Talk:Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Children and minors 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.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-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.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Please see archived discussion at Talk:Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict/Archive1, Talk:Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict/Archive2, Talk:Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict/Archive3


Contents

[edit] Working Version?

I'm afraid this revert war will continue until a consensus has been reached on which version to work on.

Version 1: Former "Israeli violence against Palestinian children page" that has been edited.

Version 2: Overhauled version that includes instances of violence against Israeli children and minors.

My personal opinion is that Version 2 is a better starting point since it seems to be more NPOV. For example, in Version 1, the second sentence is "This article addresses only one specific subset of violence: that by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli settlers against Palestinian children." This is obviously a carryover from the previous article and doesn't belong here.

I propose that reverts cease until this matter is decided. Carrp 22:50, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Version 2 is not NPOV . It's POV from A to Z. It starts with irrelevant material about Amin al-Husayni. It mentions settler massacres, like Baruch Goldstein massacre, only in a way, that it was condemned by Israeli government. The article uses irrelevant material, like PA relationship with Christian minorities, as a deception, to obscure Canadian Psychiatry Association study about the effects of Israeli violence on children. Other irrelevant POV claims (again used as a deception) include that Israeli occupation has been wonderful for Palestinians because "illiteracy" rate dropped. Guess what? The illiteracy and infant mortality rate dropped everywhere (much more than in Israeli occupied West Bank and Gaza) in the Middle East since 1967, and it has nothing to do with Israeli occupation OneGuy 08:19, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. Do you have figures to back that up? Jayjg | (Talk) 08:22, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
""Illiteracy and infant morality rate dropped since 1967"! Well, gee! What a surprise. UAE and Kuwait became industrialized countries with GDP approaching that of Western Europe since 1967 too. Jordan's illiteracy rate at 10.3%, from 15% in 1987 10% is lower than 15% in the West Bank. I just checked CIA factbook and infant mortality rate in Jordan is lower than the West Bank and Gaza. Obviously, then, Jordan made more progress since 1967. It was immediately clear (just common sense, without looking up the stats) that these irrelevant statistics are inserted in the article as a deception to glorify Israeli occupation OneGuy 08:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just as Ver1's old name, it was offensively one-sided. Ver2 is partly improved Ver1. Ver2 can and should be incrementally improved. Ver1 didn't have any historical context, making a false impression that the conflict or its effects on children started with the Intifada. As for Amin al-Husayni, he was a major Palestinian political figure for decades even after WW2 when he was indicted at the Nuremberg Trial but escaped, and in addition to numerous pogroms (read: murdered Jewish children) that he instigated, for which he was indicted by the British in 1920. "In 1943, the Mufti's pressure succeeded in scuttling a proposed prisoner exchange that would have saved 4,000 Jewish refugee children. The children were instead sent to Auschwitz." [1], other sources cite the number 10,000: [2], [3], [4]. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No need to post a history lesson for us. We know who is Amin al-Husayni. The title of the title says "Israeli-Palestinian" conflict, and there was no such state called Israel at that time. But if you want to go that back anyway, there was also Palestine Regiment. Many Palestinians fought against Hitler. As for the history of conflict, it's very simple. European Jews started immigrating to Palestine with the aim of establishing a Jewish state (would have never succeeded if Palestine was not under British occupation). The indigenous Arab population saw that as a threat and started resisting (and history proves their concerns were legitimate). That's pretty much pre-1948 history OneGuy 10:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah, "their concerns were legitimate". The Arbs carved 22 huge and resource-rich countries out of the Ottoman Empire, but those land-grabbing Jews! Check out Image:Israel_and_arab_states_map.png. FYI, Jews are entitled to their right to have a state just as any other nation - if not more, given their history. If you are against nation-states in general, why start with the Jews? The title of the title says "Israeli-Palestinian" conflict, and there was no such state called Israel at that time. Sorry, this idiocy doesn't deserve a response. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Of course their concerns of Europeans colonizing their land were legitimate. As for your argument about the size, since the US is so big, why don't you try to convince some Americans that New York should be given to Kurds as a separate country since Kurds don't have a country. I bet (according to your logic), Americans won't have a problem with that since the US is so big. That's a nonsensical argument 12:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually, a more relevant analogy would be asking Americans to give back some land to American Indians. Israelites wandering throughout Europe for 2,000 years are still Israelites, not Europeans. Jayjg | (Talk) 00:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I hate to say this, but I think the old version should be more closely conserved. The copy is pretty good. It needs only to be counterbalanced, with more material on the affects of minor casualties among Israeli's minors. I don't believe the old version was "offensively one-sided" (or at least not the version User:Tarek wrote) It just lacked context. One thing I liked about Ver1 is that it grouped responses the violence. That was a kind of acknowledgement that the politization of children in the conflict is one of it's most important dimensions. Ver2 purports to be a kind of history and has a less coherant response section. Cool Hand Luke 10:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I find Ver1 offensive and one-sided, just as its former title. It misses historical context. As a small example, compare the settler violence, like some deranged wackos like Goldstein, who has no support in Israeli mainstream or by Jewish religious communities, (but article blames it on Israel nonetheless) - with violent jihad which has/had nods from the official PA (remember Arafat's "millions of martyrs"?), as well as overwhelming support in the Palestinian society and wide support in the Arab world in general. Regarding the numbers: Israel vastly improved their emergency services. So, armed with numbers of fatalities, we now accuse Israel for making every effort to save human life? To have such an article and not even mention Palestinian child soldiers, suicide bombers, military camps for children, or deep problems in PA curriculum is truly misleading. Of course Ver2 needs work (hard to do under ongoing edit war), but unqualified numbers and half-truths in Ver1 are unacceptable. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I find the POV version of history, irrelevant statistics added to glorify Israeli occupation (see above) and irrelevant material added (i.e. Christian minority relationship with PA, inserted only as a deception to obscure Canadian study), highly offensive too OneGuy 12:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Let's start with the intro. Hiding relevant historical events as if they have never existed is POV. Picture of the "OPT" children, carrying no information and designed solely to evoke emotions - hello, POV. Not mentioning the PA official propaganda of incitement in the media, mosques, universities, schools, kindergartens (!), military camps for children, child soldiers, child suicide bombers - POV. Not mentioning atrocities specifically targeting Jewish children, such as Avivim, Maalot, Dolphi, etc. - POV. By 2000, Bethlehem was under the PA control for years, and not saying this is lying by omission. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:26, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The reason I think the original artical was a pile of crap is that it cited an opinion column in the lead, and used other speculative nonsense. I believe Ver2 suffers from similar defects as Aberuni's first draft: the child warrior section is very much copy about editorials, and studies seem to be cited without relevant context. This Christian palestinian thing, for example. Even if that were somehow related to the heading "Psychological morbidity", I'm not sure how it relates to minors in the conflict. But primarily, I don't think the historical outline is sensible. We should have a heading for historical context, but the phenomenon is largly a political device. This structure doesn't make that as clear as it could be, in my opinion. Cool Hand Luke 01:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yep. The historical stuff is too long, and not specific enough to children. I've been saying that for a while. The Christian Palestinian stuff is irrelevant. Frankly, I think the "Psychological morbidity" stuff is too. Right now we need more about affects on Israeli minors, less of that other stuff. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war

