Talk:Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 7 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] To Moshe

plz discuss changes in here before you rv my work. More edits are coming to clean the propaganda from this article.--Thameen 20:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zionist Propaganda

Although there are rare cases of the use of minors in the Palestine/Israeli conflict. And I'm against that of course.

But this article was written in its totality in a zionist propaganda tone to emphasize the zionist myth the Palestinians send their kids to death (and hense no problem the the Israeli ocuupation army killed around 4000 kids in Palestine).

1. The article was written with a pre-assumed notion that the use of kids by Palestinians is a fact and is wide spead.

2. The article stated what the IDF (the Israeli Army) claimed as a fact. Ignoring the fact that some of the IDF reports are fabrications or exageration as part of it propaganda war against the Palestinians.

3. There is lack of reference in many paragraphs.

4. The article failed to illustrate the miserable life the kids live due to occupation.

5. The article failed to mention the targetting of kids by the IDF and the hundreds of kids who were killed by the IDF.


While there is no doubt that there was propoganda used in the original article. With the way Zionist is being thrown about here, I have to wonder about the neutrality of those editting the article also. cliveklg

[edit] Misc

I am aware that sending children over minefields was a common tactic used by the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war (and I added that to the article), but I do not recall ever hearing of this tactic being employed by the Iraqi side. Can someone provide a cite or at least vouch for the authenticity of this claim? Perhaps some of this stuff would be best moved to Military use of children, anyway. Everyking 19:58, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


All links to statements from IDF website are currently broken since the website moved to a new server.

[edit] "The IDF does not.. point out..."

"The IDF does not, however, point out that since the beginning of the conflict:

  • The IDF has killed 550 children in the Palestinian territories during the intifada, compared to only 106 Israeli children killed by Palestinians. The ratio of wounded children is about 10 to 1.
  • They had also had arrested over 2,000 children by June 2003 alone.
  • Children in IDF custody report abuses (beatings, sleep deprivation, and humiliation such as being forced to strip naked, derogatory language, being forced to perform a variety of demeaning actions, etc) and said they were treated as adult Palestinians; this is backed up by numerous articles from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. "

Rei: This information may be true...i am not commenting on its truth. Where does this paragraph contain any information regarding child suicide bomber the subject of our article? it appears to be here for the purpose of "we said one thing that appears 'complimentary' to Israel, we must say something that does not appear so". that is not informative. this tit-for-tat behavior. 550 vs 106 dead? that is 656 too many. this is is keeping score in dead children. The desire to engage in these two behaviors are two of the reasons that I am so reluctant to engage in dialogue with others at wikipedia. 209.135.35.83 19:11, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Wait... so are you trying to say that it is irrelevant that children are being killed, arrested, and tortured to whether they are being convinced to take part in suicide bombing? That would be like having an article on suicide bombing itself and not going into anything about the Intifada. Do you not acknowledge this?
Every act takes place in the context of prior actions, and expected results. It may or may not be relevant. this article is not about the Intifada, it is about a particular tactic used by Intifada groups (and perhaps others). motivational information may be particular to each conflict or even each case. best discussed for each conflict of case rather than in the definitional article. 209.135.35.83 13:08, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
furthermore the article seems over concentrated on Palestinian child suicide bombers. a name change might be in order, or perhaps a separate page.
I'm sorry to hear that you're reluctant to enter into a dialog, but if you refuse to enter into a dialog and try and push through whatever you want through reverting every 60 seconds (as you were doing over in Israel), it doesn't play well with the other users. Rei 22:09, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
you did not respond to my concerns regarding "dialog" at wikipedia, rather you chose to ignore or respond to a different item. this is another concern i have regarding dialog here....it rolls from one subject to another with ever resolving an item...oh...i can't support my position, let me talk of something else. an example in Talk:Israel: one subject was Islam and democracy. SO a person tried to change the subject to Muslims and democracy...very different, as can be seen by analogy between the Catholic Church and divorce vs American Catholics and divorce. tit-for-tat, score-keeping, fleeing the subject are behaviors indicative of an interest in producing a valuable encyclopedia. 209.135.35.83 13:08, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but not every word generally gets a response. You really need to have a lot more patience if you're going to fit in here. If something wasn't responded to, and you want it to be responded to, just ask again. Are you referring to the issue of "tit for tat"? That's also known as "balance". Both sides of an issue get to make their points, so long as they're on topic. The causes *are* on-topic. The vast majority of this article is from the pro-Israel side. I'm fine with that - child suicide bombings *are* a horrible thing, and almost everyone on the pro-Palestine side will agree with that. Consequently, I don't try and remove much of anything bad being written about them. However, to ignore the causes - the only thing that I ask be addressed in this article - would be outright foolish. The causes of children being willing to become suicide bombers or otherwise take part in violence is about as relevant to the subject of child suicide bombings as is physically possible. *And*, the pro-Israel side already presented *its* view of the causes (paying off children, indoctrination, etc). This is the only fair, balanced response. I will not ask for much on this article; but I will insist on this. The causes are critical, and especially when one side gets to present their viewpoint about the causes, the other side must be able to as well. Rei 17:04, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand what the IDF's abuse of Palestinian Children has to do with Child Suicide Bombers. It's OK to have an article about IDF's treatment of Palestinian children, but this is not that article. Is there any evidence that Child Suicide Bombers kill because they avenge specifically palestinian children rather then Palestinians in general, let alone all other concievable reasons? Unless such data is added to link these things, I say the IDF's treatment of Palestinian children does not belong here. Omer
(no response regarding the Iran/Iraq and Africa material moved to Military use of children....assumed that there there is no issue here.)
furthermore the article seems over concentrated on Palestinian child suicide bombers. a name change might be in order, or perhaps a separate page. 209.135.35.83 17:32, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
I'll second that. Rei 20:04, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm going to the move the Iran/Iraq and Africa items to Military use of children.

Similarly: "* In memory of the 106 Israeli children and 550 Palestinian children killed in the Intifada

  • " is not about the subject of the article

As Everyking "said" (only about one, but the prinicple applies to both) above these dont belong here either....different subject matter:

[edit] Iraq

During the Iraq-Iran War (1980 - 1988), Iran was accused of using children to clear minefields by having them run in front of the soldiers.

this is a weird piece of info, never heard of this even from the hand line Iraqi opposition.

--Thameen 14:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Africa

The use of children as warriors in civil wars and tribal conflicts is vast and common.


I would question the need for this article. Might it not be better to put its content in the Suicide Bomber article or, if it's only going to be about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, under that? That way, the context is already there. Skittle, 2 November

[edit] Child suicide bomber = child abuse ?

Apart from the general problem of suicide bombing, many consider the exploition of children by brainwashing for fataly dangerous activitie as a form of child abuse. MathKnight 13:35, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let's keep the pop psychoanalysis out of the article. Also the comment about child abuse sounds puerile. Is there a point being made? Did anyone suggest that killing children is good for them? --Zero 23:31, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It is clear that the use of children as suicide bomber is not disturbing as equally as using adults. Of course, the results of both suicide bombing are terrible, but while an adult is aware of his action, a child - in most cases - is not. Children are easy to influence and there is a serious case of explotatin here - which may harm the child's health (and probably kill him). This harms the children's right and thefore constitute a child abuse. Using children as combatants or suicide bombers is considered a war crime. Therefore, the issue that a child performs the suicide bombing is itself very disturbing (that is why Hussam Abdo's picture caught world attention) and it should be mentioned in the article. MathKnight 09:43, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, Zero. -- Viajero 10:51, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Apart from the general problem of suicide bombing, many consider the exploitation of children as a war crime and violation of children's rights. Some even consider this exploitation as a form of child abuse.
See also explaination above. MathKnight 09:16, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Viajero, don't you consider exploitation as some sort of abuse? A specially when the result of the exploitation can be a dead child? Secondly, as you can see - there are indeed people who consider the exploitation of kids for suicide bombings as a form of abuse. Thirdly, I think it well help to clear issues if you say what "abuse" include according to your views. MathKnight 10:56, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let's not commit reader-abuse by telling them they can't form their own value judgements and labels for child suicide bombings. --Zero 17:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, you can't deny that using a child as suicide bomber is more disturbing than using an adult. There are two aspect of the problems,
  1. The suicide bombing.
  2. The exploitation of child, to an action that harms the child welfare and health.
The readers can form their own values, and saying that many people regard the child bombers as kind of abuse (sending a child to die) doesn't "abuse" the reader's value. They can judge from themselves it child abuse is moral act or not. MathKnight 20:38, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits (Oct 03, 2004)

[edit] Did the 3 kids in Netzarim were sent by Hamas?

