Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Votes for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2004-12-18. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Accuracy dispute

Please direct any comments on the accuracy dispute to Talk:Violence against Israelis#Lists, where I have explained my reasoning. Thank you. —No-One Jones 10:43, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See my reply there. MathKnight 11:06, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Encyclopedic Value of this List

(From my posts on Talk:Violence_against_Israelis). What encyclopedic value does this list have? I might just as well start a list of all the acts of violent crime in my city, state or country. Hundreds of thousands of people die due to terrorism and war every year. Does a line describing every single act of violence that occurs every day deserve inclusion in Wikipedia?

If not, why is Israel/Palestine an exception? Many of these entries are about minor woundings; a minority are about actual deaths. Overall yearly statistics, with a few selected and cited events, would give enough detail. --style 13:30, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

Of course it is not intended to be encyclopedic. MathKnight is here on a mission to make sure that Wikipedia tells the story from his anti-Palestinian point of view. In other words, he is an enemy of Wikipedia and the values it stands for. --Zero 14:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'd rather not guess at the intent of the authors. Objectively, this article has no encyclopedic value and never would, even if it was balanced by mentioning Israeli violence.
The essential issue here is that detailed lists of non-notable civilian casualties are inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and are fundamentally biased (not NPOV) because they imply that some civilian deaths are more important than others. Of course, notable civilian casualties should be recorded in detail (i.e. political figures, celebrities, etc.), but non-notable civilians do not require specific mention no matter how they died; summaries, statistics and a few representative examples are an appropriate level of detail.
The article is another example of this problem (although at least each entry in the list is an actual death, instead of, for example, Arab terrorists fired at the funeral procession of Gilad Zar). Why doesn't Wikipedia have a detailed list of the names of every casualty of the Iraq war? Are New Yorkers more important than Iraqis? And why not include a list of the names of all 50 million people who died in World War II? Where do we draw the line?
I think this is an important POV issue that requires a uniform policy. AFAIK, WP is not free hosting space for memorials for non-notable people. --style 16:01, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)
(This is a reply to User:Style): Well, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is relevant and "interesting" to a lot of people over the world, and get a lot of media attention (unlike regular crimes in anytown, America). If, for example, your city was going through a wave of terrorist attacks, it would be justified to create an article with lists of those attacks. There are some listing of worldwide terror attacks, here on Wiki, and since Israel was the victims of thousands of them (more than 20,000 violent attacks against Israeli, and more than 100 suicide bombings) it would deserve a seperate article listing. Please see the articles of 2001 , 2002 [[1]] which contains a lists of the terror attacks which defenitaly have encyclopedic value as they serve as a decent basis for statistics and information about the amount and intensivety of succesful terrorists attacks. Claims like "The IDF has managed to stop terror" can be double-checked using this data base.
As you have obsered, the 2004 is far more full in only injured than fatalities, if you compare it for 2001 , 2002 list you'll see most of the attacks were lethal and caused many fatalities.
Since there is interest in those list, and they provide important information, they do have encyclopedic value. MathKnight 16:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
So, you are saying that all acts that somebody deems to be "terrorist" should be listed in WP, no matter how trivial (Arab terrorists fired at the funeral procession of Gilad Zar)? This would be a ridiculous policy, because "terrorism" is a contested term with no generally accepted meaning. Any act of violence that causes terror could be considered terrorism by somebody. This is how you manage to come up with 20,000 acts of terrorism. Thousands of such acts must be committed every day. The majority are not interesting or worthy of an encyclopedia. Where would it end?
MK: The criteria for this page have differed over time, as its name did. The 2002 list criteria was clear: violent attacks against Israeli civilians which caused serious injuries or death. This page - after long debates - has been stabilized on "violence in the IPC 2004" and therefore each violent attack on 911 casualties Israelis which resulted in injury or death. If the title was "terrorism against Israelis 2004" the criteria were much clearer. P.S.: As for the number of 20,000 - it is given by IDF official and include all violent Palestinian activities - include those who failed to cause damages (such as explosive charge attacks, or the 4000 mortars that fell over Gush Katif settlements).
Take Iraq; more than ten thousand have died due to US terrorism. By your math, that means there should be about a hundred thousand acts of terrorism. Should every single incident be listed?
MK:I don't agree with you that there was US terroism in Iraq. Should there be a listing of all terrorist attacks in Iraq? (such as the car bombs on Shiitee mosques and Iraqi police stations) I see no reason why not.