Viriditas reverted the article again to a POV version without giving any reason or response to anything I wrote above. The article was stable earlier before the title was changed. Not only the title was changed but Israeli propaganda and POV was inserted to dominate the text completely. Obviously this revert war is not going to end because of pro-Israeli POV pushers. The article needs to be split to 2 parts (with NPOV titles) where Israeli version and Palestinian version are discussed . OneGuy 21:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's already been voted and agreed that one joint article is required to provide context and avoid bias. Rather than continually reverting, why don't you try to work with those you are fighting to produce a NPOV version? Jayjg | (Talk) 22:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

I have locked the page while this is being discussed. I don't entirely know what the issue is here, but I suggest that people nut it out on the talk page. Reverting in the manner that has been done is not acceptable. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:00, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Historical context

Since User:Humus sapiens keeps harping on this point, as if his version of "historical context" is the only correct version, let me post some relevent material from "Jews for Justice" book:

Before the Hebrews first migrated there around 1800 B.C., the land of Canaan was occupied by Canaanites.

"Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan...Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews [in the second century A.D.] were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes." Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, "Their Promised Land."

The present-day Palestinians' ancestral heritage

"But all these [different peoples who had come to Canaan] were additions, sprigs grafted onto the parent tree...And that parent tree was Canaanite...[The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan."

The Jewish kingdoms were only one of many periods in ancient Palestine

"The extended kingdoms of David and Solomon, on which the Zionists base their territorial demands, endured for only about 73 years...Then it fell apart...[Even] if we allow independence to the entire life of the ancient Jewish kingdoms, from David's conquest of Canaan in 1000 B.C. to the wiping out of Judah in 586 B.C., we arrive at [only] a 414 year Jewish rule." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan."

How long has Palestine been a specifically Arab country?

"Palestine became a predominately Arab and Islamic country by the end of the seventh century. Almost immediately thereafter its boundaries and its characteristics - including its name in Arabic, Filastin - became known to the entire Islamic world, as much for its fertility and beauty as for its religious significance...In 1516, Palestine became a province of the Ottoman Empire, but this made it no less fertile, no less Arab or Islamic...Sixty percent of the population was in agriculture; the balance was divided between townspeople and a relatively small nomadic group. All these people believed themselves to belong in a land called Palestine, despite their feelings that they were also members of a large Arab nation...Despite the steady arrival in Palestine of Jewish colonists after 1882, it is important to realize that not until the few weeks immediately preceding the establishment of Israel in the spring of 1948 was there ever anything other than a huge Arab majority. For example, the Jewish population in 1931 was 174,606 against a total of 1,033,314." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

Was Arab opposition to the arrival of Zionists based on inherent anti-Semitism or a real sense of danger to their community?

"The aim of the [Jewish National] Fund was `to redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people.'...As early as 1891, Zionist leader Ahad Ha'am wrote that the Arabs "understood very well what we were doing and what we were aiming at'...[Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, stated] `We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly'...At various locations in northern Palestine Arab farmers refused to move from land the Fund purchased from absentee owners, and the Turkish authorities, at the Fund's request, evicted them...The indigenous Jews of Palestine also reacted negatively to Zionism. They did not see the need for a Jewish state in Palestine and did not want to exacerbate relations with the Arabs." John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

"Before the 20th century, most Jews in Palestine belonged to old Yishuv, or community, that had settled more for religious than for political reasons. There was little if any conflict between them and the Arab population. Tensions began after the first Zionist settlers arrived in the 1880's...when [they] purchased land from absentee Arab owners, leading to dispossession of the peasants who had cultivated it." Don Peretz, "The Arab-Israeli Dispute."