Reference from the Shin Bet report:

בלילה שבין ה – 23 ל- 24 אפריל 2002 ניסו שלושה ילדים פלסטינים, תלמידי בית ספר מעזה, לחדור לישוב נצרים על מנת לבצע פיגוע התאבדות בישוב. השלושה הם אסמעיל צבח אברהים אבו נדא בן 12, איל עאזי מצטפא חמארנה בן 13 ויוסף באסם יוסף זקות בן 14. השלושה נורו על ידי כוח צה"ל בשעה שניסו לחדור לישוב. באתר האינטרנט של תנועת החמאס פורסם ב – 24 אפריל 2002 כי השלושה אשר נשלחו על ידי החמא"ס, השתייכו למסגד בשכונת שיח' רדואן בעזה, וכי באמצעות פעילויותיהם המיוחדות הצליחו להרכיב מקרבם חולייה והחליטו לנהל ג'האד נגד היהודים. הנערים השאירו למשפחותיהם צוואות בהן הדגישו את רצונם במות קדושים והוציאו לפועל את החלטתם. על אחת הגופות נמצאו גרזן ומגזרי תיל לחיתוך הגדר.

Translation:

In the night between the 23rd and 24th of April 2002, three Palestinian childrem, Gaza school pupils, to infilitrate to Netzarim settlement in order to commit suicide attack. The three were: Ibrahim Abu Nada (12), Ill Azi Mustafa Hamarna (13) and Yosef Basem Yosef Zakut (14). The three were shot by IDF force while attempting to infilitrate the settlement. The Hamas website published on April 24, 2004, that the three - which were sent by Hamas - were belonged to a mosque in Sheikh Raduan neigbourhood in Gaza, and via their special activities they succeeded in composing a cell among them and decided to wage a Jihad against the Jews. The children left the families last wills in whom they emphasysed their will in "Shuada" (martyrdom's death) and executed their decision. An axe and wire-cutters were found over one of the bodies.

If someone claim otherwise, please provide proper citation. MathKnight 22:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

    • Ok, The problem ther is that the Hamas website was Not Promoting the Childrens deaths, as that wonderful piece of israeli propaganda suggests, rather they were condemning it, and it was back on the old Hamas Webisite in 2002.
    • Now, Considering I cannot go back in time to April 24 this year and get that Page, and as it's no longer apparent on either Arabic or English versions of their Sites, I can't prove it, but on that date in the archive it is not there.
    • I can show you the BBC Report of the event at the time of the childrens deaths, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1948502.stm. The Boys themselves, appear to have been recruited by Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.
    • You want more?
Yes. Hamas reaction may be interperated as an attempt to clean itself from the involvement in this affair. This report from ABC News claimed that no Palestinian group claimed responsibility for the usage of children. Here, a "Gazan source" blame the send on Islamic Jihad, which also refused to accept responsibility. MathKnight 23:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So, considering there is nothing but scant evidence either way, why do you persist in it's propagation? --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 17:04, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
There is nothing in this incident that justifies it being called a suide attack. It is an attack. There is no element of suicide. Only in the mind of the Shabak propagandist who knows his business very well. --Thameen 16:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did the Shabak report count stone-throwing as "terrorist attacks"?

Reading the report, no. In the begining, the report devided the terrorist attacks into 3 types: suicide bombing, shooting attacks and Qassam rocket attacks. Since the phenomana of stone throwing is vast and under reported by most media - about 300 kids who throwed stone is very very very low number, far beyond reason and amount of pictures depicting childrem throwing stones. Therefore, the commant: However Shabak include rock-throwing as a form of terrorism was removed. MathKnight

[edit] Use of the word "terrorism"

Hey guys! I have noted and removed the word terrorism several times here, as it carries heavy connotations and undermines NPOV in this case. I am sure that this conversation has happened many times before, and there is an unresolved wiki policy being formulated on the matter.. For here and now, could we use alternate language that conveys the disgusting practices of targeting civilians? Otherwise, I hope that those who use the term are sufficiently clear-minded to define Israeli war crimes against the Palestinian civilian population (e.g., Collective punishment) as terrorism. Tarek 21:38, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know there is a general problem of using the term "terrorism" because "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" stuff. But if we define terrorism as

a deliberate targeting of civilians (i.e. intensionaly trying to kill civilians) in pursuit of a religious\national\political goal

then there should be no POV problem, such the definition regarding the tactics and not the motives. MathKnight 22:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
By that definition, of course, the state-sanctioned collective punishment (punishing Palestinian families or cities for the militant activity of one member) is also terrorism.. I think we are doing a decent job of describing what's happening while avoiding such a loaded and hijacked term.. Tarek 00:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No it wouldn't, that would depend on deliberate targeting. If it was deliberate targetting of civilians... yes, if not, no. He presented a perfectly NPOV defination, and your reply was clearly not a NPOV. And I questions your neutrality in any edits or discussion here.Cliveklg 20:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Israeli collective punishment is the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians. they are subject to home demolitions. the attitude by the IDF is that destroying these peoples homes will deter them from defending terrorists in their (new) neighbourhoods. It's also against international law. There should be an article for war crimes on both sides of the conflict as no group in this conflict is innocent of crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.148.209 (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tag

  1. Factual Accuracy Dispute = A living person can not be a suicide Bomber.
  2. NPOV = Completely israeli Centric.

Tag removed.

  1. Simple reason: the term include also people who tried to commit a suicide bombing but failed.
  2. The article gives the POV of both sides in the begining and is based on various sources.

MathKnight 17:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The term suicide bomber is used to descrive someone who has killed themself, using a bomb, so as to kill others. A living person, thus can not be a Suicide Bomber. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Why would failed suicide bombers not be suicide bombers? Is there something that supports your contention? Jayjg (talk) 22:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A bomber is someone, or something, that bombs. That which does not bomb is not a bomber. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
It is ridiculous and redundant to change any title in this issue to "suicide bombers and would-be suicide bombers". Any reasonable reader can deduce that article on suicide bombers phenomena disscuss both suicide bombers that managed to blow themselves up on people and suicide bombers who failed to do so. We don't have to treat our readers as stupid, and therefore that tag is unneccesary and unjustified. Your quarrel is about semantics, not about the facts, so the "factual dispute" tag is out of place here. MathKnight 11:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] June 15 arrest of 4 child suicide bombers

Another factual error - On June 15, The Israeli Shin Bet (SHABAK) arrested a Palestinian terrorist cell in Nablus. The cell included eight members, four of them were child suicide bombers. The cell was directed and funded by the Fatah's Tanzim branch and Lebanese group Hizbullah. It was involved in May child terrorists attacks. [43] [1]) --Irishpunktom\talk 11:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any factual error in it. MathKnight 11:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Check the source provided, then read it agin, then tell me how that assertion was made? --Irishpunktom\talk 11:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
I checked and double checked and clarified the issue, adding a third link and done a little copyedit and rewording. Still, these are things you (or any other Wikipedian) could have done by reading the sources. All in all, the case is well established for the "disputed tag" be removed. MathKnight 11:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The link above is dead - I think there's a problem with using Haaretz as a linkable source here. It wouuld be fine if the article is quoted, but Haaretz links often bring up a 404 error for some reason. It's a shame, as its preferable to many of the other sources found here (including many that are in Hebrew). illWill 15:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I know. It is realy a plagueing problem. While they Haaretz links that do endure, it seem some of them are not, and as time passes it is hard to find another link (though it is possible via googleing it takes more and more time). In this case, I forecure the problem and added a Ynet link (Ynet in the online version of Yediot Aharonot newspaper) that should endure. MathKnight 16:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links

At the risk of becoming the resident "links pain in the butt" - the links on this page are really poor. Geocities pages, links to a blog, pictures claiming to be kids dressed as suicide bombers that aren't - just poor quality.

I've deleted some - and will try to pick up the rest. I'm not even claiming POV here - they're just crappy links.

I'm not against goecities or blogs per se but I think they need to be treated a lot more carefully than more extablished journalistic (or even pressure group) sites, and those which are not single issue. I'd way rather see a link to the BBC (or better yest Reuters) than to www.geocities.com/StopTheChildmurdering. I hope we all agree on this.

