaged schools when explaining damaged vs destroyed, but that's already been fixed. Second, the photo didn't seem to show the entire building, so I was reluctant to say that it was destroyed without being certain.

• Numerous vs. hundreds: If possible, I think it would be best to just get the total number of schools damaged or destroyed on both sides.
• There is a lot of variation in casualty statistics during the Gaza War, including those involving schools. With the Al-Fakhura school incident, numbers range from 12 killed (9 combatants and 3 noncombatants) to over 40.
• The part about Operation Pillar of Defense was redundant, as the casualties that resulted are already mentioned twice earlier in the article.
• I agree that it is best to avoid quoting too many people, but I do not have a problem with using Dershowitz because there are already a few pro-Palestinian quotes that exist in the article. I think, to keep the article neutral, it is good to have one pro-Israel quote.
• If you object to The Blaze, another source can be found. Some of the text in the background section does not need to be there and can be moved, and I think the section I added might be better titled as "Exploitation of children" or "Manipulation of children". As this is a controversial subject and there are varying opinions, studies, and reports, the material should not be presented as blatant fact. When editing, I have tried to make clear that in certain areas, it is the IDF/Hamas/UN/PA/etc. that accused the other side of such and such and that the claim is not universally accepted. --1ST7 (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

First, just keeping everyone on our 1RR toes (including me), esp. with a sock who keeps creating new accounts making all new accounts suspicious. I've made my point. ;-)

• "Numerous vs. hundreds": The point was we had a good estimate from two WP:RS. But if our adding numbers is WP:Synth...
• "There is a lot of variation in casualty statistics during the Gaza War" - but let's not go deleting the UN side. Anyway, section needs more work.
• "The part about Operation Pillar of Defense was redundant, as the casualties that resulted are already mentioned twice earlier in the article." I'll have to look when study further what best belongs where.
• "I do not have a problem with using Dershowitz because there are already a few pro-Palestinian quotes that exist in the article." There's a difference between wild eyed advocates ranting, which Dershowitz quote was, and academics, think tanks, researcher, former Israeli officials, etc. making critical statements quoted by the media. I think, to keep the article neutral, it is good to have one pro-Israel quote.
• "The Blaze... another source can be found" - my point exactly.
• ... "Exploitation of children" or "Manipulation of children"...Still thinking about but taking a day or two off to clear head and work on off wiki deadlines. :-)
• " I have tried to make clear that in certain areas, it is the IDF/Hamas/UN/PA/etc. that accused the other side of such and such and that the claim is not universally accepted." The UN and other academics/NGOs/etc are not "pro-Palestinian" as much as they are critical of the actions of a state which is supposed to be more responsible than quasi or non-state actors and not abuse its overwhelming military might. CarolMooreDC🗽 13:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe David Horovitz or Amnesty International would be a good replacement for Dershowitz. I wasn't implying that the UN is pro-Palestinian (that's another conversation entirely), and there are many NGOs that are pro-Israel and there are many that are pro-Palestinian. I was just saying that in some cases the source should be identified in the text, as they do not always agree and there are a lot of issues that are still being debated. --1ST7 (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete Tom Segev citation

Hello all,

I'm going through articles attempting to locate, add, verify, improve citations as I occasionally do, and one tagged in this article gives simply "Segev, Tom (2000) p 319." Based on some journal articles I can find citing Segev, and on an OCLC catalog search, I believe this source is probably One Palestine, complete: Jews and Arabs under the Mandate Metropolitan Books, 2000. I do not have ready access to the book in my own library, but someone who does may want to check and verify this. Hope it's at least a bit helpful. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't know how I missed that; I think I've been using him on another article and got confused. I searched his name and 2000 in Wikipedia and found another full cite also. Of course checking Segev's actual text I found on that page he only mentioned fact of a massacre and Jewish Virtual Library supplied all other facts so changed accordingly, including that it only says they initiated violence through throwing stones. CarolMooreDC🗽 04:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Casualty examples

The individual sections on casualties is too dependent on examples, especially the Israeli one. I think four would suffice. --1ST7 (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of my "example farm" tag today. Frankly, if there are going to be any examples at all in casualties, they should be closer to proportionate to numbers killed, so at least say 3 Palestinian examples to each Israeli. But hat sort of "competition" remains tacky. Probably the best way to do it is to just have a chronological listing of how many kids were killed during significant events, with any particularly noteworthy examples that got a lot of attention or affected historical events mentioned briefly. But there still should keep a relative balance to any such details. Obviously there may be 2 or 3 WP:RS stories on every Israeli child killed but maybe one out of 50 Palestinian deaths gets any coverage at all from WP:RS. Let's not reflect the media bias. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw my comment before making your change, but considering none of the "foreign children" (mostly visiting Israel) were Palestinian, you have only have 1/3 being Palestinian to reflect almost 3000 Palestinian children vs. 180 Israeli. I really don't even want to have to work on this issue, but with stuff like this... CarolMooreDC🗽 05:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't see your comment until just now. I wasn't really thinking of the "foreign children" section when I made the change, but was focused on removing excess examples in the Israeli/Palestinian part. The Israeli casualties section in particular relied too heavily on listing individual incidents, so I added some statistics and information on the overall nature of the fatalities/injuries on their side. The Palestinian casualties section, though it also had too many examples, still had a good amount of statistics and general overview, so I didn't think it needed more material immediately.

Where does the "almost 3000 Palestinian children vs. 180 Israeli" statistic come from? I don't think that's accurate.

On how long each section should be, I think that when the issue is as controversial as this, it is best to just give each side equal coverage. --1ST7 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Numbers, I was just adding up B'tslem's #s (which may be updated by now). Sure, you could point out claims that a certain number of minors were young combatants. That's one of several reasons I'm saying only 3/1.

"Foreign children" wise the number of Palestinians children killed in Lebanese refugee camps over the years is no doubt great and just haven't gotten around to looking for incidents/numbers.

The controversy is that so many more Palestinian children get killed than Israeli and by a "modern state" as opposed to various terrorist factions. And most of those were during 2000-2005 second intifada, but the media publicity continues to assert like it still happens every day.