And why should terrorism be given special rules, rather than crimes or acts of war? What makes terrorism so different from other forms of violence?
MK: Lists of act of war are legitmate as well. Also, a list of all crimes commited by, let say Jack the Ripper, can be a legitimate list.
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is just one conflict in a world full of them. I admit there is interest in the conflict, but I think these articles fail to provide any useful information. Instead of listing every single act, no matter how trivial, the appropriate thing would be to summarize the violence using prose, statistics and a few examples.
MK: The article give plenty of useful information. I recently added a MDT - a number which tell how many Israeli were killed in each month. This is certainly a good base (though incomplete) for each one to do statistical research.
This article is also extremely POV, presenting only one side of the story, making it quite useless as an information source. An uninformed person who came across this article might conclude that Israel alone was the victim of terrorism. So your claim that this article provides "important information" is false. It only provides propaganda, and extreme distortion. It's like somebody wrote the history of a war, only mentioning the violence committed by the other side. It is the responsibility of the authors to provide both sides of the story - it's called "writing for the enemy". Why has this not been done?
MK: the orginal title of the article was "terrorism against Israelis in 2004" and there was a period with great mess and controversy about this list. Please check archieved discussions. Since things were chill down, only updates on Palestinian attacks were added frequently (with once-in-a-while addition of Israeli attack). I add what I know, and hence this list is frequently update on attacks against Israelis. You gave me an idea - I suggest to rename the article back to its original name: "terrorism\violence against Israelis in 2004".
And, in case you missed it, as I said above: The essential issue here is that detailed lists of non-notable civilian casualties are inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and are fundamentally biased (not NPOV) because they imply that some civilian deaths are more important than others.--style 17:22, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)
MK:I see no problem in lists like this. You can say it is biased because it list only the victims of one side (the 911 casualties is another example) and I see no wrong in them. They are not implying that there are death more important then others but just limit themselves for a certain topic or scope.
My answers are with triple ident, and the initial MK. MathKnight
I expected you to disagree with me that the US committed terrorism in Iraq. That's the point: nobody agrees on a definition of terrorism, and in practice it usually comes down to "the other side.". BTW, State terrorism is a generally accepted concept.
MK: there is a somewhat agreed definition of terrorism: "Terrorism is a tactic of violence that targets civilians, with the objective of forcing an enemy to favorable terms, by creating fear, demoralization, or political discord in the attacked population." Now, you have to prove that the US did target civilians deliberately. Since hiting of civilians in Iraq was done during war, and IMHO not with intention, a more appropiate term would be "war crimes" if any.
You seem to think that all acts of war/terrorism could be listed, and there's no problem with such lists. The problem is that millions have died from war and terrorism. If WP accepts one list, then it cannot logically refuse another. Do we want WP to become full of lists of millions of casualties?
MK: for all practical cases, I am sure that WP will not be floaded with lists.
You also say that the article should be restored to it's original name, and that you have no interest in providing a balanced list of violence from both sides. Well, do you really want to write for an encyclopedia? Because you're expected to make at least a token attempt at neutrality.
Those who constantly attempt to advocate their views on politically charged topics (for example), who seem not to care about whether other points of view are represented fairly, are violating the nonbias policy ("write unbiasedly"). But the policy entails that it is our job to speak for the other side, and not just represent our own views. If we don't commit ourselves to doing that, Wikipedia will be much, much weaker for it. We should all be engaged in explaining each other's points of view as sympathetically as possible.
--style 00:10, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)
As for your last comment, if you will CHECK archieve discussion you'll see I offered a seperate list to the other side. Please check this list, its full mainly with updates on Israeli casualties, with only little number of reports on Palestinian casulties. This is seem a little bit odd and in order to prevent this, I think it is more reasonable to restore the page to its original page. MathKnight 09:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] PCHRgaza

This is highly biased resouce, which protects terrorist (see for example: http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2004/86-2004.htm ). If INN reports are all to be removed this source is no better, but worse, and should be removed as well.

In fact, I just find these photoes ( http://www.pchrgaza.org/images/2002/moh_e.htm ). This a clear and explicit lie of the PCHRgaza, because the man in the picture was a suicide bomber that was captured in Jerusalem and was disarmed from explosive belt by an EOD robot. He was shot in the head before he was stripped from the belt.