My guess is that will start a storm from the usual suspects - so can we discuss here before starting a "revert war". My line is that I've tried to take out the weakest links <G> and if they need reinstated then we could try to justify why they are relevant to the atrticle rather than assuming that anything vaguely on topic should be there and justifying it being removed (ie a link earns it place because it's a high quality link - irrespective of POV?) - does this sound reasonable?

62.253.64.15 18:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Anyone object to BBC link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1446003.stm ? 62.253.64.15 20:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Adding http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3899015.stm revealing interview with a (failed) suicide bomber. 62.253.64.15 20:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree that links from reputable news organisations are preferable - I don't personally regard blogs, watchdogs, Indymedia or other secondary news sources as very worthwhile in the context of an article such as this one. The links you have put in are good.illWill 20:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15979 - is a long but thought provoking piece from the NY review of books. Notable for a section at the end talking about Hamas being heavily criticised by ordinary Palestinians. Not so sympathetic to either the Israeli or the suicide bombers positions - my guess is that the author broadly supports the Palestinian Cause - but does cite AI that Suicide Bombing is a "crime against humanity". 62.253.64.15 20:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Complete rewrite of article

Someone has decided to almost completly rewrite the article to make it more pov. I'm sorry but the previous version was infinitely more acceptable. A revert is in order.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

the article as it is is extreme POV in all its sections. Not acceptable.--Thameen 16:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually whatever problems were present in the previous version pale in comparison to the new ones you have created. For example your inclusion of the unsourced passage "500 Palestinian children were killed by the Israeli troops" is considered irrelvant to the subject of this article and is obviously meant to downplay the relevant subject. Also "The Palestinians claim that the three kids were intentionally killed by the Israeli Ocuupation Army while playing near the settlement." and "Many Palestinians believe that these stories are fabricated by the IDF to show the Palestinians as seding their kids to death." are both obviously unacceptable pov passages. I am reverting to the previous version once again. Please try to edit in a more constructive way.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The constructive way to do it is to edit what you think is POV, not to RV, RV is used with Vandalism. It seems that you do not want to waste ur time doing a constructive editing, or you do not want to.
It is relevant to mention the kids killed by the army, first because it helps the read put things in proper dimention, second it helps clarify the environment in which some minors were involved in the conflict. actually we need to put a new section that deals with the background on which this involvement of the kids happpened.
The article in 30 places puts the IDf reports as true facts, and states them like true without mentioning that it is IDF claim like " on a specific date a minor was arrested carying expplosives near Huwara" without citation, without independent reports, and without explaining what the palestinin side had to say.
I see this whole article as a POV. It needs complete rewrite. An article that starts by saying that the involvement of minors in suicide bombing is PREVALENT is not a NPOV article. Lets join good efforts and produce a good article, RV will not work.
I have seen in ur talk page that you have been involved in some other agressive edits and some ppl are complaining. this will not work here. --Thameen 12:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
A revert is clearly warranted when ther are no redeeming qualities of an edit. You are just introducing either obvious pov or passages that are irrelevant to this article's real subject.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I was looking for clear examples of what was POV in my edit. you abuse RV. not good way to cooperate. --Thameen 18:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Have to agree, if you are going to revise an article to NPOV, you better have a NPOV in the first place. This is a heated subject and I think there are too many people meddling in it that have lost objectivity.Cliveklg 20:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have provided samples of your pov and irrelavant additions, there is not reason to go over every single one, since that is the only thing you are adding. I would be one thing if you were actually adding anything the least bit positive to the article, but since you aren't, a reversion is clearly the prudent thing to do.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Background of this Subject

I have read the above discussion and I found that at many points some editors has suggested that the background on which these rare incidents happened be explain. This request was denied and removed from the article on the grounds that it is irrelevant, which is the same reason why Moshe has been aggresively RV my edits.

I think it is of paramount importance that we put a section on the background of these children and the situations, bot social and psychologically, in which they have got involved as alleged by the occupation army (i e the IDF)

In this section we need to mention

  • The Current Conflict
  • Its effect on kids in general
  • the use of kids by both parties in general
  • the position of the palestinian public and resistance organizations regarding the minors.
  • and Most Importantly, we need to hear the voice of these kids. What do they say regarding these issues.

--Thameen 14:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a background section. Now this article is coming close to being NPOV and not a zionist propaganda. Plz your edits.

--Thameen 15:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are approaching disruption, please desist.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I can not see you as a neutral judge on this, sorry. Ur tactics are not constructive.--Thameen 16:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been keeping an eye on this since I edit conflicted while attempting to do some cleanup queue work here earlier. Moshe/Pecher, could you please explain why a complete revert was in order? I don't think either version is perfect, and a compromise is probably in order. I've tried to lay out a possible compromise version in my edit of the lead and the first section. Tell me what you think. --RobthTalkCleanup? 04:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying either version was perfect either, but literally every single addition that was made to this article was extremely pov, original research, or poorly written. There was nothing worth keeping. Your compromise version also includes way too many weasel words, as well as fact tags for passages that are already included in the references at the bottom. You have also included erroneus passages like when you changed "hundreds of suicide bombings" to "150 suicide bombings."- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The problems I see with the current version are:
  1. "prevalent" in the lead is too strong a word. A more accurate phrasing would be to give the number of suicide attacks, and the number made by minors. Apparently the 150 number was inaccurate, but we should replace it with the correct number, not return to the vaguer "hundreds". (I got the 150 from the previously reverted edit; I'll look and see if I can find the right number."
  2. I used {{fact}} tags where I felt an inline citation would be appropriate; I was unable to tell which claims were being sourced to which references. If you could replace the tags with the appropriate footnotes, that would be great.
  3. As far as weasel words, this is one of the biggest weaknesses in the article in all versions (mine, Thameen's, the original). The one case where I added a weasel-esque phrase was the "it has been alleged; I will change this to "the Israeli government has alleged"; given that the claim has been disputed, we have to state it as a claim, not a fact. (Actually, looking back, I now see that I also reintroduced a "what they describe as" when I copied in a paragraph from an earlier version that I'd gone through and converted citations on; I'd thought that paragraph had been unchanged. One of the next steps for this article will be to go through and replace all the "some commentators claim" with sentences that name the commentators, giving an inline citation.
I'm going to partially revert back towards my version (which included conversion of inline external links to appropriate {{cite web}} and footnote format--my original purpose in coming to the article), but include some of the changes you seem to be looking for. Please try to preserve these citation format improvements in future versions. --RobthTalkCleanup? 13:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I put the number of suicide attacks 150, after I consulted the israeli of Foriegn affairs website. They have put this number. It is not hundreds, because hundreds give the impression of something like 500 or so.
Not all these 150 attacks were against civilians, some were against military targets in the palestinian territories and in israel.
I'm responding here out of respect to Robth who made the effort to look at my edits and come with a compromise. But my advise to you Robth is not to waste much of your time on this article. Your edits will be RV. This article is extreme POV and it needs extensive editting, a thing that will be very time consuming with the presense of users who made it the goal of their life to RV any edit that does not suit them. The sad thing is that these users do not bother to do any original research too.
You are dealing with two users who work in tandem repeats to inhibit any neutral edits. Pecher will remove the word "allegations" because it "may imply doubt', and Moshe will remove the number 150 without doing any research. But they will not accept to remove the paragraph from the 2006 incidents in which the attacker was 21 years old !! This is just an example of the situation here. But if you wish to edit, thats good and I wish u luck --Thameen 18:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Thameen, but you aren't the first person to scream conspiracy when you don't get your way. Your additions consisted almost entirely of of irrelevant details mostly made up of whitewashing, and red herring arguments. I don't doubt that you actually believe what you say, but this article just isn't the place to include your political soapboxing.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I still think that a NPOV article about this issue needs outline the atmosphere in which these actions took place. --Thameen 17:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Problem is, its clear your edits aren't coming from a NPOV either. The way you throw the word Zionist about, calls to question your own POV. While there is propoganda being used, I would have to say both sides of the dicussion are guilty of perpetuating it.Cliveklg 20:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Describing the "atmospshere" is usually just a way to justify the attacks. It is irrelevant to the subject of the article and would be considered a red herring.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A problem With Reference and Citation

There is a problem regarding reference and citation in this article. Many reference links do not work. Some link to Hebrew language sites.

Plz who ever added these links to repair them and replace the Hebrew links with English ones.

If these links are not repaired, I suggest we remove them.