That's what I finally realized was making me uncomfortable about not having a historical context, and not just the numbers. We aren't the media, we are supposed to be NPOV. I'll do an NPOV version and if we can't agree we can get 3rd party opinions. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• B'stelem statistics list 1,337 Palestinians and 129 Israelis (below age 18) that have been killed since September 2000.
• Palestinians killed in Lebanon or elsewhere are not "foreign children". I believe that that section is not meant to discuss casualties in other areas of the world but incidents in which children who are neither Israeli nor Palestinian have been killed.
• The controversy is over who's right vs. who's wrong, what is legal and ethical, which killings are intential or just collateral damage, who broke ceasefire first in whatever incident, the status of certain organizations as terrorist groups, etc. There are so many issues that make this a hotly debated topic, and few parties agree completely on anything.
• A background section already exists. I'm not certain it would be a good idea to reorganize this into a chronological account of the events; it could easily come off as one-sided or duplicative of articles such as "Arab-Israeli conflict" and "Second Intifada". --1ST7 (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• No disagreement on statistics, just on how to properly reflect 10 to 1 differential.
• Considering that all Jews currently have a right to move to and become Israeli citizens but Palestinian refugees do not have right to move to "Palestine" and become "citizens", I'd say that Palestinian refugees in other countries have same right to be mentioned there as Jewish foreign children and non-Jewish foreign children.
• Obviously there are two sides to every right/wrong, legal/illegal, ethical/not ethical, which is intentional vs. which is collateral killing, etc.; numbers might be some evidence on the latter, might they not?
• This is not a background section, it's just a chrono section that mentions in a couple words what decade or war or intifada etc is going on when these casualties occur. I'll think about over next couple days. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Arab children who identify themselves as "Palestinian" and are killed in other countries would still be best categorized as "Palestinian children"; an American/European Jewish child who is killed in Israel is still a foreign citizen.

On the new section you are suggesting, do you intend for it to add to the current casualties section or replace it? --1ST7 (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Still thinking. Meanwhile cleaned up duplication/unref'd/unnecessary in background and moved Settler paragraph to own section since IDF/govt is accused of letting them do it and/or not trying hard enough to stop it. Also finally got around to removing more WP:UNDUE references per past talk discussions that were redundant and dead, foreign language, nonconfirmed, etc.; reformatted a couple others so all under one ref. CarolMooreDC🗽 16:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

POV removal of photo?

Hmmm, at this diff a 15 year old child of an occupying power learning to use a weapon that can kill dozens of people in a few minutes certainly is not equivalent to a child in an occupied territory throwing a stone at a tank. But removing the child with the lethal weapon from the photo is not called for since the photos illustrate so well the imbalance of power. So what POV is at work here? CarolMooreDC🗽 14:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

hi carol - i see you just edited the page within a 24 hour period, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Children_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&action=history - your previous last edit was yesterday april 21, at 21:58 and then today at april 22 at 15:16. one of your edits today seems justified (fixing a broken ref), but the other, labeling something 'cn' seems to be in violation of 1RR. yes? no? Soosim (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Revert means removing or substantially changing another's material. Tagging and repairing obviously broken refs don't count. Please reread policy or your constant inaccurate warnings on 1rr can be seen as one more example of what I consider your disruptive behavior. (And if you are following around my edits to give me bad warnings, that's even worse.) CarolMooreDC🗽 18:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed photos on top of each other. Good enough. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library

I did check that but went to fast and didn't see that "rioting, grenade throwing, and suicide bombings" is more accurately "rioting and gasoline bombs." JVL is one of those sources which probably would pass WP:RSN for this, if not for WP:Biographical issues. But more academic ones definitely better. Note that I am working on better sourcing some of this right now. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The JVP article on the 1929 riots doesn't come anywhere near meeting WP:HISTRS standards - There is no stated author and the two cited sources for the article are an Arutz Sheva and Jpost article from 1999. There is a mountain of academic literature published in peer reviewed journals or under academic imprint in most historical topics related to the I/P conflict, I cannot see the justification for using lower quality sources. Dlv999 (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The only justification is if no one provides the better ones. I may I have in some changes worked on a couple nights ago but haven't entered yet, so can't quite remember. CarolMooreDC🗽 01:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Kaufman

The information Kaufman provides does not relate very well to indoctrination; it would work better if another section were created on the change in environment that has resulted from the conflict. Also, describing any nationality of children as "among the among the most violent in the world" comes off as offensive. If that text is going to be included, it should appear as a quote from the source rather than a blunt fact. --1ST7 (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, first we're talking about this version since another editor got confused and thought we were gutting the section and reverted. However, per my "needs verification" tag, and as I wrote in the edit summary, " Kaufman says terror leads to PTSD not violence; this is about violence as conflict resolution; that's even what the quote says"... If you want to mention the PTSD sentence in the relevant section, go for it.

Now talking about the last three paragraphs of the Child Indoctrination section, about Israel.

• I agree fuller quoting is necessary.
• Also you noticed my comment that the
• But I do think it's in the right section. The first two paragraphs is about the kids being indoctrinated to join and participate in the military. Kaufman's fuller context needs to be mentioned, which is that Israel engages in extra-judicial killings by the military. So when he gets to this violent modus operandi having a negative effect on children's attitudes it flows naturally from the two preceding indoctrination into the military-related paragraphs. (And by the way I'd make the same criticism of US extrajudicial killings and violent US kids, though it's more mediated through news media and video games here.) CarolMooreDC🗽 01:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, the new version is much better. --1ST7 (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It is informative that an article posted on Jewish Virtual Library (with no indication of authorship) based on an article by Arutz Sheva is used for facts in the wikipedia voice for historical events without attribution, but a professor published by a distinguished academic press must be attributed and quoted because an editor finds what he says "offensive". A good example of the systemic bias prevalent in the topic area, where content is produced based on the parochial world view and opinions of a subset of editors rather than an objective analysis of source evidence based on Wikipedia policy. Dlv999 (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Treatment of Palestinian children by the IDF

On the section of the article about treatment of Palestinian children by the IDF two editors have seen fit to delete a picture of Palestinian children and replace with a picture of an Israeli child's shoe. Dlv999 (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV/WP:Undue applies to images as well as text. Removing a relevant photo of Palestinian children having to play near bombed out buildings and then replacing it with yet a third photo of or indicating an injured Israel child is WP:Undue, especially since casualties are so overwhelmingly Palestinian. I know that photos of injured or dead Palestinian children have been regularly cleansed from Wikipedia and Wikicommons so there are none to put up.(Per haps this Latuff Cartoon would do?) So let's remove at least one of those three Israeli photos and put back the kids playing in destruction one. CarolMooreDC🗽 16:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I see a new editor has put in a fourth WP:UNdue Graphic. We can replace the kindergarden one with that. CarolMooreDC🗽 23:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

i don't mind pics of pal kids, etc but the pic being used is so vague as being related to this article. if the article was entitled 'children of israel and the palestinian authority' (or something similar), then fine, but the pic doesn't relate to the conflict. any connection made between those kids and the conflict is OR. Soosim (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you honestly claiming that a picture of Palestinian children taken during the Gaza war amongst the destruction caused during that war is not related to the Israel Palestine conflict? Dlv999 (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

the picture itself is not relevant since the kids seem to go over to see what happened. it was not that they were part of it - that is, it appears that they were neither combatants nor victims. you can see the original here: http://blip.tv/al-jazeera-asset/war-on-gaza-day-18-1672729 (at the 40+ second mark, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Day_18_of_War_on_Gaza.PNG ) and again any connection made between those kids and the conflict is OR. Soosim (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are adamant that you believe children depicted amongst the wreckage in the midst of the Gaza war from a report on the "War on Gaza" is not related to the Israel Palestine conflict then perhaps you should take it to WP:ORN, I would be interested to see what uninvolved editors thought of your claims. Personally I can't see where you are coming from on this. Dlv999 (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Modified structure suggestion