"[During the Middle Ages,] North Africa and the Arab Middle East became places of refuge and a haven for the persecuted Jews of Spain and elsewhere...In the Holy Land...they lived together in [relative] harmony, a harmony only disrupted when the Zionists began to claim that Palestine was the 'rightful' possession of the 'Jewish people' to the exclusion of its Moslem and Christian inhabitants." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

"Serfs they (the Jews) were in the lands of the Diaspora, and suddenly they find themselves in freedom [in Palestine]; and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination." Zionist writer Ahad Ha'am, quoted in Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

"An article by Yitzhak Epstein, published in Hashiloah in 1907...called for a new Zionist policy towards the Arabs after 30 years of settlement activity...Like Ahad-Ha'am in 1891, Epstein claims that no good land is vacant, so Jewish settlement meant Arab dispossession...Epstein's solution to the problem, so that a new "Jewish question" may be avoided, is the creation of a bi-national, non-exclusive program of settlement and development. Purchasing land should not involve the dispossession of poor sharecroppers. It should mean creating a joint farming community, where the Arabs will enjoy modern technology. Schools, hospitals and libraries should be non-exclusivist and education bilingual...The vision of non-exclusivist, peaceful cooperation to replace the practice of dispossession found few takers. Epstein was maligned and scorned for his faintheartedness." Israeli author, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, "Original Sins."

Was Palestine the only, or even preferred, destination of Jews facing persecution when the Zionist movement started?

"The pogroms forced many Jews to leave Russia. Societies known as 'Lovers of Zion,' which were forerunners of the Zionist organization, convinced some of the frightened emigrants to go to Palestine. There, they argued, Jews would rebuild the ancient Jewish 'Kingdom of David and Solomon,' Most Russian Jews ignored their appeal and fled to Europe and the United States. By 1900, almost a million Jews had settled in the United States alone." "Our Roots Are Still Alive" by The People Press Palestine Book Project.

OneGuy 04:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from irrelevant grudge matches on this discussion page (or bring it to the user talk pages) and stick to discussing the current article. Thanks. --Viriditas | Talk 05:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why are all your responses related to me? You never said anything to Humus sapiens about "grudge matches." You tried to get me banned (unsuccefuly) twice now. You seem to have real problems with everyone who disagrees with your POV OneGuy 05:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your above comments have nothing to do with this article. This discussion page is for discussing this article, not your personal disagreement with Humus. Regarding your multiple policy violations of the 3RR, that does not result in a ban but a mere, 24-hour block. I don't have a problem with anyone on Wikipedia -- I have a problem with editors who brazenly violate policy and think they are above the consequences. The fact that both of your policy violations have been archived on the admin's board is good enough for me. --Viriditas | Talk 05:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My above comments were in response to Humus who kept on repeating that the article must have a historical context. My response was intended to show that there are two sides of history. That seems pretty relevant to me. You response above, directed only at me, is irrelevant to the article. The fact that you tried twice (but failed) to get me blocked because you don't like people who disagree with your POV has been archived on the admin page too OneGuy 05:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You seem less interested in working collaboratively on making this article better, and more inclined to pushing your own POV. In regards to your multiple policy violations of the 3RR, indeed, you reverted the article 5 times as the history clearly demonstrates ([5] [6] [7] [8] [9] ) however, 3RR policy does not count a self-revert, so with policy exceptions in mind, you only reverted four times. Either way, this was the second time you violated the 3RR policy in two weeks, the first time (10 January) is here: [10] [11] [12] [13]. --Viriditas | Talk 05:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, you seem to have contributed nothing on this talk page to improve the article except posting threats and intimidation of blocking people who disagree with your POV (and notice that no one on the admin board agreed with your claim that I reverted the article 4 or 5 times). Here are all the reverts:
cur) (last) 14:57, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (rv to NPOV version)
(cur) (last) 05:11, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (ops .. that was before 24 hours. Back to POV version .. till tomorrow 2:55)
(cur) (last) 05:08, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (rv to NPOV version)
(cur) (last) 01:25, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (rv to NPOV version)
(cur) (last) 17:33, 22 Jan 2005 OneGuy (revert to NPOV version ..)
Counting from bottom up, notice that both the 3rd and fourth reverts canceled each other (so they both should not be counted), leaving only 3 reverts in 24 hours. OneGuy 06:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative to revert war

Viriditas asked me to have a look-in at this.

I presume that everyone agrees that a revert war can go on indefinitely and will solve nothing.

I also can't see any point to blocking anyone for a violation of the 3RR here. It is obvious that both sides are trying to stick to the letter of it, that neither side is trying to stick to the spirit of it (avoidance of revert wars) and it looks to me like the other administrators share my reluctance to block anyone because he or she might have accidentally stepped over the line.

I propose that either or both of the parties to the disagreement attempt to state, as neutrally as possible, the points of disagreement. Does someone want to try?