Therefore, I remove this source due to inreliability and distorted misinformation, if not lies. MathKnight 07:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm curious to hear your explanation of the photo that shows him still alive but wearing only his underpants. --Zero 11:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In the photoes he wears only underpants (you probably means 2nd row, right) is dead. The whole event was broadcast on the Israeli TV, and it is cites here, and here. Here is an official statement from the Israeli Police:
Israel Police Statement On March 8, 2002 Incident
(Communicated by the Israel Police National Foreign Press Spokesman)
March 12, 2002
On Friday, March 8, 2002, a suicide bomber on his way to perpetrate a terror attack in Jerusalem was apprehended by police while wearing a large explosive device on his chest and stomach area. He was held on the ground, face down, while a bomb disposal expert attempted to dismantle the explosive device. This lasted a number of minutes. During this time, the suicide bomber attempted several times to detonate the bomb by rubbing his chest against the ground in the hope of activating the detonation switch. In order to prevent the murder of the policemen and the bomb disposal officer, the suicide bomber was shot and killed by police. The bomb was dismantled with the aid of a bomb disposal robot.
The police have an investigative interest in apprehending suicide bombers alive in order to ascertain information that may assist in preventing further terrorist attacks, as witnessed a day earlier with the arrest of a suicide bomber in Jerusalem's Emek Refaim neighborhood.
[2]
Q.E.D. MathKnight 14:50, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PHRC gaza reports were removed because of (leak of) factual accuracy (as proved above). Each report may be returned, if provided with better and reliable source. MathKnight 22:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The claim that the man lying down in the second photo is dead is ridiculous. There is a police officer pointing a gun at him at the time. Why would you point your gun on a man who’s already dead (shot in the head)? What would you be afraid of?

[edit] Terrorist vs Militant

Style, how about justifying your own? You make major changes without any discussion, and mark them as minor. You also break a category in the process.