I can't see any reason for Gilabrand's sloppy restructuring of the article. There is a difference between the actions of a state and the actions of non-state actors or, if you prefer, quasi-state militants under occupation. (It might help to clarify diff between Hamas in govt and Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades or other militants.) I think a few tweaks could be made per the below. Rest of article needs to keep historical context clear. Changes are noted:

1 History (we probably should merge history and casualties here since article confusing as to when casualties have happened to who; extremely confusing and even misleading right now; see below)
2 Legal issues
3(New): Child indoctrination - both sides do it, in different ways;
4 Israel's Treatment of Palestinian children by the IDF (The state controls the IDF and the settlers)

• Violence against children
  
• Child detention
  
• Human shields
  
• Settler activity (more to come on that)
  

5 Palestinian militant treatment misuse of children

• New: Violence against children (if something new and/or not WP:undue repetition)
• Human shields
  
• Child suicide bombers
  
• Recruitment Manipulation of children:I think it's proved the kids are eager volunteers and don't have to be manipulated; the issue is when they are actively recruited to do something violent they shouldn't; pretty much same as settlers.

6 Casualty figures
remove: Israeli children, Palestinian children, Foreign children and replace with era sections: "1920 to 1987", "First Intifada", "Second Intifdad", "Since 2008" (after 2nd Intifada cooled because the barriers and checkpoints regime fully enforced). Per previous talk. Plus my analysis of current casualties section has revealed WP:Or/Synth combined with repetitions of same incidents; questionably sourced material; detailed example farms; and POV number of examples compared to casualites).
(rest remains the same)
Thoughts? CarolMooreDC🗽 23:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

carol - you suggestions of restructering go a long way to help this article, but your personal attacks on another editor totally detracts from anything you say. just get past it, and comment on the content, not the editor. yes, you didn't say that gilabrand was 'x', but that her editing was 'x', but that still reflects on her, and you. i think just sticking to the content would be best. as they say, check your emotions at the door. i try very hard to reply to people's comments for content, and get very offended when someone comments on the editor. what do you think? Soosim (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"Sloppy restructuring" is a descriptive term for a series of edits, just as "POV restructuring" would be. If someone had made nasty comments about "her" housekeeping as well, that would be a personal attack. Constantly inferring people are edit warring or making personal attacks when they aren't is edit warring and making personal attacks. CarolMooreDC🗽 15:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Those are not personal attacks. Gila was AE blocked. The block was lifted here, with the note "Gilabrand is further reminded that any future problematic editing following the removal of editing restrictions will be viewed dimly". She also said "If I am unblocked, I will do my best not to disappoint them.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2011" here. Some of her recent edits have been a tad problematic (e.g. this described as "clean up", or this, and here in this article), and judging from her talk page her editing is causing conflict and edit warring. A review of the provisional suspension of her AE block seems almost inevitable if problematic edits continue and I wouldn't be surprised it it were re-imposed. Since the majority of her edits, the ones that aren't affected by her personal views, are constructive, reimposing a block isn't ideal. So, I think the last thing she needs is anyone defending her bad edits. It would be better to call her out on it and try to stop her making bad edits so that she doesn't get herself blocked again. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I always thought I was a naughty newbie, but I always listened to talk page warnings and I guess that's why I was here 5 odd years before getting blocked - and that was when I lost my temper at an editor who was not even involved in I-P area, after being harassed by a bunch who were. So watching talk page warnings is VERY important for newbies. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Compare the total mess she made overnight at Susya. Not a word on the talk page. 20% of the material dealing with the Palestinian side challenged as sourced in non-RS which no one hitherto found problematical; it now has several pictures of the synagogue, only one of Palestinians protesting at the massive destruction of their Susya; the selective use of balanced reportage to twist into a statement of fact what is a statement of an occupying power's position ('While the residents claim they own much of the land, they have been denied building permits and have therefore built without permission:' (the source says:'on the grounds their houses and other buildings were erected illegally.'(b) 'Jewish settlers lodged a petition with the Israeli Supreme Court arguing their occupation of the land is illegal.';(c)'although much of the land around here is privately owned Palestinian land, Susya is in Area C of the West Bank which comes under complete Israeli control. So Susya's 350 residents are denied permits to build proper homes, schools or clinics and instead live in a collection of shabby tents.'(d) '(Ari Briggs, a Regavim blow-in from Australia)says contrary to what international law says about Jewish settlements being illegal, it's Palestinians at Susya who are occupying the land illegally.' i.e. whoever edited this systematically states the settler POV as the neutral voice. I.e., complete unilateral POV reediting of an article. Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I just realized looking at her talk page that I got Gilabrand mixed up with a similarly POV'd editor on a Students article who was a newbie from December. Gilabrand has been here since at least 2010. Your example shows she does ten to just go in there and deletes away, without the courtesy of a article, section or inline tag or discussion on the talk page. But according to WP:BRD she should be reverted and asked to tag and explain edits better when they are problematic. But she is sometimes right. Which is why I'm beefing up the history section a bit with relevant refs on Kids before putting it back. CarolMooreDC🗽 16:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way Carol, Christian Peacemaker Teams have the best coverage outside of Btselem of this topic. They qualify as RS, being committed to non-violent presence and neutral documentation. They usually allow use of their photos. Take a look at this, for example.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Watched 5 Broken Cameras last night and really dramatized how the IDF and the Magav singles out and arrest kids. Amazing! CarolMooreDC🗽 15:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, now I know Magav means Israel Border Police if I run into it again! CarolMooreDC🗽 17:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Problems with new edits and structure

Per Gilabrands last few edits, let's discuss first the problematic individual edits and then the structure issues that are problematic:

• First, the history doesn't show where the IDF section originally became the "violence" section, and who knows what else, so I'm not sure what that's all about. See this edit changing it back there. Please explain since no edit summary. Obviously some people don't want a section header that infers Israel might have done wrong, or that Israel is detaining kids. This moral equivalence between a state that purports to be civilized and a small bunch of radical militants is a bit absurd.More thoughts on structure below.
• Removal of settler activity - the word child is in every sentence, about their harassing kids and their teaching their kids to use violence; more refs to come on that; and we haven't even gotten to all the settler murders of kids. No excuse for removal.
• Second the bloody shoe problem is WP:Undue on images of Israeli kids harmed. There are three; get rid of at least one.
• Potted history.Original before Gilabrand's edits version - a bit wordy, but a few sentences about why there are refugees and what the war is about and why there are years of suffering might seem encyclopedic. Something policy-wise actually trying to get straightened out elsewhere. But I'm sure refs mentioning children can help beef it up again.
• Military recruitment of children? I don't think that a bunch of militants have a military, do they? But more on the whole topic in separate section.
• Removal of Geneva Convention. Why not tag it, instead of deleting, since surely a source mentioning children can and will be found.
• I won't bother to comment on the two edits you made that violated the 1rr restriction as two of us have mentioned on your talk page. I decided to just revert the most problematic edits; history we can talk about; replacing the old kindergarden photo with the new rocket attack photo. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone should revert back brand new 3 week editor User:IranitGreenberg whole sale revert. He already has been warned about reverting too much and 1rr and obviously has to learn policy which I've advised him to do and given him the Edit warring link. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Images

[Note added later: this turned overwhelmingly into a discussion of images and User: ‎IranitGreenberg's edits and reverts; editor who made original removals did not reply.]

User: ‎IranitGreenberg is editwarring on this material and I've left a final edit warring notice asking him to revert the material. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Because your edition is (arbitrarily and with no explanation) removing relevant and balanced images just because they show the Israeli children's suffering, like this one, this one, this one and even this one... among other things (while you keep the images that sympathize with the Palestinian point of view). Read WP:NPOV.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If your issue is the images, why do you keep deleting 5k of sourced text without explanation? Dlv999 (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Images is minor compared to your major issues which your edit summary calls "NPOV" - as I have described at length above critiquing all the changes in User:Gilabrand that you have now reverted back to twice. You (and she if she wants to revert them) really have to respond to each of my points and make a case for each of those edits to revert them otherwise they will be reverted back.

As for photos, first, you all removed the refugee history, so the photos are not appropriate at all. As for the others, according to WP:NPOV they have to reflect the overall content of the material. That material clearly states there are far more Palestinian casualties than Israeli, so putting too many Israeli casualty photos in and taking out Palestinian ones is really problematic. This has been said several times on this talk page. You have to read talk pages if you intend to heavily edit articles or revert heavily edited and disputed articles. CarolMooreDC🗽 05:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Palestinian militants deliberately target Israeli children in several occasions (unlike Israeli soldiers vs Palestinian children). But regardless of casualties, per WP:NPOV article must show both or neither point of view. As far as I can see, right now you have nine images that sympathize with the Palestinian point of view (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) and eight that sympathize with the Israeli point of view (here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here). So even now you are winning. If you want you can add another image of Palestinian children's suffering, but please don't remove any more photos.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, allegations that Israelis have targeted children are in here and more will be added, as well as one source saying both sides target children.

Second, here is the breakdown of photos as you want them in, with the two biggest problems first:

• Two photos of refugees after you have removed all mentions of the refugee problem which continues to affect 5 million Palestinians are unwarranted.
• Three photos showing or indicating physical harm to Israeli children but none of harmed Palestinians (these are regularly removed from wikipedia and wikicommons with questionable claims they are not accurate which have not been made re: Israeli photos).
• Palestinian child with gun is not balanced; perhaps it should replace the rock throwing photo??
• Palestinian children helped by Israel soldiers obviously pro-Israel POV - however...
• The photos of Palestinian children near a Separation barrier and at Israeli check points balances that. (The photos should actually be a dual photo where those related issues are mentioned in more detail.)
• 2 photos of Palestinian children in rubble; OK, similar photos of Israeli children in mounds of rubble could be shown
• 2 photos each regarding school which balance each other
• Palestinian child throwing rock and Israeli girl shooting weapon, balance each other

Thanks for making me do this analysis which made other issues clear as well as solutions. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't remove any mention about the refugee problem.
• As I told you before, there are at least nine images that clearly sympathize with the Palestinian point of view (believe me, showing a little boy in front of a tank or surrounded by rubber... it works for that).
• Showing a Palestinian child with a gun is no less balanced than an Israeli child with a gun.

I think images are quite balanced. But if you want, you can add images showing physical harm to Palestinian children, I already told you I have no problem with new images, only when someone removes them.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK, it was previous editor who removed refugee material; got confused. In any case the photos not relevant unless the material in there.
• However, given that you have done at at least one revert in the middle of a report on your edit warring, I have a feeling trying to discuss things with you in a collaborative manner may be impossible. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I broke a rule. I'm new, but it won't happen again. I promise. I don't know what information of the refugee problem was removed, perhaps you could show me a link. Regarding the Geneva convention's paragraph, I simply thought it was off-topic, since it has nothing to do with children. But if you think the opposite, I'm all ears.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not my decision on what to do about the rule breaking but you should carefully read policy. Unlike the real world, people enter lots of negative material about Israel here (not to mention Palestinians) and as long as its within policy they can't be kicked off, fired, etc. If you adjust your head to that, you will do better.

Again, you are only answering questions about the photo when you have reverted a lot of text in the past and not discussed why. To discuss a current issue, if you think Geneva Convention paragraph should mention children, leave a tag or a talk page note. Something surely can be found. Just deleting material that is properly sourced and would make perfect sense as background in most writing is just not proper.

Also there is a real problem with this competition to see who can come up with the most references of one side or the other doing bad things, also known as "reference padding", but that is just FYI since it's one part of the problem with casualty section I'm working on.

Neutrality wise, you must realize that a photo of injury or blood is more highly emotional than other photos. Many many such photos of dead or injured Palestinian children have been taken off wikipedia or vetoed in articles with all sorts of questionable rationales. So I decided to look at origin of those 3 injury photos.