I'm probably calling this a night pretty soon (I'm on the U.S. West Coast) but I promise to look in on this again within no more than 16 hours. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I would also add that reversions back and forth between two totally different versions of the article are extremely unhelpful. It is extremely unlikely that either side is so totally wrong that none of their edits should stand. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

As User:Carrp stated in the section #Working Version?, the alternatives are:
  1. Version 1: Former "Israeli violence against Palestinian children" page that has been edited.
  2. Version 2: Overhauled version that includes instances of violence against Israeli children and minors.
I would suggest to read them both and compare. Here's my brief summary. Ver1, "Israeli violence against Palestinian children", was overwhelmingly voted to be renamed, see #Article title (poll). Its recent ugly cousin article, Palestinian violence against Israeli children, was similarly turned into a redirect to here. A problem with Ver1 was that it reflected its old POV title and focused solely on, well, Israeli violence against Palestinian children, implying that the violence was/is intentional. A picture of the "OPT" children, designed solely to evoke emotions, was followed by grim numbers of Palestinian children: Dead, Injured, Arrested, Effects on Health, Education, Psychological morbidity, Settler violence (I suspect this particular number came mostly from Baruch Goldstein's terror attack (denounced by both Israeli mainstream and by all Jewish religious denominations, but nonetheless the author blames it on Israel). Here's its See also section, to me looks like a blood libel allegation.
Ver2 is work in progress, based on Ver1 and is an attempt to present a more balanced view. In addition to most of the Ver1 text (including the numbers, still one-sided), it includes a brief historical overview of violence against children in the conflict. It contains a caution against using the numbers blindly, because sometimes combatants are lumped in with noncombatants, suicide bombers with innocents, and suspected collaborators killed by Palestinians are being reported as if killed by Israelis. Also, in response to frequent attacks, Israel revamped its emergency services in order to save as many human lives as possible, and by blindly comparing the numbers, Israel's smaller number of fatalities makes it look more vicious, and therefore more guilty. New "Children and minors' participation in violence" section mentions Palestinian child soldiers, child suicide bombers, military camps for children, problems with PA curriculum, plus opinions on this matter by a few moderates: the UN, PA's Abbas, etc. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, User:Carrp started with a strange assertion that version 2 is more NPOV, but he never responded to anything I wrote. The first few paragraphs in version 1 were NPOV. It simply stated that violence has been used by both sides. It then gave the number of Israeli and Palestinian children killed. It had a very long (and I have to say a very pro-Israeli POV section) called "Israeli response." Version 2 starts with a pro-Israeli version of "history," specifically designed to slander Palestinians (starts with a Nazi supporter like Amin al-Husayni). Most of that material has nothing to do with the topic, but if you really insist that the article must starts with the entire history of conflict, why this pro-Israeli version of history? I can insert the Palestinian version if you want, but how would that make the article NPOV? Also, since you read this talk page, you must have seen the quote from Canadian Psychiatric Association. Their study showed the effect on children due to fear of violence from Israel (specifically regarding settlements). That part was very clear in CPA study. Since you knew that, why did you insert in that section irrelevant quotes about PA and Christian relations, if not to deliberately distort that section? OneGuy 11:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I do think that version 2 is more NPOV, but it is not NPOV at this time. My problem with version 1 is that it doesn't seem like a lot of effort has been put into making it NPOV. The example I gave was the introductory paragraph which includes the sentence:
"This article addresses only one specific subset of violence: that by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli settlers against Palestinian children"
This sentence should have been removed as soon as the page was moved here from Israeli violence against Palestinian children, but it wasn't. Version 1 focuses almost exclusively on Israeli violence. Version 2 has its problems, but it's more even-handed by dealing with Israeli and Palestinian violence.
Both versions need work, but we need to pick a starting point before any progress can be made. It's my opinion that Version 2 would be the better starting point. Obviously you disagree and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Since you truly believe that version 1 is the better version, why not make a copy of it and edit it in your user space? That would be far more productive than this bickering. Carrp 16:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I feel I must point out that an "Israeli responses" section is inevitably going to be pro-Israeli; that is the point of an "Israeli responses" section. However, including the positions of various sides does not violate the NPOV rule; on the contrary, it is the essence of that rule. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deliberate Distortions

As I said, if someone makes an honest mistake but in general is trying to be NPOV, I don't have a problem with that. The problem starts with deliberately distorting things to push POV. I gave a few examples of that in response to User:Carrp who has not responded yet (even though he reverted the article several times). Here is another clear example from version 2. Please read this carefully:

Between 13 September 1993 and the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, Palestinians killed 256 Israelis, many of whom were children [14].
In the same period, 44 Palestinian children were killed by IDF soldiers, and another 10 by Israeli civilians [2] [15].

Notice the number given for Israelis killed, 256, is much higher than Palestinians killed, 44. However, this is done by trickery. The number given for Israelis killed include adults and children , but the number given for Palestinians killed only include children. Click on the second link above to see the real numbers. Again, this is an example of deliberate distortion. It's not a mistake. I would like to see a response and explanation how anyone in his right mind can call this more "NPOV" version OneGuy 11:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

After looking at the first link again, the 256 number probably includes military (not just civilian adult and children). See the second link for real numbers for minors OneGuy 12:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I see no evidence of "deliberate distortion", "trickery", or "POV pushing". If someone added erroneous information, all you have to do is remove the content to talk. There's no need to ascribe nefarious motivations to that which can easily be explained by human error. --Viriditas | Talk 12:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Of course you don't see any evidence of that, but I and some others do. 13 Israeli minors under the age of 16 were killed between 1993 and the second intifada verses 54 Palestinian minors killed during the same time. This was obviously not something the editor wanted to state clearly (even though he knew the link), so he added all the military and civilians, minors and adults, causalities for Israeli side, verses only 55 Palestinian minors killed. OneGuy 13:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You see evidence of "deliberate distortion" where none exists. You cannot attrtibute malice to that which can easily be explained by human error. Please reconsider your position. --Viriditas | Talk 14:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It might have been human error but the odds of that are low. The same thing was done to Canadian study. See above OneGuy 14:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have to concur - if the above example is not clearly deliberate distortion, I don't know what criteria you would use. That is a textbook example. Or in this case, Wikipedia. Perhaps you are more concerned with pushing your chosen POV than coming to consensus here. 67.68.6.149 02:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Towards a solution