--Thameen 14:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Links to other language websites are actually allowed.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

how can they be allowed in an english wiki. How can I know that what is written in hebrew is what is written in the encyclopedia.
To Moshe, stop the intellectual terrorism u r doing here and stop RV my edits.

--Thameen 15:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 2006 Incidents

Sami Hamdan is not a minor. He was 21 years old when he carried his attack. [2]. The IDF made a mistake by identifying him as 17. I'm going to remove this incident.--Thameen 15:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning Up

Do you think the article needs clean up?

I do. I think it looks like an unorganised list in much of its content. I feel we need to organize it.

The overview is fine. I think this is the part that recieved much atention.

But the yearly incidents are wrote in a monotone and are thus long and tiring to read.

What are your suggestions?

I suggest we make short lists. Like a list for the documented suicide attacks, with name, age, and place and so on. a concise list.

And a list of the anual incidents. But written in a concise manner.--Thameen 16:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Number of attacks

From the Jewish Virtual Library [3]

  • 2000 - 4
  • 2001-35
  • 2002 -60
  • 2003-26
  • 2004-15
  • 2005-7

That source is not up to date.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the most up to date figure?--Thameen 17:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Now what is this Moshe? what is the relevant and sourced information? why do not you show us your sources? up to 2005 the number of attacks is 147. In the 2006 there was one attack. What are you talking about?
The 2006 was initially reported to be of a minor. but it turned out to be done by a 21 year old? See the link I provided? or are you making it a personal issue?--Thameen 17:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
A personal issue? What are you talking about? I have never once referred to anything personal about you. The 2006 attack was relevant even if it is true that the bomber was 21, because of the number of people who thought he was in fact a minor.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You gave me the impression that you are after my edits. In the case of number of attacks, although I cited my information by an uptodate number. You quickly RV it and claimed it is not up to date. You brought a number that is not cited at all. That is ambigous. You did not do any research. And you did not bring the up to date number. Now what am I to understand from this?
Regarding the 2006. This is bizzare Moshe. Even if you know he was 21, you still insist in keeping it!!. We should stck here to the facts.
and you say "alot of people thought"", who are these lots of people. It was a mistake by the IDF. --Thameen 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
A ambiguous number is clearly appropriate. Even if an up to date number could be found it would still have to be changed from time to time. The wording that I chose gives the impression of a number that is definitely close to what the actual number is while alss having the added advantage of being able to remain relatively static.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carriers or bombers

In some places in the lists, it was mentioned that minors were arrested at check points carring IED or pipe bombs. It is known that the minors were more involved as carriers than as bombers due to the general Palestinian resentment of using minors as bombers.

We need to define well this issue. when an arrested minor carrying explosives can be defined as a suicide bomber?

For example in a 2005 incidents the article write

On July 6, a Palestinian teenager caught carrying explosives near Baqa al-Sharkiya, two days after another Palestinian 16-year-old was caught with explosives at the Hawara checkpoint

The reference, which is Yidioot ahranoot English Version, reports;

"..An IDF unit arrested Wednesday evening a 17-year-old Palestinian from the village of Kafin, in the northern West Bank, who was smuggling two improvised explosives and a knife..."[4]

The newspaper does not mention suicide attack. Nor there is any evidence which may make the wiki editor who wrote this think it was a suicide attack.

how can we handle sections? ideas plz.

--Thameen 17:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of 2006 incidents section

I have removed the "Incidents in 2006" section. (Note, in the interests of full disclosure: Thameen left a note to me on my talk page asking me to look at the article. My decision to remove, however, is based on my own judgement.) The contents of the removed section are below:

On 17 April 2006, Sami Hammad, a 21-year-old Palestinian carried out suicide attack in Tel Aviv killing 10 and wounding 70 people. There have been unconfirmed reports (and as of April 17, the Israeli Broadcasting Authority has been stating) that Hammad was only sixteen-years-old. [5]

The link given for reference is a deadlink, and while I find a number of mentions of Sami Hammad online, none of them refer to him as anything other than unambiguously 21 years of age--even googling 'Sami Hammad 16' produces nothing. Unless someone can find a current source making the claim that he was 16 (the "as of April 17" makes it seem like this might have been a preliminary report based on incomplete information), I believe this section should stay out of the article. --RobthTalkCleanup? 03:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Until I can fund the original haaretz article I am okay with you solution.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] moved

Considering this articles opening paragraph maintains the article relates to "minors who commit or try to commit suicide attacks.", the moving of the page is a logical one. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

not logical, article names have to be in agreement with common use, not someones' logic. -- tasc talkdeeds 16:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Not logical The term that is used in such cases is "Child" (as in "Child soldier"
see: Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers and external links in that article Zeq 16:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research and misrepresentation

I've removed the following passage as original research.

Palestinian textbooks contain statements such as:[1]
  • "Islam views those who have died defending it as the most prominent martyrs (Shuhada), because the Qur'an says: ‘Why should we hesitate to fight if we are driven away from our homes?’"
  • "The noble soul has two goals: death and the desire for it."

Cherry picking the worst statements out of the textbooks is original research; presenting them as typical is a lie and so is misrepresenting them by taking them out of context. The second quote is from a poem and is not meant to be taken literally! This is a big fat lie.

The textbooks openly encourage children to participate in militant activities and contain many references to children who died fighting against Israel. In the presentation of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, the textbooks emphasize that Ramadan is a month of jihad, referring to the Yom Kippur War as the "renowned Ramadan War of 1973 between the Arabs and Israel." Even lessons of Arabic language contain numerous texts and exercises calling on the students to sacrifice their lives.[1]

I read the source myself and it does not say this at all. This section is also a lie. Deuterium 10:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the source itself is not a WP:RS; the whole section should be removed. Deuterium 10:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movie: Suicide Killers

There's a recent movie called Suicide Killers on this subject. We already have an article on The Making of A Martyr. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] false claim

This article falsely claims that researchers find no incitement to palestinian textbooks. yes, they do.The maps of Palesitne ther eshow no Israel but just occasionally the Green line. None of the maps show Israel. the Palestinian textbooks do incite violence. The proof that supports my claim is endless.-Dendoi Monday, May 7, 2007

if you have proof, show it. simply saying you have it will not change the article. Also, not showing Israel is not an incitement of violence, it's the expression of their belief that Israel remains Palestine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.148.209 (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about "Juvenile Suicide Bombers"?

Or "Minors as Suicide Bombers" or something to that effect. When I went to this article I was expecting to see small children (like the little girl in the photo), but the youngest bomber was 16. I'm not a terrorist sympathizer trying to whitewash the situation, by the way, I just think the title is misleading and possibly POV-pushing. Childe Roland of Gilead 10:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The term Child Suicide Bombers is appropriate. This is consistent with the consensus of international legal opinion and human rights organizations that calls any combatant under the age of eighteen a child soldier. Though if it is true that the youngest known suicide bomber in the conflict was 16, that fact should be mentioned in the lead, and showing a picture of someone manifestly younger than that is a violation of WP:NPOV. Sanguinalis 15:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I agree with User:El C in principal about his objection to including that are not broadly relevant to the topic, although I don't know wheter the link in question is objectionable. Otherwise we risk having editors add every link under the sun pertaining to the subject of the article.

the link is relevant. Zeq 16:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] This article violates WP:POINT

The title of this article makes its content an indictment against the use of children in suicide bombing. I find the practice as reprehensible as anyone could, but this article is a misuse of Wikipedia. Is there an article "Adult suicide bombers in the..." or "Child victims of Israeli military strikes"? Xiao t 19:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why dont you look at the refs? The article is justified because the phenomena has been observed in the news. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved comment from article page

Dear Wikipedia,

I feel it is not quite accurate to refer to these suicide bombers as 'Child'.

A child is a person between birth and puberty.

The average age of these bombers seems to be approximately 15 years, an age at which a large majority of 'children' have achieved puberty.

I feel that these adolescents have beeen re-labelled as 'children' for propaganda purposes.

While I do not approve of suicide bombing, especially by adolescents, neither do I approve of propaganda or sensationalism. The latter is stock in trade for the newspaper industry.

I think you should re-think the title of this article. The word 'child' in this context conjures up a picture of a 10 year old. Clearly this is not the case with young suicide bombers. Wikipedia is by no means a newspaper and should avoid falling into the trap of sensationalism.

Yours sincerely

Mutandis —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Mutandis (talk • contribs)

[edit] Image

I replaced the book cover image with an image of 16-year-old suicide bomber Aamer Alfar.