[[:File:Bloody_child's_shoe_after_rocket_fired_from_Gaza_hit_Israel.jpg] is the most questionable photo of the three and looking at the source, it may be a manufactured photo falsely attributed to the photographer of the other two injury photos. Both those photos link to his Flickr page. But this links to "israelnationalnews.com" which does not allow one to see photos. One more reason not to use the photo. (FYI, suspicions or allegations of manufactured photos often used to get rid of Palestinian ones also.) CarolMooreDC🗽 04:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Insert later note: I missed the OTRS on it and I this evidently was taken before he started using Flickr. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I won't take responsibility for photos of dead or injured Palestinian children that were taken off in Wikipedia (just like you won't take responsibility for anti-Israeli vandalism in other articles... and you don't tell me this encyclopedia is not pro-Palestinian). If you find one picture of a dead or injured Palestinian children, please be my guest and add it here. It's relevant and appropriate. But don't remove an allegedly "pro-Israeli" image just because you can't find a "pro-Palestinian" one. Right now there are nine images that sympathize with the Palestinian point of view (against eight).

There is nothing wrong with the bloody child's shoe photo. It's well-sourced and is real. As long as Wikicommons doesn't delete it, I can't find a reason to discredit it or don't use it.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC, you seem to be saying that there should be a picture for Palestinian children showing physical harm but that you have not found one. I saw one on the Wikimedia Commons and am going to use it to replace one of the rubble photographs. Hopefully, that fixes some of the image issues. --1ST7 (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! It was only a matter of looking. Wikicommons is full of useful pictures.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is still the outstanding problem, which I mentioned in my comment timestamped 15:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC): "On the section of the article about treatment of Palestinian children by the IDF two editors have seen fit to delete a picture of Palestinian children and replace with a picture of an Israeli child's shoe." - An Israeli child's shoe remains irrelevant to the section of the article about treatment of Palestinian children by the IDF and needs to be removed. Dlv999 (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The place of the shoe's picture is not appropriate. I'll change that soon (needs to be moved, not removed). But I don't remember to have deleted the image of a Palestinian children. Perhaps you could restore it in the section "treatment of Palestinian children by the IDF". By the way, I think it would be balanced, professional and fair to create a new section about "treatment of Israeli children by Palestinian militants", but that's for another occasion or discussion.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

First, glad to see someone found a photo. What search terms did you use?

The problems with the image and a solution (and don't remove tag til we get consensus):

• The description [File:Bloody_child's_shoe_after_rocket_fired_from_Gaza_hit_Israel.jpg|on the image page]] reads: A child's bloodied shoe inside the shopping mall in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon after a missile, fired by Palestinian militants inside the Gaza Strip, exploded on a mall on 14 May 2008 severely injuring several Israelis, including one child and a woman, and wounding dozens of other civilians. It does not say the child whose shoe it was was injured. It might have fallen in a pool of blood. That's like a photo of a pool of blood in Gaza with a caption "a child was injured during an Israeli airstrike in Gaza" and using that.
• But I have a compromise. I moved bloody shoe to "medical in Israel" subsection with proper caption and included the Latuff cartoon which is a media criticism of comparisons injuries of of Israeli and Palestinian children. If that's good enough, I'll take off the tag that should not have been removed during the discussion in the first place. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a joke? Come on! It's not serious. What's the point of having a cartoon by Carlos Latuff? He is clearly an anti-Israel propagandist and adding such a cartoon is not NPOV or constructive at all. And this image doesn’t even refer to media manipulation, but an alleged “Israeli double standard” (when it targets military objectives, unlike her enemies which deliberately target civilians). Completely off-topic, out of place. Carlos Latuff is not credible or reliable and his ridiculous cartoon/opinion has to go. It doesn’t belong here.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

First, Latuff cartoons are used elsewheres on a variety of Wikipedias worldwide. Next, considering we really don't know if the photo allegedly of blood and from a specific incident is real (and I am no investigating), questions remain about using it. Obviously we need outside opinions on this since people here divided, so shall get some. CarolMooreDC🗽 14:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing about Carlos Latuff, but I agree with IranitGreenberg in that the cartoon is not relevant to a section on media manipulation/misinformation unless it is going to be presented as an example of the propaganda the section discusses. --1ST7 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

User:IranitGreenberg put back the 4th photo, the bloody shoe, writing " image stays as we agreed on the talk page." I don't see any agreement here on that photo and it's still obviously POV to have four to one photos like this. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought we agreed to leave this image with a tag, until it was deleted from commons. I don't see any reason to remove it. Anyway, if the bloody shoe is deleted, then at least one image that sympathizes with the Palestinian point of view must be deleted. Right now, without the bloody shoe, there are ten images that sympathize with the Palestinian point of view (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here and here), while there are only eight that sympathize with the Israeli point of view (here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here). So there is an unbalanced POV regarding images that needs to be corrected.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no agreement to violate policy on NPOV. Somehow missed that two other editors popped up and removed the image: Pluto2012 writing " (Undid revision 554717976 by IranitGreenberg (talk) - edit war)" and Faizan writing "(maybe well-referenced, but still not proved at the discussion to be relevant)"

So where do we take this now, if IranitGreenberg or Soosim put it back? WP:Edit war noticeboard? Or WP:ARBPIA? I'm not sure. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should report you first, because eight days after you agreed to leave the image with a tag (at least until this dispute be solved), you suddenly removed it. Why? What's your argument, based on Wikipedia's policy, to remove such image (with proper license and relevant)? On the other hand, Pluto2012 and Faizan are two pro-Palestinian users who practice POV-pushing all the time. Instead of reporting each other and play this silly game forever... why don't we call a neutral, impartial and experienced editor (probably an administrator, not pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel) to solve this dispute?--IranitGreenberg (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you mean when I agreed to leave it if the Latuff cartoon stayed? At 17:16, 1 May 2013. (Adjust for your time zone.) And before yet a fourth image was added? That agreement obviated by two of your edits. Plus now two other editors agree it doesn't belong. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

A cartoon by Carlos Latuff is not even serious to be included here, I explained it above (also 1ST7). Regarding the new images, I added a victim of Maxim attack because most of Israeli children casualties were killed or wounded by suicide bombings... but I also added an image of Palestinian (children) victims to make it balanced. As I told you before, right now we have 10 images favoring the Palestinian point of view and 8 favoring the Israeli point of view. I honestly don't understand your objection to add the bloody shoe (except that it shows Israeli children are also victims in this conflict... and you don't like it).--IranitGreenberg (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Several editors here and in edit summaries have explained a number of problems with the photos. Please read them. Also read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and which is a subsection of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. The debate over whether or not to include the picture of the Israeli child's bloody shoe seems to be, at least in part, about its relevance to where it is right now (in the section on medical care). Why not switch its location with this one? The section on medical care discusses the emergency response following terrorist attacks, so the picture of the child being loaded into an ambulance would be appropriate for that area of the article. Meanwhile, the image of the bloody shoe can be put in the casualties section. --1ST7 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, that issue only comes into play if there is removal of at least one, and preferably 2 of the injured Israeli children per WP:NPOV, AND if the bloody shoe is verified as being what it is alleged to be per WP:V. Besides placement, perhaps that is the issue of relevance that other editors have mentioned but some have not detailed.