If you want to remove the classification of attacks as terrorist, then fine - but discuss it first - and don't necessarily expect to get support - and be prepared, if indeed you get that support, to change it across the board. To do so selectively, as in this case, is simply biased. Ambi 12:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. That wasn't so difficult, was it? I justified my changes in the edit summary, as should have you, so we could have avoided that stupid revert war. I don't like reverting, but if there's no attempt at dialogue from the other side, what can be done? And I deny that it's "abuse". I think your unsummarized reverts are closer to abuse.
I don't have to change anything "across the board". Wikipedia policy is not my responsibility. I'm interested in this page, so I'm contributing to it. I would be happy to support such a standard policy, but my changes to this article are not contingent upon the existence or implementation of such a policy.
That said, if it's good enough for Reuters, it should definitely be good enough for Wikipedia. News agencies have less stringent requirements for neutrality than encyclopedias. Judging from the talk archives, a significant amount of time is wasted arguing over the word "terrorist", which could be spent more productively (like, now).
I don't want to remove the classifications of these attacks as terrorist. Obviously, many people feel that both or either side is terrorist (yes, many people believe that the Israelis are terrorist, particularly in the non-English speaking world). What I'm objecting to is the way this page has been written to chisel into the reader that Palestinians are terrorists, by repeating the word over, again and again. The unnecessary repeated links to "Palestinian terrorism" add to the impression of propaganda.
From a completely objective standpoint, terrorist just isn't a very good word to use in an encyclopedia. It's often exploited by partisans, and it's very flexible and vague. "Militant", on the other hand, is more precise and accurate when describing irregular, paramilitary forces. Secondly, terrorist has moral and emotional overtones that are best avoided. I'm sure both sides of this conflict experience "terror".
As for your accusations of "bias", this page is currently extremely biased, which is what I'm trying to fix. Along with the bias it has other fundamental problems:
  • Only presenting one side. This is utterly against NPOV, and incredibly distorted. A reader would conclude that the Israelis are Ghandi-like pacificists facing demonic Arabs.
  • Intentionally confusing Palestinians with Arabs, as though all Arabs are the same. This is racist.
  • The entire existence of this page in an encyclopedia is ridiculous; the previous Palestinian violence-only versions even more so. See above for my argument that these pages aren't encyclopedic.
  • This isn't even an article; it's a *list*. There is no prose.
  • Contains many, many minor incidents, including stuff like gunfire and riots.
  • Many entries lack cites.
Make no mistake: This page should be deleted. It has no place in an encyclopedia. Failing that, it should be made as NPOV as possible, which is what I'm trying to do. Replacing charged, contested terms like "terrorist" with specific, objective terms like "militant" (in accordance with a major news agency's neutrality policy) is one step in the right direction. --style 13:36, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
For starters, yes, you do have to change things across the board. It's simply biased to remove all mention of Palestinian terrorism, but leaving in mention of terrorism from every other group around the world. Look at the category "Terrorist incidents" - which you broke in this article, by changing it to the non-existent "Militant incidents".
Now, if the article needs balancing - go ahead. The Israeli government is far from innocent, either. So go balance it - don't remove perfectly legitimate material. And an organisation isn't necessarily not "terrorist" because you agree with its aims. I was engaged in a debate over the Kosovo Liberation Army (who I strongly support), but was convinced that it was fair to class them as a terrorist organisation.
Also note that there's nothing wrong with lists on Wikipedia. We have plenty of them - so that argument is bunk.
Several of the problems you point out are fair criticism. These things clearly need citations, and it is a key flaw that they don't. Palestinians and Arabs shouldn't be confused, and this clearly needs to be fixed. If the article is biased towards one side, in terms of content - then go fix it.
But don't you dare attempt to change something which then affects a bunch of other articles unilaterally. We are not Reuters. If you want to change our policies, then you go through proper channels. Ambi 23:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Did you not read what I wrote? I am not "removing all mention of Palestinian terrorism" from Wikipedia. I am replacing repeated, unnecessary, propagandistic repetitions of the word "terrorist" with the specific, neutral, informative, accurate term "militant" on one (1) page that is simply a list of news items. This article still contains instances of the word terrorism, belongs to the category "terrorist incidents", and there are still many other articles on Wikipedia that refer to and focus upon Palestinian terrorism (such as Palestinian terrorism).
Yes, I broke the category once, realized what I had done and then fixed it. I don't see why you are going on and on about one editorial mistake I made. One rule about Wikipedia is that we fix each other's mistakes, rather than crowing about them.
Yes, there are many lists on Wikipedia, but they are marked as such. A reader who clicked on "Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 2004" would expect an article about "Violence in the yada yada", not an unannotated list of dubiously sourced instances of minor and major Palestinian violence. I'm curious: you seem to believe this page is somehow encyclopedic?
Yes, Wikipedia is not Reuters. It should be better. I'm not changing policies. I'm not affecting other articles. I'm contributing to one article. If you disagree, fine. Make your changes. Restore the litany of "Arab terrorism". Make this article read like the propaganda it is. But don't pretend that my changes are somehow necessarily unacceptable or in violation of Wikipedia policy, because they're not.
The issue here isn't whether Palestinian militants are terrorists; I agree that many people see things that way and such views deserves a place on Wikipedia. It's whether articles should repeatedly and unnecessarily use the word "terrorism" and "terrorist" for propaganda purposes. As I have said, many view the Israeli military's actions as terrorist. But I don't go around changing every mention of the IDF to "Israeli terrorists", because that would be ridiculous and POV. --style 01:12, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

[edit] PCHR

Mathknight: You are saying that because you think my source is somehow biased my entries should be deleted, but other entries with no source at all should be kept. Why? I really cannot understand this at all. It doesn't make any sense. If you cannot explain yourself, I am going to proceed to dispute resolution. --style 20:50, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

They all should have sources, I agree. Reliable sources.
As I said on your talk pages, there's some sources which are simply unreliable for such things, due to their bias. I'd be somewhat uncomfortable including material from DebkaFile for exactly the same reason, without outside supporting evidence. Ambi 23:32, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
So, to be perfectly clear, do you support my version of this page, in which all entries with (allegedly) biased cites or no cites at all are removed? Do you support the complete removal of any such entries in earlier version of this page? (Terrorism against Israel in 200x?) And if PHCRgaza is too biased, then other cites to websites that are equally biased in the opposite direction, such as Israeli government sites, should be removed as well? --style 23:54, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
Yes, I'd agree with removing all uncited material, as well as that from biased sources. As far as biased sites, I think that needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis, but provisionally, yes. Ambi 03:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A glance at the edit history reveals that OneVoice, also known as Lance6Wins, also known as at least two IP addresses, was the primary editor of this article. In his zeal to report the violence (one side of it, anyway), he neglected to cite his sources—thus making his word the only source for many items. His neutrality and accuracy (or lack thereof) are well-documented. Should every item he added therefore be removed because of its source's doubtful reliability? —No-One Jones 01:17, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. MathKnight and Ambi both contend that the PHCRgaza is too unreliable a source to be used. But surely a single Wikipedian (with documented bias) is even less reliable. --style 01:29, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
As I pointed out on Style's talk page, I've been one of the editors going after Lance6Wins, arguing before the AC, etc. I'd take any of his additions in this area with a big grain of salt, though I agree with many of his opinions.
That said, before we remove any uncited material from this page, we should be trying to find evidence that it actually happened, and only removing it if such a citation can't be found. Ambi 03:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