For one thing, the use of a book cover to illustrate a subject other than the book itself appears to violate WP:NFC ("uses that would almost certainly not be fair use ... 2. An image of a rose, cropped from an image of a record album jacket, used to illustrate an article on roses.", etc)

For another, the image showed a very young girl while all of the actual child suicide bombers have been young adults, "children" in a legal and possibly moral sense but not nearly as young as this child. The image I posted gives a better idea of your typical child suicide bomber.

Eleland 12:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a much more appropriate picture for the article. Thank you for doing this. Sanguinalis 01:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of entire "indoctrination" section

An article about child suicide bombers does not need a section about television programs, especially when the term "suicide bomber" or a variant doesn't appear anywhere in it. The implicit justification for this section's inclusion would seem to be the idea that any talk of "resistance", "jihad", or "martyrdom" equates to "suicide bombing", but this claim is not even made by the biased and discredited source available. In other words, it's WP:OR#SYN. Furthermore, the only specific claims about the content of this program come from one highly partisan source which has been caught promulgating misleading or outright fabricated "translations" of Arabic sources, and in fact has already been exposed completely reversing the meaning of some of the quotations we're using! In other words, it totally fails WP:RS.

Very similar issues apply to the section on textbooks. The one specific reference to suicide bombing in this section does not actually appear in the cited source (which is another far-right Israeli propaganda shop anyway). This source seems to make the duplicitous and equivocating implication that "shahada", or "martyrdom", equals "suicide bombing", when in fact Palestinians apply the term to all persons on their side who are killed by Israel, even foreign peace activists or sympathetic journalists. We might just as well claim that American children are being taught to shoot bombs and rockets when they learn "The Star-Spangled Banner". These wild claims of MEMRI and PMW are amplified and then passed on as if they are credible, when the very next paragraphs cite studies by genuine media study groups which completely demolish them. In other words, it's WP:UNDUE weight and WP:OR#SYN.

Eleland 01:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Indoctrination of children is highly relevant to the subject. Take your soapboxing elsewhere. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Please make more substantial comments. Your last remark is the equivalent of a child shouting "nuh-uh!".
Again - nothing in this section indicates its relevance to the topic of the article. The lone reference to suicide bombing is OR that does not appear in the cited source, which is highly partisan and fails RS anyway. If you can provide reliable sources which assert the relevance of these textbooks or TV programs to the specific topic of the article, please do so. Eleland 02:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree. In fact, the section "TV" doesn't even claim to have anything to do with suicide bombing or encouraging children to become suicide bombers. Including it violates WP:OR#SYN by implying a relationship that hasn't been established using a reliable source. The section on the textbooks is not as straight forward. At least there is some connection to suicide bombing, although I'm not sure the sources are reliable. However, I'm not sure it merits it's own section.Umer Al-Amerikee 02:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Go away troll. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The whole world is talking about indoctrination of Palestinian children. Surely the text may be improved and better refs can be provided. Denial and wholesale blanking won't work. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Eleland and Umer Al-Amerikee. We already have articles on Tomorrow's Pioneers and Palestinian textbooks. There is no need to duplicate the material here. I would suggest that Humus Sapiens, rather than insulting the editors who disagree with him, find a reliable source that specifically mentions the topic of this article, child suicide bombing, and connects it either to the TV show or the shool books. Sanguinalis 03:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me say it once more: The entire section contains precisely one reference to suicide bombing, and that reference is actually a misreading of the cited source. Nothing in the section asserts its relevance to the topic of the article. Furthermore, the "textbooks" section is badly NPOV. It contrasts statements of Israeli sources closely linked to the right wing of Israeli politics and to the occupation itself to statements of neutral academic observers as if they have equal credibility. And finally, the "television" section passes along fraudulent translations which have already been exposed as such! Eleland 11:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
And yet again I'm reverted, even though no actual arguments have been raised, just accusations of "denial" and being a "troll". If you find a source that says PA textbooks encourage child suicide bombing, or PA TV encourages suicide bombing, add it, and stick to what the source material says. If not, stop re-adding this section. Nothing in the section asserts its relevance to the topic of the article. Eleland 16:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Soapboxing in boldfont won't replace lack of arguments. Do not expect to suppress relevant encyclopedic information under pretense copyvio. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought this was a minor NPOV dispute and was surprised to see a whole section of the text being removed. I fail to see how mention of media advocating child suicide bombing are original research etc... the sources that I looked at all talk about martyrdom and glorification of death and violence. TewfikTalk 09:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The TV show doesn't mention suicide bombing. The textbooks don't mention suicide bombing. Sanguinalis 12:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone going to discuss this? I've been told that the antidote to a revert war is to seek consensus on the talk page, but, there doesn't seem to be any substantive discussion by those favoring keeping the TV and textbooks sections. Some of the recently added material on psychology is a lot more relevant, although I think the excerpts and summary are a little selectively slanted. If y'all think it's a good idea, I'll work on a "Recruitment and indoctrination" section to replace the current "indoctrinating children" section; there is now at least some relevant material amid all the unreliable / irrelevant stuff. Eleland 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I will be pleasantly surprised if after unsuccessful attempts of wholesale blanking, denial of facts and pro-Hamas partisan soapboxing you will adhere to NPOV for a change. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of copyrighted book cover

Stop inserting the cover scan of "Dying to Kill". This image violates WP:NONFREE as I have already explained. Its inclusion is disallowed by policy. (I have issues with the relevance and implications, but that's not necessary to discuss, since WP:NONFREE already demolishes it.) Since it's used nowhere else I'm going to try and have it deleted entirely. Eleland 12:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right, it's copyright you are worrying about. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
As I have explained over and over, I also have problems with the content, but WP:NONFREE clearly requires its removal. Please address this rather than making sarcastic comments which seem to impugn my motives.Eleland 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems that your "problem" is not "with the content" but rather with reality. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed section replacement (work-in-progress)

[edit] Recruitment and indoctrination

According to Vamik Volkan, an American psychiatrist who has studied the issue, "Most suicide bombers in the Middle East are chosen as teenagers, 'educated,' and then sent off to perform their duty when they are in their late teens or early to mid-twenties." Volkan finds "little difficulty in finding young men interested in becoming suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank. Repeated actual and expected events humiliate youngsters and interfere with their adaptive identifications with their parents because their parents are humiliated as well." Volkan gives the examples of beatings, torture, or the loss of a parent as typical humiliating events which might make a young person more susceptible to recruitment for suicide terrorism.

Once recruited, children and teenagers are encouraged to cut off contact with "real world" affairs and subjected to an intense program of memorization and repetition of the Qur'an. According to Volkan, "their readings are carefully selected. The 'teachers' also supply sacred sounding, but meaningless, phrases to be repeated over and over in chant ... These kinds of mystical sayings combined with selected verses from the Quran help to create a 'different internal world' for the 'students.'"

Above relies too much on the single source, as useful as it is. There have been other psychological examinations of the phenomenon and they should be brought in as well (though try to avoid passing along Shin Bet publicity without critical thinking.) Eleland 21:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The practice of recruiting minors for suicide bombings is generally not supported by Palestinian society,[citation needed] however, some individuals have spoken out in favor of it. Umm Nidal, who sent three of her sons, including one 17 year old, on suicide attacks, said "I love my children, but as Muslims we pressure ourselves and sacrifice our emotions for the interest of the homeland. The greater interest takes precedence to the personal interest." She was later elected to the Palestinian legislature on the Hamas ticket. [2] According to Human Rights Watch, "Major Palestinian armed groups, including Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas, have publicly disavowed the use of children in military operations, but those stated policies have not always been implemented. Some leaders, including representatives of Islamic Jihad and Hamas, have said that they consider children of 16 to be adults. International law defines a child as any person under the age of eighteen ... Israeli government policy in the Occupied Territories defines Palestinians under the age of 16 as minors."[3]

Said the mother of 16-year-old Aamer Alfar, the youngest Palestinian to commit a suicide bombing, "God will curse those who recruited Amar. I had heard the stories about recruiting children in Nablus but I didn't think they were true... Yes, it is difficult here for everyone because of the occupation, and life in Nablus is intolerable, but children should not be exploited in this way."