I have a photo from a protest of a woman carrying a sign with a photo of a dead Palestinian baby covered in debris; it's about as verifiable as the shoe photo. I could put that up too and I'm sure the relevance would be pretty clear. But that seems to me as tacky as the shoe photo. Unless several others disagree... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do you want to remove more photos of Israeli children? In any case, per NPOV we should remove pro-Palestinian images. I repeat: 10 against 8 is not fair... and you want to remove more images of Israeli children??--IranitGreenberg (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

IranitGreenberg is right in that the images are slightly slanted towards the Palestinian narrative in terms of numbers. This could be used to balance out that ratio without aggravating the "photo of injury or blood" issue. CarolmooreDC, you seem to think that the nature of the photos is an issue, as the Palestinian ones in the casualty section are namely of children standing in damaged buildings while the Israeli ones show physical harm. Rather than start removing photos, I think some should just be switched out. Replace one of the rubble images with one that shows physical injury (I have one in mind that would work if you can't find one). --1ST7 (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and be bold and make the changes. --1ST7 (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Images of injured children are highly emotional and have a much stronger POV than those of kids at check points, etc. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, hence the changes I just made. Now the article has the following:

• a double image in the lead, one from each side, both showing damage to houses
• a double image showing the refugee situation with one for each side
• Faris Odeh and the girl in Gadna, both of which lean towards the Palestinian side
• a Palestinian boy holding a weapon
• four photos in the casualties section, two for each side, all of which show physical injury
• four pictures depicting schooling disruptions, two for each side
• three for medical care, one of Palestinians at a check point, one of an Israeli being put in an ambulance, and one of Palestinian children on one of the ski trips organized by Israeli soldiers
• Palestinian children walking near the West Bank Barrier
• a drawing by an Israeli
• and two pictures in the section on peace projects, which are neutral

There are ten images favoring the Israeli narrative and ten favoring the Palestinian narrative. Overall, it is fairly well-balanced now. --1ST7 (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Still no response on how temperature of injury photos is so much higher than other photos.

Quote and reply below with thoughts; busy with other stuff and looking for photos. Also other photos to be added to the mix can discuss at the time. At this point the bloody shoe remains a problem. :

• a double image in the lead, one from each side, both showing damage to houses - you really can't see the damage to the Palestinian house; comparing the pink house damage to a more typical total destruction of Palestinian abode would be comparable. Like the one I have a dead Palestinian child's head sticking out of Israeli bomb debris; pretty much comparable in all respects to bloody shoe.
• a double image showing the refugee situation with one for each side And one of these days I'll rewrite the refugee thing so it's clear the big differences in refugee status today (not to mention how desperate Israel was for refugees; 1950–51 Baghdad bombings can be left out.)
• Faris Odeh and the girl in Gadna, both of which lean towards the Palestinian side (But isn't Odeh one of those terrorists the IDF can shoot on site? that depends on interpretation, I guess.)
• a Palestinian boy holding a weapon probably should put that with Gadna girl?
• three for medical care, one of Palestinians at a check point, one of an Israeli being put in an ambulance, and one of Palestinian children on one of the ski trips organized by Israeli soldiers So two sympathetic to Israelis.
• Palestinian children walking near the West Bank Barrier That and checkpoint one going together would make more sense

CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a comment on "Still no response on how temperature of injury photos is so much higher than other photos."... there are two photos of injured Palestinian children (here and here) and two of injured Israeli children (here and here). No reason to keep whining about this.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right. Best to just put up a photo whose creator and whose accuracy, not to mention relevance, are clear. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that the new image is a bad choice, that any protest poster or political cartoon should not be given any great weight. It is only a random person's opinion, and it should not be held up as something that accurately depicts the conflict. --1ST7 (talk) 05:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

So you would remove every political cartoon and every protest photo on wikipedia? I don't think you'd find too many takers. I'd rather have the Latuff cartoon myself. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Political cartoons and protests photos are appropriate for articles/sections on political cartoons, protests, public opinion, and the like. They are not appropriate for the area in which the new image was placed. --1ST7 (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What's appropriate is what illustrates the text. It's next to a paragraph about children killed in Gaza. It's not much different than a hand holding a bloody shoe which itself is really just a "Poster" of an event and could be fabricated anyway. At least we know I didn't create the poster and hire those guys to pose with it :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Several paragraphs back, you yourself said that an image of a protest poster would be "tacky". There are much better, less questionable photos that can be used. --1ST7 (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I meant to me they are equally tacky to me but to those who don't think the bloody shoe is, this one should not be either. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The description for the shoe photo says that it was taken after a child was injured in a rocket attack. Maybe the user who posted it figured that it was not really necessary to spell out that that was the injured child's shoe. Either way, I don't think either image is really needed, as without them there are already 22 images for the article, which is a good amount on its own. --1ST7 (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not know if it's the injured child or one that has others' blood by accident or deliberately or what for sure. Removing both would be my preferred compromise but who wants to get in another edit war over it?? Sigh... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Need paragraph on IDF targeting children

Paragraph on IDF targeting children is needed in the IDF violence section. IMHO, the removed target photo mention by itself, where it was, was not off topic as much as it was an insufficiently developed thought that belongs in a larger paragraph elsewhere.