That's all well and good, but it's not going to get us any closer to a consensus article. I suspect that the only way we are going to get to that is to start from one version or the other, and have the "other side" propose its edits one by one. Certainly wholesale replacement by one side is not an edit the other will ever accept. I don't think it really matters much which article is "more NPOV" at the moment. What matters is to start from some state of the article and work calmly on NPOV'ing it. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:06, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I believe this is how the NPOV version, covering both sides, should look like: User:OneGuy/Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I added the statistics for Israeli children killed in the first "Death" section. The rest of to be written parts should be filled OneGuy 01:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hear, hear. I've been saying this for days now. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So, Jay, knowing from past experience which side of this you identify with, would you be willing to start from OneGuy's favored version and take matters up one by one? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:58, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's fine with me, but I'm not the one you have to convince on this, as I haven't been involved in the revert wars. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We should start with the NPOV "humus" one, since the non-biased language there helps frame the discussion. The OneGuy version starts off on the wrong foot right away.--Silverback 21:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Pro-Israeli POV history is neither "NPOV" start, nor relevant to the topic OneGuy 01:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe it's helpful for someone to say they'd like to start from the one with which they are more in agreement. Yes, everybody would like to start from the one with which they are more in agreement! The issue is: is someone willing to do the heavy lifting of starting from the version farther from their view and work on the slow process of working the modifications one by one and trying to get consensus? Or -- if no one is willing to do that -- is someone willing to acknowledge that their favored version is still far from NPOV and start making some modifications themselves, introducing even material that they may find politically inconvenient, so long as they are decently cited? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:47, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did add some material to User:OneGuy/Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict OneGuy 08:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And the nature of that material is...? -- Jmabel | Talk 09:14, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
I just added some material for Israeli children killed, health care in Israel, and psychological effects of terrorism on children. The problem I found is that it's harder to cover this topic with this title. This is due to the nature of the conflict. Most Israeli children were killed as a result of suicide bombings, and there is not much more to say. On the other side, the conflict involves a civilian population (including children) against a military. Israeli civilians are not directly involved in the conflict. Israeli children do not go out throwing stones at some military target (tanks or soldiers) and then get injured or killed. There is no Palestinian army inside Israel or even in Area C. No one to throw stones at! The nature of the conflict means more Palestinian children will get killed, injured, or arrested. Israeli adults/children (including settlers) can't get arrested by PA security forces. The settlers are not under PA jurisdiction. Neither health care not education in Israel is directly effected by the intifada (unlike in the West Bank and Gaza). However, there is a long Israeli response section that makes the article more balanced OneGuy 09:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Even when most of the casualties are on the Palestinian side, there should still be balance. Deaths of teenagers in a rock throwing mob should not be laid solely at the feet of the Israeli forces. Their misbehavior is probably due to problems in their parenting, education and peer culture, as well as, possible instigation by adult officials. Problems in their health care and education probably are worsened by corruption in the Palestinian authority as demonstration by the many who do not share in the privations of the general population. Just because there are two sides in a conflict doesn't mean that one is right, both could be, and in this case probably are, or at least have been wrong.--Silverback 13:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See above. There is a balance by having a section "Israeli response." Whether it's a "misbehavior" to throw rocks at soldiers considered by Palestinians as occupying army is a matter of debate OneGuy 14:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If it is "right" then it is the parents that should be throwing the rocks. The "children" are misbehaving, unless you are arguing that these are "children" only in the modern western sense, that in Palestinian culture the age of majority is lower?--Silverback 15:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, but young teenagers usually do get involved (sometimes more than the parents) in political/nationalistic causes, whether the parents wants them to or not. That's just a fact. Hundreds of teenagers were killed in Tiananmen square by Chinese government. Were they "misbehaving"? OneGuy 16:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Are you comparing the murderous massacre of peaceful civilians at Tiananmen square by the Chinese PLA to defensive actions by IDF forces under attack? --Viriditas | Talk 22:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I gave that as an example of teenagers getting involved in politics more than the parents. Whether all actions by IDF are "defensive" is a matter of debate. Why, have you not read any Amnesty International report on the occupied territories? OneGuy 23:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can we get back to the topic of which article to work from? Is there any possible agreement on this? Jayjg | (Talk) 23:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The only difference between the two articles is that the second version has irrelevant pro-Israeli material added that has nothing to do with the topic of minors. That material will have to deleted, but then you are back to version 1. If the version 1 is lacking balance (i.e. nothing about Israeli minors killed), then that relevent part should have been added, not irrelevant anti-Palestinian stuff, such as relationship between Christians and Muslims OneGuy 23:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
How do you feel about other things Humus Sapiens added, like references to the Ma'alot massacre, Avivim school bus massacre, and Kiryat Shmona massacre? Jayjg | (Talk) 23:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I do not have any problem with that. These references should go to the right sections about Israeli minors OneGuy 23:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have a feeling that if you put enough Israel related material into your temp version, you could get agreement from the others to work on that version. You might want to think about deliberate killings of children that have had a particular impact on the Israeli populace, such as the pregnant Tali Hatuel and her four daughters, Shalhevet Pass, Revital Ohayon's children, Rachel Shabo's children, Shiri Shefi, etc. Another good place to look would be the reports regarding Palestinian Authority (and Israeli) textbooks found on www.edume.org Jayjg | (Talk) 23:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The OneGuy version is making progress. I am still concerned about the inherent bias introduced by using the term "children" for the teens or youths in some of these incidents, because of the presumption of innocence that seems to be associated with this english term. If these youths are to be portrayed as children, then perhaps the slightly older innocent conscripts in the IDF should also be portrayed as children, and get their portrayal as innocent victims of the oppressive Israeli government. Unfortunately "minor" is a clumsy specialized term in english.--Silverback 00:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I personally have no problem working from OneGuy's version, but I'm trying to build a consensus here. Perhaps the words "minor" and "teenagers" should be used more. Jayjg | (Talk) 00:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My comments below were meant to be strictly regarding the contents, nothing personal. IMHO, in addition to constructive suggestions above, the following issues should be addressed:

  • In general, trying to juxtapose Israeli/Palestinian subsections in this classic asymmetric conflict is misinforming and OneGuy's frustrations in this regard are understandable. I'd like to offer the following structure, roughly:
  1. Historical background
  2. Minors as victims in the conflict
  3. Minors as perpetrators of violence
  4. Projects for peace
  • The numbers. The text starts thus: Since the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa intifada... at least 603 Palestinian and 112 Israeli minors have been killed... IOW: HAMAS intentionally killed X Jewish minors (they tend to boast their "victories"), and since the IDF killed 5X Arab minors, it is only logical that the IDF is 5 times slaughterous than HAMAS. In case the reader didn't get it, the same phrase is being repeated again a paragraph down. And it goes on and on. Don't let the qualification "Israeli human rights group" mislead you: B'Tselem doesn't hide their political agenda but we treat them as if they are neutral. Their stats feed the most biased anti-Israel propagandists (see for yourself: [16]). Serious concerns about their credibility exist [17], but we use their controversial statistics 8 times. In fact, the entire article is written around their tables, which explains the sectioning: Death, Injury, Arrests, etc.
  • The names of the victims: I am against turning WP into a martyrology list.
  • I am surprised to see the idea of child-soldiers still being justified or even promoted here.
  • Compare (A): "Between 13 September 1993 and the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, Palestinians killed 256 Israelis, many of whom were children" [link], and (B): According B'Tselem, since Al Aqsa intifada, "34 Palestinians were killed by Israeli civilians, including Four minors: Two were age 17, One was age 14 and One was a Two month- old baby girl." One was called "Deliberate Distortions", the other is still in the text. Why?
  • The link to Ariel Sharon is there, right between Israeli terrorism and Atrocities, but curiously al-Husseini or Umm Nidal [18], [19] didn't make it. Why? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 12:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I do not support the "historical background" section. First, the history of the conflict is not relevant to the topic. More importantly, there are two sides of history. The Palestinian version (this also includes some Western/Israeli historians, i.e., Avi Shlaim, Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappe) and the Israeli version. The two versions are contradictory. If you insert anti-Palestinian history, then I will have to insert anti-Israeli history to keep it NPOV. That would start new irrelevant disputes that should not be here. As for "Minors as perpetrators of violence," if that includes teenagers throwing stones on tanks, then the context of Israeli occupation would be there. In any case, this and the other points should go to Israeli response section. You cannot start the article with pro-Israeli editorial. If you think, unlike Hamas, IDF only responds in self-defense, why don't you make that argument in Israeli response section? The first part must be NPOV and should just present stats without editorials. I won't edit anything you say in Israeli response section. As for B'Tselem, Camera.org is a pro-Israeli lobby. B'Tselem is a respected Human rights organization that even provides information to Knesset members. B'Tselem is cited as a source by the US State Department [20]. You won't ever find camera cited by the US government as a source. OneGuy 13:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As I said above, I think if you work some of the material I have suggested into your version, we might be able to make this work. From the Israeli position, what is generally seen as most shocking/damning are 1) the cases where children were clearly and deliberately targetted, often at close range, and 2) indoctrination of Palestinian youth. As you willing to try that? Jayjg | (Talk) 17:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you directly edit that page and make these changes? I will be able to comment on that then OneGuy 21:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Time. If a Palestine-info lets up on POVing articles to promote his agenda, I might have more time. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This aricle is protected right now anyway. Edit it when you have the time OneGuy 21:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NPOV#A_consequence:_writing_for_the_enemy. Maybe if you do a good job, it won't get reverted. As it is, you appear to be outnumbered, and that can only lead to disappointment for you. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ther were two other people reverting the article to previous version too. I was not alone there. In any case, I did add material related to Israeli children. The article already had a Israeli response section. If someone thinks more is needed, he can add it to the relevant section OneGuy 21:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Unfinished version

Hi OneGuy, I just reverted your last edit because it included unfinished sections (Israeli section; yet to be written, or words to that effect). We can't leave an unfinished article up like that. Perhaps you could move it to a user subpage and complete it from there? SlimVirgin 08:14, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

There are many articles on Wikipedia that has "to be written" section. See History of Islam. That's not a valid justification to revert to POV and factually distorted version (see above for evidence) OneGuy 08:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In any case, your that complaint is over OneGuy 09:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This is not "blame Israel"