. . . or move the dubious stuff to this talk page, where each item can be verified (or not) and added back (or not) as needed. This is a very common way of dealing with disputed statements in articles. We should also try to decide what constitutes a reliable source: Zero thinks INN is trash (and after seeing their total disregard for basic journalistic standards, I have to agree), MathKnight argues that PCHRGaza is unreliable, Ambi thinks DebkaFile isn't good enough—we need some sort of agreement on what is a good source and what is rank propaganda. —No-One Jones 03:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wow, nice work Mirv! I inserted "Israeli Government and Military websites" as a source that I am not happy with, since the Israeli Government is one of the main actors in this conflict it can hardly be expected to be neutral. --style 04:49, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
The Israeli government can hardly be expected to be neutral, true, but at least it is in a position to know what it's talking about: it has the death certificates, police and military reports, and suchlike. It also has a strong incentive against lying: if it were caught making up casualties, the repercussions for it would be more severe than they would be for a propaganda outlet like INN. I suggest applying the same standard to both Israeli government and Palestinian Authority sources—if we're going to discount one, we should necessarily discount the other. —No-One Jones 05:09, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree that if we allow Israeli government cites, then we should allow Palestinian Authority cites. However, I don't understand why we would allow stories from the Palestinian Authority, which doesn't even do human rights reporting, but not PCHRGaza which is a more neutral, independent organization:
The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) is an independent legal body based in Gaza City dedicated to protecting human rights, promoting the rule of law, and upholding democratic principles in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It holds Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations and is an affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists, the Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme (FIDH), and the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network. PCHR is a recipient of the 1996 French Republic Award for Human Rights.
I mean, any criticisms of PCHR as biased would surely apply to the Palestinian Authority. --style 05:52, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
The criticism of PCHR is based on evidence of explicit lie provided by them. They showed pictured of Palestinian suicide bomber which was caught in Jerusalem and was shot while trying to denotate his explosive belt, which later was stripped from him. The PCHR called the event "willful and extra-judicial killing, against Palestinian civilians" and deliberately erased the fact he was a suicide bomber. A source that claims terrorist and armed militants to be innocent civilians is clearly unreliable. No matter if it is governmental or not. MathKnight 14:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
User:Style or whoever else can be unhappy with the position or the existence of Israeli govt but for encyclopedic purposes it is as good a source as any other democratically elected govt. Simply discarding it hurts WP more than it hurts Israel. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Moving the lot back to the talk page seems sensible, even if we'd have to just about start from scratch.
By the way, I only brought DebkaFile into the equation as an example of a site that I personally agree with, but wouldn't trust as a source. Ambi

Fair enough. Let's have at it (—No-One Jones 04:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)):

[edit] Imra

I think I'll remove IMRA from unreliable sources. I checked the site briefly and its contain reprints from Israeli and international press, as well as official announcements of official bodies such as governmental agencies. MathKnight 16:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] INN - IsraelNN

Hello, User:209.135.35.83, I see you are adding reports based on INN, a source which has been disputed by other Wikipedians heres. Most of the entries can be confirmed by other sources and I so far havn't countered reliability problem with it. However, in order to prevent reverts-war and factual accuracy disputes we decided to create a list of acceptable and unaccpetable sources. User:Zero0000 have list INN in the unacceptable sources. You are welcome to defend this source in this Talk page and this section, but unless you do so - please respect the policy and find another source confiriming the reports (which are true). Thank you, MathKnight 13:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

MathKnight, the anonymous user is our dear friend User:OneVoice aka User:Lance6Wins. Alas, until the ArbCom decides to finish resolving the case, despite all the evidence having been before it for the last month, I guess all we can do is find our own sources, as we sure as hell won't be getting them from him. Ambi 13:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
ArbCom? So far his entries are accurate. What's the problen with INN again? MathKnight 19:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed items

removed by Style, reinserted by MathKnight and Lance6Wins. Strike each one out as an acceptable source is found for it and note the source next to it:

  • January 13: A father of 5 children was shot to death and 3 Israelis were injured in a roadside ambush by the Fatah Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.
  • January 14: 4 Israelis were killed at Erez crossing after a suicide bomber exploded herself in a checkpoint to the industrial zone of Erez. The Hamas and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed joint responsibility.
  • January 29: 11 Israelis killed and 50 wounded in a suicide bombing of a city bus in Jerusalem. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility. A day after, also Hamas claimed responsibility. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a video documenting the sights that police forensic expert encountered when they've arrived to the scene. (contains graphic content).
  • February 22: 8 Israelis are killed and 60 wounded in a suicide bombing of a city bus in Jerusalem, occurring one day before the start of hearings at the International Court of Justice regarding the Israeli West Bank barrier. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
  • March 13: David Mordehai, 57, of Beersheva was killed and his son Nahum, 25, paralyzed in a [militant]] shooting attack.
  • March 14: Two Palestinian suicide bombers kill 10 and wound 12 in the Israeli port of Ashdod. Hamas and Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claim joint responsibility.
  • March 17: An Israeli air raid outside Gaza City kills two Palestinian militants.
  • March 19: An Israeli man is shot dead from a passing vehicle while jogging in the French Hill neighborhood of Jerusalem. Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claim the attack, and later apologize when it becomes known that the victim was an Arab.
  • March 22: Ahmed Yassin, leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip was killed by an Israeli missile. Source: Wikipedia article and numerous links provided therein.
  • March 25: Three Hamas militants were detected and killed by gunfire as they made their way from the beach towards the shorefront community of Tel Katifa in order to perpetrate an attack.
  • March 26: A 22-year-old Fatah member was killed when the bomb he was preparing exploded. The incident occurred in the Balata area of Shechem.
  • April 3: Yaakov Zagha, a 40 year father of six, is shot dead outside his house after Chana, his 14 year old daughter was wounded by a Palestinian from nearby Tul Karem. The shooter was later killed by IDF forces. Both Hamas and Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
  • April 4: An IDF soldier was lightly injured by Palestinian sniper fire near the settlement of Kadim. Both Islamic Jihad and al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades claim to have perperated the attack.
  • April 17: Israeli border policeman Kfir Ohaiyon, 20, of Eilat was killed and three other Israelis injured in a suicide bombing at the Erez Crossing in northern Gaza.
  • April 19: One Israeli was injured and hospitalized when a Kassam rocket struck a home in Nisanit.
  • April 19: One Israeli was injured and hospitalized when Arabs near the village of Hawarah threw a large object through the windshield of his car.
  • April 19: Six Israelis, two children and four adults were transported to hospital when Qassam rockets struck a two additional buildings in Nisanit.
  • April 21: Nir Gil, 24, is shot and wounded seriously in the head at Givat HaMivtar, Jerusalem. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claim responsiblity.
  • April 22: Two Israelis are injured and hospitalized due to a rocket attack in Gaza. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claim responsiblity.
  • April 24: One Israeli is killed and four others are hurt, one seriously, in separate shooting attacks in the West Bank near Hebron.
  • April 24: Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claim responsiblity for the murder of an Arab, a suspected informant in the village of Beit Rima, in the Ramallah district.
  • April 28: Four are wounded when an Hamas car bomb laden with 300 kilograms of explosives is detonated as a result of IDF gunfire after the car pulled out of traffic and accelerated sharply. The car bomb is believed to have been targeting a nearby school bus.
  • April 28: A female motorist was injured as a result of a firebomb attack at the Yakir Junction in the Shomron.
  • June 1: An Arab child was seriously injured this afternoon in the Abu Sneineh neighborhood of Hebron when he picked up a disguised militant bomb.
  • June 5: An Israeli woman was injured when attacked by Arabs with rocks while traveling in an automobile.