  • need sourced and relevant information on "martyrdom posters" as related to child suicide bombers
  • need sourced and relevant information on TV, radio, newpaper propaganda as related to child suicide bombers?
  1. ^ a b Nordbruch, Goetz (2002). "Narrating Palestinian Nationalism: A Study of the New Palestinian Textbooks". . Middle East Media Research Institute Retrieved on 2006-06-05. PDF
  2. ^ "Suicide Bombers' Mother Elected to Palestinian Parliament", ABC News Internet Ventures, 2006-01-26. Retrieved on 2007-07-12. 
  3. ^ Human Rights Watch (2004-10-03). "Occupied Territories: Stop Use of Children in Suicide Bombings". Press release.
"The practice of recruiting minors for suicide bombings is generally not supported by Palestinian society" is a lie added to evoke pro-Palestinian support in the West. The overwhelming evidence is to the contrary: posters glorifying shahids are common in Gaza Strip and West Bank, the death for Allah is glamorized in media, schools and mosques, families of suicide bombers enjoy wide respect and monetary assistance, and mothers sending their sons to deaths proudly run and win popular elections. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Public polls currently show <50% support for suicide bombing PERIOD, when no question of the bombers being minors is raised. Nothing you've said constitutes "evidence to the contrary". Militant groups put up posters of their "martyrs", but this doesn't indicate that Palestinian society broadly supports them. The claim that "death for Allah is glamorized" in Palestinian society is made by highly partisan sources, and is, in the case of official schools, provably false. In addition, "death for god" does not equal "suicide bombing" does not equal "child suicide bombing". It should be recognized that general expressions of pride and sympathy for "martyrs" do not equal "support for child the practice of recruiting minors for suicide bombings". Families of suicide bombers enjoy wide support and monetary assistance, but this does not indicate support for dispatching child suicide bombers, especially since parents rarely have any idea of their children's plans until they are conducted. One mother who sent 3 sons, one of whom was 17 years old, on suicide missions, was elected as 23rd out of 29 on the Hamas list. This doesn't jump to "Palestinian society generally supports the practice of recruiting minors for suicide bombings". Eleland 22:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Yawn. Usual denial by usual denier. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you intend to comment further, or shall I take it that this is the extent of your objections? Eleland 01:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TV and textbooks sections still irrelevant

The TV section claims that Farfur (the terror mouse) "calls for Muslim world domination, encouraging children to say that they will "shoot", "annihilate the Jews", and "commit martyrdom."". It's sourced to a translation from MEMRI.

The translation has been exposed as fraudulent. MEMRI translated "excellence in the world" to "mastery of the world", put "I will shoot" in the kid's mouth when the mouse said it, translated "the Jews are (killing/shooting) us" as "we will annihilate the Jews", and "i will be martyred" as "i will commit martyrdom". This comes

It's very sad that Hamas TV created a childrens' show which appeared to encourage hard-line attitudes towards armed struggle among young children, but it has nothing to do with child suicide bombers. The whole section should be removed. Failing that, it should simply say there was a Hamas TV show through which children were encouraged to approve of fighting Israel, and that somebody accused it of promoting child suicide bombers -- and that's ONLY if you can actually find a reference where somebody accuses it of promoting child suicide bombers!

The textbooks section has now been systematically altered to remove the numerous credible academic sources which found no incitement to violence in P.A. textbooks. Even in its highly biased, propagandistic state, it makes no mention of child suicide bombing. The one statement that comes closest is "Palestinian textbooks have been accused of inciting Palestinian children to commit violence or terrorism," but this isn't even sourced. If a source can be found which specifically accuses the Palestinian education system of promoting child suicide bombers (and it doesn't violate WP:UNDUE, so I'm not talking about somebody's tiny blog site), then this one line could be kept. The rest should go.

Eleland 15:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your POV. Where is your info on MEMRI coming from? ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, by definition, everything I write is coming from my point of view. CNN ran a story [6] which mentioned that "MEMRI translates one caller as saying, quote, we will annihilate the Jews. But according to several Arabic speakers used by CNN, the caller actually says, quote, the Jews are killing us." According to Glenn Beck of CNN [7], he was told that "there are massive problems" with the translation, so "the tape was pulled from the networks ... none of the CNN networks could play this." (Mind you, Beck believes this was false, and gave airtime on his radio show to MEMRI's president who claimed that only this one line was at issue.) UK journalist Brian Whitaker, writing in the Guardian's online section, [8] described numerous mistranslations in the video. Here's a transcript by an Arab-American journalist [9], and one verified by an Arab-American professor [10], which describe the same.
More to the point, not even the "imaginative" version composed by MEMRI, or MEMRI's commentary on it, talks about child suicide bombing. Nor does anything in the "textbooks" section. Can you explain, then, how it is not WP:OR#SYN to say that this information has to do with child suicide bombers? Eleland 03:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Deniers always have problem with facts they prefer to deny. And that incitement is not merely "information". The more you insist that incitement has nothing to do with the subject, the less credibility you will have. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
If this page is going to be about everything you don't like about Palestinians, it should be called "List of things Humus Sapiens doesn't like about Palestinians". And then it'll be deleted as a ridiculous attack page. Do you see me pasting in every single factor that causes Palestinian rage and frustration? Shall I open up a dozen new sections about how Palestinians are oppressed, tortured, humiliated, and killed, because I think this leads to factors like child suicide bombing? Eleland 12:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I was correct: you are a regular troll. See WP:NOT and do not pretend that by suppressing vital pertinent details of the subject you uphold WP policies. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
BREAKING NEWS: Disagreement with humus sapiens will result in you being swiftly branded a troll. All this even if you post numerous sources defending your stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.148.209 (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book cover of Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror

I strongly suggest that the editors who keep reinserting this image spend some time over at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images and see why the image cannot be used in this manner, specifically the "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)" line It may be used in an article on the book, but not in an article about child suicide bombers. I'm not a big fan of these new image restrictions either, as I personally prefer to see album covers in music discographies. But if they're going to insist on applying this policy, the I will insist that it is applied uniformly across the Wikipedia. Tarc 13:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Zeq 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This article discusses and quotes the book in question and talks about such imagery and the "cult of martyrdom". ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless you are discussing the book itself, the image of the book cover cannot be used simply because the article may quote from the book. Period. Tarc 22:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the standard is even more stringent: you have to be discussing the book itself in an article or major section devoted to the book. That's my understanding of WP:NONFREE the last time I read. Eleland 22:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't try to disguise partisan activism under strict adherence to WP policies. Nothing like this takes place in other cover images. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The policy is rather clear on the subject. If you don't like it, then you are cordially invited to argue for policy change over at the FUR section, not here. But if you want to revert yourself into a 3RR ban, be my guest. Tarc 22:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have added a source discussing the image and noted that it is controversial. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not a matter of sources. All the sources in the world will not make this image free-use. Look at the fair use tag on the image.

"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers to illustrate an article discussing the book in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement."

Removal of the image has nothing to do with politics or activism; it has to do with Wikipedia policy. As an admin, you should understand that. And you certainly shouldn't be edit-warring over it. Kafziel Talk 23:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
An admin? Hoo-boy, I honestly never noticed that before til now. Tarc 23:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inflammatory nazi comparison

  • Volkan compares such identity "cracks" with "another historical period when intentional interference with the personal identities of children occurred—when the “cracks” of German children’s personal identities were filled with Nazi ideology."[6]

However if you read the cited source, Volkan talks about the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the resultant atmosphere of fear, insecurity, and humiliation, creating "identity cracks" and also about Nazi child-rearing practices, denying normal affection, and says these could create cracks as well. He actually compares the sum-total of the situation (Israeli occupation, radical Palestinian indoctrination) to the Nazi environment. Currently the phrasing seems to equate Palestinian terrorism to the Holocaust.

In addition, Volkan begins the article by talking about psychological trauma he observed in victims of Israeli-enabled massacres of Palestinians, and how this led him to some of his current theories. Why has this comparison, which is actually more prominent in the text, been overlooked, while the Nazi comparison is kept? Is it part of a systematic effort to make this article as damning of Palestinians as possible?