None of the concerns above has been addressed. Our constructive collaboration can start with anything, even Communist manifesto, but by now it is obvious that some editors here are interested only in slurring Israel. The current "article" is rigidly built around highly controversial "statistics" of one particular group that doesn't even hide its political agenda, with Israeli "responses" supposed to be crammed into a section at the end, out of the context. In the chase for numbers, the distiction between victims and perpetrators is being intentionally ignored. Instead of unproductive revert war, I welcome anyone, friend or foe, interested in improving, NPOVing the article, to User:Humus sapiens/draft. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I took a quick glance at your article, and here are just some minor comments and why I think you should not take that route:

  • I'm taking the liberty of interspersing my responses; I admit that I haven't been following this article closely, but I hope that what I am saying here will be seen as reasonably neutral and evenhanded: I believe don't have an axe to grind here. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

(1) Not only your version starts right away with a slanted history, how is pre-1948 history relevant to the topic of minors in Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Israel did not even exist as a country back then. How many minors were killed in Deir Yassin and Hadassah medical convoy massacre? How is that relevant?

  • I think that it is perfectly appropriate to go back before 1948. Clearly Israel has continuity with the Jewish community in pre-1948 Palestine, and even with most of its institutions. On the Palestinian side, there is no clear date of formation of a Palestinian national identity. Splitting at any particular date would be very arbitrary. Similarly "Paragraph 175", a featured article about a particular anti-homosexual ordinance in Germany, starts out by talking about similar ordinances that preceded it; I'm sure I could find many similar examples. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

(2) The article then jumps to 1967. It implies that infant mortality rate etc. reduced because of Israeli occupation. That's not a valid implication. Infant mortality/illiteracy rate are lower in Jordan than in Gaza and the West Bank (the countries that you cite as examples, such as Egypt, are much bigger countries, and therefore the progress is obviously slower. Why not compare the progress with a smaller country with a similar population size? i.e. Jordan?).

(3) Next you have The First Intifada: 1987-1993 header, and the only thing mentioned in that section is that teenagers were the major group involved in that intifada. That's it? A lot has been written about Israeli policies of "breaking bones" and other tactics claimed by Amnesty International to be in violation of human rights.

  • The Israeli policies and tactics should certainly be in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

(4) Next you have The "Oslo peace": 1993-2000 header. The numbers for Israeli causalities include adults (including military) but the number for Palestinians only include minors under the age of 16.

  • If that is the case, it clearly needs to be remedied. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

(5) Next you have Psychological morbidity section. You cite some irrelevant information about PA and Christian relationship (what does that have to do with the topic?) and then incorrectly imply that Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is somehow about that. That's not true. The study very clearly says it is about the effects of Israeli violence on children.

(6) Next you have a section called "Peace education during peace years" where you only cite a pro-Israeli source (Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace) on Palestinian education. That's it? The claims by CMIP are disputed by the other side. See The CMIP report is full of distortions, exaggerations and outright lies. Second, what about mentioning the criticism of Israeli education by the other side? Israeli Textbooks and Children’s Literature Promote Racism and Hatred Toward Palestinians and Arabs.

  • I would agree with OneGuy that CMIP are not a neutral source. If they are cited, a response to them should be cited as well. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

(7) Then you have the header: The Second Intifada: 2000-present; Using numbers. Again only one-sided view from Israeli source on how most causalities are males. How about citing other views like Amnesty international? Palestinian children have been killed and injured by the Israeli army, as a result of deliberate as well as reckless shooting by soldiers and shelling and bombardments of densely populated residential areas including refugee camps in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Others were killed when Israeli soldiers used excessive and disproportionate force during demonstrations or when the army launched missiles into busy streets to assassinate Palestinian militants.

  • I would certainly say that AI qualify as a generally trustworthy source with no particular bias in this matter. They have been critical of both the Israeli government and the PA. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:48, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I can go on if you want. I have avoided Israeli-Palestinian articles because I noticed that most of these articles already involve major disputes. (and you probably won't like to see me get involved in them either). I was directed to this article by Alberuni, and that's how I got here. I believe the current version is NPOV (even has a slight pro-Israeli tilt). If you want to clean it, go ahead. But if you want it replace it with your version, then all these (and there are many other problems -- including having a much larger section for Palestinian response) will have to be inserted/fixed to keep it NPOV. That's why I suggest you don't take that route but instead clean this article OneGuy 13:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes Alberuni did a lot of damage. To your first point: the first thing I did after copying, I rewrote that section. Your suggestion that IPC began after 1948 is just another proof of how little you know on the topic. I challenge you to provide a serious source holding this opinion. The rest of your arguments are of the same caliber. My draft is work in progress and unlike you, I intend to rely on multiple sources and disclose - not hide - their affiliation. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I know a great deal about the topic. What I wrote is correct. The conflict before 1948 would be called Zionists or Jews vs Arabs, not Israel vs Palestinian. The rest of my arguments are even stronger, and I guess that's why you did not reply. As I said, if you try to make the article anti-Palestinian diatribe (like your version currently is), I will have to insert anti-Israel stuff in each section that you have (see above) to keep the balance OneGuy 00:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV Tag

In light of the vigorous consensus-building and dispute resolution attempts in Talk sections of articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, I am removing the POV tags. If someone has a any further problems not already covered in Talk then by all means restore the tag but please start a new section and bring forth your concerns for consensus building. These perpetual NPOV tags are unreasonable. I have also removed the cleanup tag, as the article seems well written to me. If anyone thinks it is not, please come forward with edits and/or suggestions.--A. S. A. 09:17, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why this article?