  • June 21: Weerachai Wongput, 37, from Thailand who worked as a gardener was wounded by mortar fire against the community of Kfar Darom. The man was evacuated to hospital and died of his wounds later the same day.
  • June 27: Staff-Sergeant Ro’i Nissim, 20, from Rishon L’Tzion, was killed and 5 others were injured when an underground tunnel laden with more than 1000 kg of explosives detonated under IDF outpost of the "Urhan" junction near Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip. Hamas and al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
  • June 28: 4-year-old child Afik Zahavi and Mordehai Yosefof, 49, were murdered in Sderot by a Palestinian Qassam rocket that hit a kindergarten, the first fatal Qassam attack. The boy's mother,Ruthie Zahavi, 28, was critcally wounded. Hamas claimed responsibility.
  • June 29: Moshe Yohai, 63, from Ashdod, an Israeli truck driver was murdered by shootings near Ramallah. The al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
  • June 29: Sderot was again shelled by Qassam rockets, this time causing only injuries. There were almost 360 rockets that fired upon Sderot since the beginning of hostilities in September 2000.
  • July 4: Victor Kreiderman, 49, was murdered and his wife, Emma, wounded in a shooting attack between Mevo Dotan and Shaked. The al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility. The militant fled to the nearby Arab village of Yabed.
  • July 5: One person was wounded when three mortar shells fired by Palestinian militants hit the community of Nvei Dekalim.
  • July 6: Captain Moran Vardi, 25, of Shayetet-13 was killed during a battle with two militants which barricaded in a house in Nablus. In that battle four Palestinians were killed, two of them were PFLP militants.
  • July 9: An army jeep was attacked by anti-tank rocket and roadside bomb, injuring four soldiers.
  • July 14: Palestinian militants fire upon a family traveling in their car near Peduel. Both parents are wounded. None of the four children sustain physical injuries.
  • July 18: Palestinian militants fire upon a vehicle near Migdalim. Two Israelis are hospitalized.
  • July 25: a Palestinian mortar shell or anti-tank missile hit a community center in Neve Dkalim, Gush Katif, injuring 6 children, including one badly.
  • August 2: A Qassam rocket hits Sderot and damaged a house, casuing explosive blast injuries to 6 people.
  • August 10: An Israeli bus and five other vehicles were attacked with explosive charge and gunfire near Ariel in the Shomron. Three Israeli civilians were wounded. Three additional undetonated roadside were found and neutralized. The al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility.
  • August 11: Two people were killed and sixteen were wounded when an explosive device was detonated by Palestinian militants inside an Arab taxi as the taxi attempted to cross the Qalandia checkpoint just north of Jerusalem. Two Palestinians were killed, and about 20 people, a majority of them Arabs, were wounded. The al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades faction of Fatah claimed responsbility and expresses regret that Arabs were among the dead and wounded.
  • August 13: Shlomo Miller, 50 years old and father of seven children, was killed by gunshots and another person wounded in an ambush near Itamar. The murderer was killed by Israeli security forces and was identified an officer in Yasser Arafat's Preventative Security Force. Fatah claimed responsibility.
  • August 15: a MAGAV policeman was slashed with a knife across the neck by an Arab from Shuafat, in the Old City of Jerusalem. The officer managed to return fire and kill the attacker. The policeman was seriously wounded and underwent emergeny surgery.
  • August 18: an Israeli was wounded by a mortar attack against N'vei Dekelim. One house in the community suffered significant damage.
  • August 18: two children from Sderot were hospitalized due to a Qassam rocket attack.
  • August 19: two Israelis were wounded by shrapnel from a Qassam rocket attack against the Israeli town of Sderot in the Negev.
  • September 1: Six Arabs placing a bomb near Khan Younis are wounded by missile from an Israeli helicopter.
  • September 2: Two armed Arabs attack Israeli soldiers with firebombs in Dir el-Balah near Kfar Darom. One is shot dead, the other wounded.
  • September 3: Two Arabs transporting a bomb are hit by Israeli gunfire causing the bomb to explode. Both Arabs die. [3] Source: Jerusalem Post, whose reliability is so far undisputed