Eleland 19:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Zeq 19:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Currently the phrasing seems to equate Palestinian terrorism to the Holocaust." - neither Volker says so, nor our text. But you had to make a strawman argument to justify your whitewash attempts. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You're quite correct that neither Volkan or the text openly equates Palestinian terrorism to the Holocaust. However, most people, myself included, believe that the "Nazi ideology" had antisemitism at its core, and led directly to the Holocaust. In other words, the current language puts all the dots together and invites the reader to connect them. Unfortunately the picture which results is an inaccurate reading of the source material.
If the Nazi comparison is that important, the article ought to make explicitly clear that Volkan compares the overall environment of Palestine, including both Israeli occupation and radical-Islamist indoctrination, to the overall environment of Nazi Germany.
In addition, I'd like to renew my requests that you step back, calm down, and make an effort to avoid unfounded accusations which could be construed as personal attacks. Eleland 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
While I improve the article, you attempt to blank entire sections for political reasons. As long as attempts to deny, whitewash and lionize exploitation of children by Islamists will continue, more relevant content from reliable sources should be added, whether you like it or not. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the current phrasing gives an inaccurate picture of the source material. I have attempted to explain why I believe this. Please address my concerns about the article content, rather than making personal accusations about my motives. Eleland 02:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I have better things to do than feed trolls "connecting the dots" to whitewash terrorism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I read Eleland thinking his argument is based on facts.... Little did I know it was not.
A need for a general comment here: It seems to me that there are editors who just do their best to hide facts which are not suitable to their political viwes. Why dod you hide the facts. If you don't like the fact that Hezbulla is against the right of the Jewish people to have a homeland - why don't you vote Nassrall out of Power ? just "fixing" wikipedia is not the answer.... 08:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me the majority of this page is more concerned with demonizing Palestinians then addressing the real issue. And if some editors on this board are against the right of the Palestinian people to have a homeland - why don't you vote Olmert out of power? Why do you hide the facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.148.209 (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martyr glorification

That "martyr" photo does not belong in the intro. Please move it where it was in the text describing his "heroism" and in the future try to resist urges to turn a WP article into a Hamas poster. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand. By posting a picture of a child suicide bomber on an article about child suicide bombers, I'm "turning a WP article into a Hamas poster"? What? When did I call him a "martyr" or describe his "heroism"? Why can't you step back from these sweeping and offensive personal accusations? Eleland 17:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is NPOV that the first thing the reader would see in the article on suicide bombers is this inviting smiling face. Why was this photo moved from the part of the article where he is mentioned - into the intro? ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
We're getting into some fairly subjective territory here, but I don't see any "smile" or "invitation" on the guy's face. It's standard practice to have a picture of the subject in the intro. I don't see how this picture is problematic or NPOV. Eleland 01:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The subject of this article is not Aamer Alfar, but the phenomenon of child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in its entirety. The promotional photo "handed out by his family and the PFLP to multiple media outlets for publication, as well as used on "martyrdom" posters" is not appropriate for the intro. I am offering a compromise so it may stay in the article. Please either remove it completely or move it back to the corresponding section. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Amer Alfar is a good example of the subject matter. It's quite normal for articles to have images of this kind, and they are not buried in the bottom, but placed across from the title in the usual fashion. Your objection that Wikipedia shouldn't publish an image because terrorists use it for their ends is particularly strange. Shall we expunge all images of Osama bin Laden from the encyclopedia? Or how about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisoners -- those images have been used by terrorists, let's blank them out! You can't mean this seriously. Eleland 16:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I already wrote 2 days ago that I made a compromise not to remove this image, but to include it next to the corresponding text. I gave you an opportunity to show that you are a serious editor, but you chose an uncompromising position again. Dreading that a promotional image will be "buried in the bottom" only shows your POV, and WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD surely trump someone's idea of what would look good in the intro. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how WP:NPOV bears on this; it's just a straightforward head-shot of an individual. It's not like I photoshopped garlands and haloes on the guy. I don't see how the picture has a "point of view". Can you explain what POV I'm "showing" by wanting it placed in the normal spot that pictures are placed in articles?
Furthermore, WP:LEAD has absolutely nothing to say about images. I get the feeling you're just throwing all the WP:WHATEVER you can at me, without actually making an argument. The standard placement of a representative image, when there is only one in the article, is in the lede. This is abundantly clear just from browsing the pedia. Eleland 03:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
LEAD: "a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." - Please try to explain how does the photo address any of this? Why do you insist on pushing the photo from the corresponding part of the article where it logically belongs into the lead?
NPOV: The fact that the photo is distributed by "the PFLP to multiple media outlets for publication, as well as used on "martyrdom" posters" should have given the POV away.
I made a compromise to include a promotional photo of a suicide bomber and now to resemble some balance, corresponding parts of this article could include some illustrations of indoctrination that leads to children becoming suicide bombers, victims of suicide bombers, wreckage left by suicide bombers, a map of the bombings, etc. I think it would be only neutral not to push any image into the lead. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Humus, I tweeked the image caption. Do you have a source for the marytar poster reference? Thanks, --Tom 13:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That what the image says. Perhaps we should ask the uploader. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Humus, wp:lead has nothing to say about images. As I keep saying, it's standard practice to have a representative image in the lede, especially when there's only one image in the article. As for POV, it's irrelevant that certain groups may use an image for their propaganda purposes. Furthermore, every article I found said that Alfar's family released the photo, and quoted their disgust and outrage at the exploitation of their child by terrorists, so your claims are probably factually untrue as well as irrelevant. All of the images you mentioned could be welcome inclusions. However, in their absence, the one image we have, which is in no way unbalanced or POV, ought to be placed normally. Eleland 17:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
And the PFLP distributed the poster also to show "their disgust and outrage"?
A "normal" and logical place for an image is next to the text. This article is not about Aamer Alfar. I explained why the photo does not belong in the intro, and I don't find convincing your reasons to push it into the intro: 1) you don't want the poster to be "buried in the bottom" and/or 2) other WP articles have some images in the lead.
BTW, the quote from the family needs a source. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to "Child suicide bombers"

Child suicide bombers are more global than just Israel/Palestine. They're also in Afghanistan ([11],[12]) and Pakistan ([13][14]) This article should be moved to a more general "Child suicide bombers". Any good reasons to oppose this move? If not, I'll make a request to move the page. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. You can have another article on afghanistan or in general and refer to thos article from there. Zeq 10:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
We had similar issues with House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: sure, house demolition happens in all sorts of conflicts, but the information on Israel/Palestine is so overwhelmingly dominant that any article about "House demolition" would tend to fill up with Palestine info unduly. If you can write a decent, sourced article on Child suicide bombers go for it, but this should remain the main article. Eleland 12:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] secondary source analysis

As all article, this should require some secondary sources analyses to be neutral. With only primary sources, it is factual but looks like a little bit non neutral because orientated. Good history and good journalism requires comments. Comments require secondary sources. Alithien 10:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is anyone going to defend the TV/Textbooks section?

As I have said repeatedly: neither section has anything to do with child suicide bombings. Furthermore, the TV section relies on a bogus translation from a shady Israeli group, and the textbooks section has been systematically altered, censoring the repeated findings of credible academics that PA textbooks do not contain incitement. (Replacing it with some garbage from Hillary Clinton, who has less than zero credibility on this issue.)

I'm removing the sections again. I don't want to see anything added unless reliable sources actually link the content to child suicide bombing. Eleland 14:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely an evidence of indoctrination and propaganda of hatred belongs in this article. I suggest you find yourself another forum for denials, conspiracy theories, etc. At this point your blanking should be considered vandalism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
All you've done is muddy the waters with personal accusations, and baldly assert that your version is better, without addressing any of the points that I've made. Unless you display some willingness to engage in an actual discussion, rather than just asserting that you are right, I'll probably have to drag this stupid dispute into mediation. Your personal opinion that "indoctrination and propaganda" have to do with child suicide bombings is irrelevant. Without reliable sources which link textbooks, and the Hamas-Mickey-Martyr-Mouse program, to child suicide bombings, including these sections is pure original research. Also, please explain why you removed the findings of no incitement by credible academic studies, and replaced them with accusations of incitement from political partisans with far less credibility (Hillary Clintion, etc). Eleland 17:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Please review the discussions above and read some serious scholarly sources on the subject. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Please provide these serious scholarly sources. Please explain your removal of the findings of credible academic studies on the issue in favor of statements from interested partisans. I perceive a contradiction between your words and your actions: you demand I "read some serious scholarly sources", while your version of the "textbooks" section specifically removes the findings of serious scholarly sources in favor of the accusations of partisan groups. Eleland 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Was it you who complained that the text was irrelevant to the subject? I made it relevant. You are welcome to improve. Blanking and denial won't work. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Volkan article