We do have a sentence in the article denying IDF targets kids and a sentence saying Palestinians do target children. We don't have all the sources that say that IDF targets and kills kids (not to mention targeting them for arrest, in that section). So last night I got motivated and found a bunch of good sources showing WP:RS allegations through the years and IDF denials. As usual have gotten distracted on almost finished rewrite of casualties and now there's this. But as I've said, this is a long term project. So if no one gets something in there first, will do; or be motivated to add my sources/info if you get it going. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

What type of articles are they, and do they supply any evidence? Or are they just allegations? --1ST7 (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Before discussing anything you need to self-revert your 1RR violation. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

See here. --1ST7 (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You may be right in that the first edit reverts something that may have been there a while. I didn't check when that material was added. I guess you and Dlv999‎ will figure out what to do. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I'll add that it is not obvious how an Israeli soldier posting on Instagram a photo of a young Palestinian boy in the crosshairs of his rifle and what followed from that is irrelevant with respect to the "Treatment of Palestinian children by the IDF" section. So, it's not obvious why you removed it twice, at least, not to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose "unnecessary" would have been a better word. I figured that it would be more straightforward to quote the Code of Conduct, and the article's edit history seemed to indicate that this example was added to help explain the Code when a source had not yet been found to do so directly. Besides, one of the issues with the article as noted at the top of the page is having too many examples. --1ST7 (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the code of conduct should be included and I take your point about too many examples but I think we should cover both principals and practice as well as the consequences of the inconsistencies. Reliable sources tend to focus on the latter two. Sources pertinent to this particular incident are BBC, Haaretz, The Telegraph, JTA, ABC, The Times of Israel, The Guardian, Maan (and the The Atlantic that was removed). It seems notable and it had some consequences. A couple of sentences is probably enough. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

Apropos Carol's original point. I thought I had posted some of the data below on a talk page ages back. The whole section of the book should be read. I've just excerpted some notable passages which editors (I'm self-suspended until May 23) can of course harvest. The source is

Charles Fruehling Springwood 'Open Fire: Understanding Global Gun Cultures,' Berg 2007 pp47-55

• 'Although Palestinian children have died in greater numbers, the percentage of child fatalities from the total pool of fatalities for both Palestinians and Israelis is about the same, oscillating between 20 and 25 per cent of those totals. The main difference between the modes of death in these two groups has been the means of violence perpetration. While a substantial proportion of Palestinian children and minors hae been killed by Israeli-perpetrated gunfire, the vast majority of Israeli children and minors have been killed by Palestinian-perpetrated body-bombings. This differencee is significant ‘ p.47

Apart from Dolphinium incident Palestinian bombings not focused on places where children and minor s congregate whereas ‘In contrast, sniper fire at Palestinian children necessitates choice of individual target.’ P.47

• ‘it becomes a rational deduction that a clear intention to kill children and minors exists among the IDF and other Israeli state forces.’

• ‘Of a total sample of unfire-perpetrated child deaths from September 2000 through December 2003, where available data provide corporal location of the fatal wound, 109, or 65 per cent of a total of upper-body “one-shot wonders” were killed by exclusive headshots, four, or 2 percent by exclusive neckshots, and 56 or 33 per cent by killed by exclusive heart-chest shots. An additional 90 children and minors, or 21 per cent of a total of 427dead in three and one quarter years, were killed by gunshots on two or more corporal locations, many including one or more of the three vulnerable areas already mentioned, such as head-chest and neck-chest combinations ‘pp.47-8

• A major indicator of “the deliberate targeting of (Palestinian) children is the fact that 20% of the total number of Intifada victims were children going about their normal daily activities such as going to school, playing, shopping or simple being in their homes”.,’ p-54 Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are interesting statistics, though there should still be more explicit evidence that those noncombatants killed were not collateral damage. Another factor that should be considered: though the percentage of children in the overall casualties appears to be about the same, minors make up a much larger portion of the Palestinian population (50 percent in the Gaza Strip) than they do in the Israeli population. --1ST7 (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

(a) 'There should still be more explicit evidence that those noncombatants killed were not collateral damage'. Sorry, you misunderstand policy. We read as many sources bearing on an issue as are available, and according to due weight, register that information. We do not think 'hang on. There must be some evidence that contradicts or mitigates this' etc. (b) If you are familiar with statistics and their use in analysing 'collateral damage', they tend to cancel out oddities, or turn up patterns. The pattern turning up in many sources is that the proportion of head or chest shots compared to other bodies areas is extremely high, not random. (Of course, as is well documented, in many such crowd control operations, there is the spotter and the sniper, the former designating the hit but that is another story).Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

what age are these children? were they combatants? were they involved in provocation/retaliation against israeli army soldiers? not clear without lots more information. Soosim (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to read Nishidani's quote again: A major indicator of “the deliberate targeting of (Palestinian) children is the fact that 20% of the total number of Intifada victims were children going about their normal daily activities such as going to school, playing, shopping or simple being in their homes”.,’ p-54 Dlv999 (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

i saw that quote. it is not by the author of the book, it is the author quoting a non-profit organization worker from an unknown date. i went to their website and can't find it either. it seems not so RS. certainly, if this topic/issue is so important, then RS should be plentiful, no? Soosim (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

oh, one more thing - that quotes is a bit "off" - it says, if i understand it correctly, that the IDF targeting palestinian children who were going about their normal activities - is shopping something kids do? not clear what this means. and the last example is even more unclear: "simple being in their homes" - the IDF waits for the parents to leave a particular home, and then targets it because the kids are there? Soosim (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

An academic source quoting a relevant NGO is the kind of high quality reliable source we should be basing the article on. I'm not particularly interested in your second guessing of what reliable sources say. Your opinion on what is "a bit off" is irrelevant - we are here to represent what reliable sources say. You can't trump reliable sources with your own personal opinions on topics, that is not how Wikipedia works. Dlv999 (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(which of course is your personal opinion) Soosim (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between our approach. I am simply saying lets report what high quality RS say. You are giving unsupported WP:OR arguments and opinions not grounded in source evidence to try to refute what is said by an academic source. Dlv999 (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

there is a clear difference between our approach. i am simply saying that this is not RS since the author is quoting something 3rd hand which is undated - the author is 4th hand. so you are trying to squeeze something into RS which isn't. Soosim (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If that was your point you would be advised not to introduce speculations and personal opinions about children shopping or being in their home or your personal view on the conduct of the IDF, because it comes across as advocacy rather than an objective assessment of the quality of the source. Given some of the ridiculous sources currently in the article, i think you are going to have a very hard time trying to make the case that we can't introduce academic standard sources. Dlv999 (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Soosim. You've been around long enough to know that the kind of pseudo-arguments you made above read as pretexts for WP:IDONTLIKEIT, nothing more.Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

i happen to like it a lot. but thanks for thinking otherwise nishi. and dlv, your best argument has been 'other stuff exists'. interesting. Soosim (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No. I am saying lets take a rational approach to source selection and analysis in this article. In this article, if we are going to set the standard for sources so high that we are going to even reject published academic material then a rational approach is that we must reject all sources that do not reach academic standard. If you are proposing a method of selecting sources in this article that involves ad hoc rejection of high quality academic sources, but at the same time accepting a wide variety of lower quality sources - that is an incoherent approach to writing a serious encyclopedia article on a topic and should be dismissed out of hand. Dlv999 (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sammy1857's deletions

Copied from User talk:Zero0000:

A history section is meant to provide background on the topic; a single weapons display event in Efrat from 2014 does not provide background on the topic at hand. It is ephemera. Please explain your reversal of my edit. Sammy1857 (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply: Lots of articles make reference to single events; that is not an argument at all. If it is in the wrong section of the article, that would be reason to move it to the right section and not an excuse for deleting it. Besides that, the only thing unusual about this event is that it was reported in major newspapers. Zero^talk 01:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Since when is an event qualified for inclusion in this article's 'history' section simply because it was covered by the media? I emphasized single because the sources do not show a pattern of such events taking place in Israel, yet placing it in the section on context and background surely makes it seem as such.Sammy1857 (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This deletion by Sammy1857 is completely outrageous and someone who continues to edit like that should be banned from editing. You can't just delete one highly relevant text with an impeccable source and replace it with one matching your politics better. The "reason" given can't be taken seriously. Who are you to decide what has been "debunked"? Zero^talk 01:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That "impeccable" source bases its conclusions on a survey from 1999. Do you fail to recognize why basing such a significant claim on a survey over 16 years old might be ill advised, particularly when the conclusion reached is already barely supported by the given evidence (the admission of schoolchildren to bullying, which is in no way limited to physical violence, and to carrying a knife to school for protection). Do you not think 16 years later, particularity after the end of the intifadas, these statistics are out of date? If not, then I'd wager you are not being impartial and simply seek to keep an outdated source because it jives with your own political views. To repeat my comments on your talk page, Kaufman’s conclusion is “supported” by a survey currently 16 years out of date (which in fact does not directly back his conclusion) and is conversely contradicted by recent studies i.e. the 2012 peer-reviewed study I linked, which shows that Israeli children are not, in fact, some of the "most violent in the world", particularly in the context of the conflict, and actually display less aggressive behavior than Palestinian children.

In regards to my first point, the claim that Israeli children are among "the most violet in the world" rests on 2 statistics from 1999, which are: 1) 43% of Israeli children have admitted to bullying others (bullying was not defined as physical violence and there were no comparisons made to children of other nationalities) and 2) that 1/4 Israeli boys admitted to carrying a knife to school for protection.

The only way these two claims could begin to justify the argument that Israeli children are among "the most violent in the world" is if a similar study was conducted on children of other nationalities and, comparatively, Israeli children experienced higher rates of bullying and were more likely to admit to bringing a knife to school for protection. We are not provided with such evidence. Moreover, I find it hard to believe that an impartial party would find those two statistics alone to be sufficient to argue that Israeli children are abnormally violent, rather than more vulnerable to bullying (which is in no way limited to physical violence).

Either way, the only comparative study we do have, which I cited, looks at Palestinian children, Arab Israeli children and Jewish Israeli children, and by that study Israeli children demonstrated the least aggressive behavior. So Kaufman's conclusion, which already rests on tenuous, outdated evidence, is further contradicted by a peer-reviewed study conducted in 2012. To ignore this and instead keep his commentary, despite a lack of evidence to support the conclusion and solid evidence to refute it, frankly makes me question your own motives.

Sammy1857 (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

What you are doing is original research. Namely, you are critiquing the source on your own judgement and insisting that the article reflects your views. It's a direct violation of Wikipedia policy. Some qualified person wrote some relevant stuff in a proper publication, therefore we can cite it. Whether you agree with that person is irrelevant. In fact the claims in the book are based on a WHO world survey of many countries that included 9,000 Israeli children and a US-Israeli survey of 16,000 Israeli children, i.e. your claims are simply false. And where did you get the idea that this article is only about today? The only case you can make is that the report in Wikipedia does not match what the source says, in which case we would fix it. You are also wrong that the 2012 survey contradicts the book, and even if it did WP:NPOV requires us to report all non-fringe viewpoints, not make our own selection between them. Zero^talk 15:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041210144306/http://ajn.com.au:80/pages/archives/feature/feature-01l.html to http://www.ajn.com.au/pages/archives/feature/feature-01l.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611182141/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110813152033/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/g_report_e1.pdf to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/g_report_e1.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/2ee9468747556b2d85256cf60060d2a6/0da4ba56ade85249852574190058d462!OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703195937/http://212.150.54.123/casualties_project/stats_page.cfm to http://212.150.54.123/casualties_project/stats_page.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150422134109/http://www.education.gov.il/children/page_23.htm to http://www.education.gov.il/children/page_23.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.kerenmalki.org/Press/IrishSBP_Death_of_Innocents.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130426201937/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2000/10/Suicide%20bombing%20at%20the%20Sbarro%20pizzeria%20in%20Jerusale to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2000/10/Suicide%20bombing%20at%20the%20Sbarro%20pizzeria%20in%20Jerusale
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.btselem.org/Download/20090909_Cast_Lead_Fatalities_Eng.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090904093310/https://jta.org:80/news/article/2009/08/31/1007549/hamas-condemns-un-for-teaching-the-holocaust to http://jta.org/news/article/2009/08/31/1007549/hamas-condemns-un-for-teaching-the-holocaust#When:14:44:00Z
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121115162200/http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=291954 to http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=291954
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_humanitarian_monitor_2009_02_01_english.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831080829/http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/about/doctrine/ethics.htm to http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/about/doctrine/ethics.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/2ee9468747556b2d85256cf60060d2a6/0da4ba56ade85249852574190058d462%21OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120729121304/http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/casualties.asp?sD=29&sM=09&sY=2000&eD=26&eM=12&eY=2008&filterby=event&oferet_stat=before to http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/casualties.asp?sD=29&sM=09&sY=2000&eD=26&eM=12&eY=2008&filterby=event&oferet_stat=before
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041220194420/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE020022004 to http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE020022004
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006080000/http://www.kerenmalki.org/Press/IrishSBP_Death_of_Innocents.htm to https://www.kerenmalki.org/Press/IrishSBP_Death_of_Innocents.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619163146/http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2004/1/Suicide%20bombing%20of%20Maxim%20restaurant%20in%20Haifa%20-%204-O to http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2004/1/Suicide%20bombing%20of%20Maxim%20restaurant%20in%20Haifa%20-%204-O
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=137286
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150811104641/http://1worldcommunication.org/gothiswish.htm to http://www.1worldcommunication.org/gothiswish.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://mobile.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/11/26/two_state/index1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

File Deleted from Commons

The file c:File:GazaZeitoun.jpg used in this article has been deleted from Commons

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC).

Antonio Guterres

please change ((Antonio Guterres)) to ((António Guterres)) 2601:541:4580:8500:2484:2839:83A4:9233 (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done ◎ | melecie | t 01:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)