[edit] Acceptable sources

[edit] Unacceptable sources

how about instead distinguising between "disputed" and "undisputed" sources. Itis pretty much impossible to be "objective" in this conflict, so it's only to be expected that most sources would be biased. I suggest that items based on disputed sources are not excluded, but are included with explicit mention of the source. At the bottom of the article we can elaborate on the particular bias or allegations against the "disputed" sources used. This would be most in line with the NPOV policy. - pir 10:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The list here is what sources are considered as reliable and therefore acceptable as a reference. This is a guiding list for people who edit this article and add a report. They should provide reliable citation, after one of the users complained about disputed factual accuracy.
Biased resources or official spokemanships can be accepted sources, as long as they are reliable and adhering to the truth. Example for a biased reliable source is Betzelem or the Israeli MFA.
As for your last remark, it is sound like a good idea to me. Meanwhile we discuss the sources here. MathKnight 19:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sources under discussion

  • Arutz Sheva/IsraelNN (reliability disputed by zero, —No-One Jones), however no examples of inaccurate reporting have been brought forward. All objections to date are based upon Zero0000's statements or antipathy for the stance of INN. Abu Ala 20:49, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In fact, several examples of ridiculously inaccurate reporting have been brought forth. Do the names "Tom Hurndall" and "Gil Regev" ring any bells? —No-One Jones (m) 20:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is genuine disagreement about Rachel Corrie, her knownledge or lack thereof regarding smuggling tunnels; Thomas Hurndall and Gil Regev...you link is to a statement of complaint, not an example of inaccurate reporting. Could you please cite and example?

In the case of Tom Hurndall, INN reported that the soldier who shot him was convicted on Feb. 12 (IIRC), when in fact he had been indicted. That is either an idiotic error or a deliberate falsehood, and as far as I know it has not yet published a correction or a retraction. In the case of Gil Regev, INN reported that he said the rate of refusal had dropped 80%, when in fact it was the rate of convictions for refusal that had dropped—again, either unforgivable sloppiness or deliberate lying. Again, I am not aware of any corrections or retractions of this error.
Both of these have already been explained repeatedly. To sum it up: A source that repeatedly misreports or lies about basic facts is not a source to be accepted uncritically. —No-One Jones (m) 21:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Are those errors in INN or errors in transcription into Wikipedia? We should not blame INN for transcription into Wikipedia. Were corrections issued? Do you have citations for these to (Zero0000?) alleged errors. Only two errors in months, Feb 12 till Sep 24, of reporting is a very good error rate. Lance6Wins 17:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Those are errors in INN, obviously. As for citations, try every other report of the same stories. —No-One Jones (m) 17:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thank you Mirv. I take it this is the standard for all news source at Wikipedia, two errors (convicted vs indicted, and rate of refusal vs conviction rate of refusal) in about 6 months. We have a significant error AFP. Should we find another significant error before January, we will have to treat AFP(anti-tank mine against troops vs Qassam rocket against civilians) the same as INN. Lance6Wins 13:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
On July 23, a teenage Arab was killed by gunfire in Beit Hanoun, a built up area in the Northern section of the Gaza Strip. The incident was reported in multiple news sources, including (NYT), (BBC), (INN), [(HaAretz), (AFP).

It is interesting to read Haaretz, Maariv, Jerusalem Post and INN side by side on the same stories. Here is an example from September 20th (INN), (Haaretz), (JPost). Maariv is absent on this one so far. Much more background and editorial material in the other reports. INN is short and direct reporting the event without additional material. Lance6Wins 21:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Remove PDT?

There is no point to keep the PDT, for a plain reason: the numbers are incorrect and are not monitored by everyone. The reports on Palestinian deaths in this page are very lacking, while the reports on Israelis deaths are accurate and complete. Haaretz publish each month a full list of casualties of both sides, giving names, status (combatant vs non-combatant) and cause of death. On this I based the September number, but I'm in doubt if someone archieved the data on previous months and made it accessible on-line. MathKnight 10:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that no-one can agree on what the accurate totals are. Jayjg 17:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If no one object, the PDT of the months prior to September will be removed during the following days. MathKnight 20:02, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You know _why_ the "reports on Palestinian deaths in this page are very lacking"? Because YOU DELETED THEM, even though they were cited and obviously had occurred.
You think the numbers are incorrect? Prove it. Then, and only then, replace them with better numbers. Don't just delete facts that don't fit your agenda. It's called "writing for the other side", and it's part of WP policy. Or you can just go ahead and make this absolutely disgraceful article even more ridiculously biased. Once again, I'm disappointed (but not suprised) that admins (Jayjg) support this propagandistic behaviour. --style 06:49, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
The number are not cited with any source, and don't either corresponds to the events written here (since no one bothers to update every Palestinian death properly and some Palestinian sites has the habit of turning militants into civilians and provide misinformation). Why should I think this nuber are correct? Notice that they are monotonicly increase. MathKnight 10:37, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/o/Talk%7EViolence_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_2004_b44a.html"