The Volkan article is about all suicide bombers,not child suicide bombers, and should be quoted, if at all, in the parent article. Incidentally, the Nazi reference is gratuitous, and detracts heavily from the article. As it usually does. Hornplease 19:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree but the Nazi ref is indeed un-needed. Zeq 21:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. Could you explain a little further? The Volkan article refers to boys in their late teens or early twenties, young adults rather than children. It talks about how childhood indoctrination creates bombers later in life, and might thus be irrelevant.Hornplease 04:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton / PMW

Based on policy, virtually the entire "indoctrination" section should be expunged; it is a highly POV summary of discredited information which does not relate to the subject, and it is written in the most prejudicial, misleading, and disingenuous fashion imaginable. This being said, the information from "Palestine Media Watch" (a Zionist astroturf organization designed to make Palestinians look evil) and Hillary f'ing Clinton of all people is especially undesirable. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the woman has any standing on this issue or that she knows anything about the issues; clearly her statements are for political reasons which are too obvious and unfortunate to discuss. The removal of this information was absolutely correct and the subsequent reversions were totally unjustified. Eleland 01:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out, this material is quite unnecessary when ample academic sources discussing the material are available. Hornplease 01:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Usual denial nonsense. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
You'll be civil. And you'll discuss. That's policy.Hornplease 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It is a sourced material and thus should be restored. Zeq 17:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
We question not its sourcing but its relevance, and the undue weight given to partisan sources - over the investigations of actual academics, which, as an earlier version of the article made clear, all found that claims of textbook incitement were false or grossly exaggerated. Furthermore, the connection being made between these reports and child suicide bombing is an original synthesis not in the sources. Eleland 18:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no particular opinion on what the academic sources say, but in the presence of ample academic sources, the addition to the article of partisan sources is completely unjustifiable. We are an encyclopaedia, not wikinews. Hornplease 20:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This is referenced encyclopedic material highly relevant to the topic. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
We are aware you think so. We need you to justify that belief in the light of the remarks made above. It is not relevant to the topic in that a notable individual's personal views on the subject are not necessarily representative or informed - unless they are an expert. They are not encyclopaedic in that they may be from partisan, non-academic, sources, which are not encouraged in any case, and are particularly unnecessary in this case, when alternatives are available. Hornplease 21:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This time I won't refute your arguments. Moreover, I promise to concede, only on one condition: if you apply your own logic to Allegations of Israeli apartheid and remove "individual's personal views" by Tutu, Carter and other "partisan, non-academic, sources, which are not encouraged in any case". ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. I would, however, retain secondary sources synthesising several views that indicate that Tutu's opinions and Carter's opinions are considered notable. Do you see the difference? Also that Carter wrote a book, whereas Clinton issued a press release, of which she issues several hundred a week.
Incidentally, you're barking up the wrong tree. I have for several years insisted that the IA article be moved to "IA" and be sourced to secondary sources that discussed the use of the term, not various claims about its validity. I trust that you do not assume that everyone you meet on WP who disagrees with you has some form of double standard. Hornplease 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Tread carefully, Humus. This kind of "bargaining chip" behavior is in large part the subject of an ArbCom ruling that will probably issue some finding related to yourself; I think you have erred here. Eleland 22:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure why this is being removed. We have good refs: two articles from major media sources and a report from a media watch organization. Also, in proportion to the whole article it is a small section. Bigglove 01:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the references are of poor quality, and serve only to unbalance the analysis. Please see the arguments above, in particular, and I quote: "not relevant to the topic in that a notable individual's personal views on the subject are not necessarily representative or informed - unless they are an expert. They are not encyclopaedic in that they may be from partisan, non-academic, sources, which are not encouraged in any case, and are particularly unnecessary in this case." Hornplease 01:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:V the two news sources are fine. Clinton is a current US Senator and in a position to vote on bills and measures with international policy significance. A press release from her office should qualify for inclusion here. Bigglove 02:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Err, the reliability and verifiability of the Jerusalem Post is not in question here. Merely because Clinton can vote on bills does not mean she is an expert, or that her views are representative or informed. We have expert views available, and Clinton's opinion is hardly useful. Hornplease 02:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the cites that is repeatedly being removed is from the Jerusalem Post. Are you saying it is ok to remove that cite? Bigglove 02:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no justification for removing the Palestinian Media Watch report. It seems to be well-researched. If there are other reports that reach different conclusions, that's fine, mention all the reports. If there are reliable sources that critique specific facts or citations in the PMW report, that's fine, cite those too. As for Hillary Clinton, she is prominent enough to warrant a mention of her views. She is not the focus of the article. 6SJ7 04:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

We have no reason to suppose that Palestinian Media Watch is either independent or scholarly. The reason for exclusion is simple: we have other, better sources available. Not a single claim has been made so far that would indicate why it should be included. We aren't interested in "other reports"; we won't pick and choose the opinions because in this case we don't need to: reliable sources have done that for us. It isn't our job to pick and choose opinions in this case.
As for Clinton, I fail to see why her views are in the least relevant merely because she is prominent. Has she used her belief to sign something into law? Do we have sources indicating that she has led the incitement of violence by textbooks into anything of a cause? None of this is true. Her opinion is then hardly relevant to an encyclopaedia. (More relevant is the opinion of whichever bureaucrat in Brussels continues to fund them.)Hornplease 04:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

PMW mostly collects Arab press publication so they are not a source by themself. It is well researched. It is scholarly. It is indeed not fully NPOV (i.e. it collects mostly what fit their agenda) but this is where wikipedia can do better: Include materail from many sources - each is somewhat POV but brought together this become NPOV. So do your homework and find sources instead of just removing sources found by other people. Zeq 09:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I find the above comment convincing. Bigglove 16:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you do. However, an editor's word alone that PMW is scholarly is insufficient. "Bringing together somewhat POV sources" does not "create" NPOV. The balance is then our responsibility. If we report academic sources only, we do not need to concern ourselves with partisanship and balancing of PMW's views with someone equally partisan on the other side. I fail to see what PMW adds to the article's readability, information or perspective. Hornplease 16:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Zeq, I am provisionally pleased with the tag on PMW, though we should follow up on this. About the Clinton statement, I continue to worry that not only is she not an expert, she is talking about indoctrination. I still do not see the link between that indoctrination and childhood terrorism is obvious. Did she talk about child suicide bombers? If not, then this should go elsewhere. (Why is there no Palestinian textbooks article,anyway? It seems we have enough material for one, and it is notable.) Hornplease 18:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't be mislead

The current argument over PMW is leaving out a highly salient fact - that an earlier version made it clear that the textbook accusations were partisan nonsense, by actually reporting what neutral academics said, rather than just reporting that they said something. For example:

Ruth Firer of the Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Sami Adwan, a professor of education at Bethlehem University in Bethlehem compared Palestinian and Israeli textbooks in 2002. Of the Palestinian textbooks they found that "The books portray Jews throughout history in a positive manner and avoid negative stereotypes. However, according to the everyday experience of Palestinians, modern-day Israelis are presented as occupiers. The texts include examples of Israelis killing and imprisoning Palestinians, demolishing their homes, uprooting fruit trees, and confiscating their lands and building settlements on them. The texts also talk about the right of return for the 1948 Palestinian refugees when describing how those refugees live in camps." The Israeli textbooks, on the other hand don't even mention Palestinians "The Palestinians, as such, are not found in any of the three types of primary-level textbooks." Disputed territory is presented as being part of Israel: "Many of the chapters describe "the good land," sometimes called "our birthplace" or "homeland" ("moledet" in Hebrew), and include photos of places that are in the PNA or are in dispute between the two nations (i.e., East Jerusalem). They are presented without the national-political debate, and as naturally belonging to the Israeli state."[14]

This is just a sample; the other studied came up with much the same. Denial indeed. Eleland 16:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new ref + story

http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//547015

-- JaakobouChalk Talk 03:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on your uneven reputation I simply do not trust you to accurately summarize a report in a language I can't read, nor to accurately evaluate the reliability of Walla or wherever the report originally came from. <eleland/talkedits> 03:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposing rename of article

Per the discussion at the AfD, I would like to formally propose that we rename this article to Suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and write a good, reliably source, not WP:OR article on the subject that includes some of the information already in this article. Any takers? Tiamut 02:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You would like to, but have you actually formally proposed it? In any event, I oppose the renaming. We could have articles on both. 6SJ7 (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose renaming. The child suicide bombers phenomena deserves a seperate article. MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 10:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
oppose renaming. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please point me to any reliable secondary source which is about Palestinian child suicide bombers? <eleland/talkedits> 20:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
[15], [16], [17] - google is your friend [18]. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)