I think that starting this article was ill-advised, because it begs for editing wars of the "pissing contest" variety. There is no question that the conflict has inflicted suffering of different kinds to children on both "sides," but if we're seeking "balance" by making comparisons the whole thing becomes offensive and impossible to make neutral. The tragic truth is that children suffer in armed conflicts, in many different ways, whether it's because they are killed or maimed as "collateral damage" or as targets, or because they're brought up in the hateful rhetoric of war.

I suppose this article could exist, but it needs a more meaningful context than "let's line up numbers and accusations and compare." --Leifern 10:28, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

It was created by User:Alberuni as yet another means of demonizing Israel; it's early title was "Israeli violence against Palestinian children". He was eventually forced to allow other material into it about affects on Israeli children, and the article was moved to a more neutral title. But yes, it's ultimately just a "pissing contest" article because it was created purely for propaganda purposes. Jayjg (talk) 20:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'll get bold one of these days and rewrite it, when I'm not jetlagged. I think this is an interesting article on the effects of such conflicts on children, but it has to be more than "this side/that side." Interesting that Alberuni thought that a) people would let that kind of an article slide by; b) assume that there's nothing to be said about the effects of Israeli children of the conflict. --Leifern 20:59, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving On

It seems to me that OneGuy's contribution to this page is profoundly unhelpful, combatative and disruptive, and therefore move that he be banned.

I have little doubt that an acceptable NPOV article can be created from either beginnings if he is no longer around to cause problems Alex Bartho 10:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"…move that he be banned…" as in banned from Wikipedia? If you think you have a case, you can bring it to the ArbCom, but you will probably just be laughed at, especially because he hasn't edited the article in over 11 months. - Jmabel | Talk 04:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About both sides resorting to violence

If a woman is being raped, and she takes a tube, and beats the guy, would anyone with a straight face say "they both resorted to violence" ?! If you where writing an article about the second world war, would you say that "both Hitler and the United States resorted to violence"? Hitler was "resorting to violence" to take over Europe, and the US was "resorting to violence" to defeat him. When you leave that out, when you only give half the information, you are not being neutral, not by a long shot. So it is not fair to say "israelis and palestinians resort to violence". WHo's attacking, and who's defending themselves? Some say that israel is merely defending themselves. Telling half the story is not honest. -- Dullfig 00:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny: reading the first several sentences of what you wrote, I was expecting that you would say that the Palestinians were merely defending themselves. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] orphaned reference

  1. Palestine Section of Defence for Children International: [http://www.dci-pal.org/english/doc/reports/2004/sep28.pdf Status of Palestinian Children's Rights: Israel's violations of the right to life and security and the rights of

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 9 November 2006.

[edit] Merge proposal

Child suicide bombers is a logical subset of Children and minors and should be condensed and integrated into this article. In fact, this article could use some trimming and copyediting. 24.4.253.249 23:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, based on the titles; but reading these articles, this one is all about violence against children, while Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about violence by children - the exact opposite. They should definitely link to one another, but I think their subjects are different enough to justify having separate pages. Terraxos 18:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
i agree with Terraxos, merger is not the right move based on the current articles. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The articles are, in fact, different as they are currently written, but that doesn't mean they have to be. It is perfectly logical for the other article to incorporate this one. Screen stalker (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

I have removed the photo of a child holding a toy gun. Using this photo in the article carries with it the obvious implication that he is involved in some way with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, since you can't tell from looking at it that it's a toy gun, it implies that this kid is a combatant. That's a horrible BLP violation. We would not, for instance, have a photo of an American boy holding a toy gun in the article about 9/11 or the American civil war and so we should not here either. --B (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all - it shows a child with a toy gun and discusses the psychological effects the conflict has had on Israeli youth, of which this kid is one. B, are you simply going to the Wikipedia Review and reading what they write, and coming over here to Wikipedia? --David Shankbone 11:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed it because you are libeling the kid. What "psychological effects" can you show by holding a toy gun? I grew up in America, free from the psychological effects of war, but even I have held toy guns on occasion. The obvious implication of this picture (the caption of which didn't even mention that it was a toy gun) is that the kid is a combatant in the conflict. As for Wikipedia Review, yes, I did read about this image there, but I made the change because your use of the photo is flagrant libel. Muting criticism of your actions by screaming KILL ZE WIKIPEDIA REVIEW ZOMBIES isn't going to get anywhere. (Or, maybe it will and that's one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia - that rather than responding to constructive criticism, it retreats into defensive mode.) --B (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Spare me the drama and amateur use of legal terminology that you clearly do not understand. The caption states "Seventy per cent of [Israeli youth] surveyed reported increased subjective fear or hopelessness." The photograph portrays an Israeli youth, and crouched with the toy gun, gets across the concept of the text. This isn't an anti-Arab Israeli commentary (if it wasn't I wouldn't have used Arab Israelis to portray Friendship). --David Shankbone 13:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
None of which has a thing to do with what I said. A reasonable person looking at the photo would assume that he was in some way involved with the Arab-Israeli conflict. He's holding what looks a gun. The implication is obvious. To turn around and say, there's a 70% chance that he has psychological issues as a result of the conflict doesn't change the obvious implication. How would you like it if a picture of you holding a gun was used in an article about murder? Sure, the image description page may have some details on it that explains that you really aren't a murderer and it isn't a real gun, but that's hardly the point. If you think it is acceptable to show a person holding a gun in an article about violence and don't see that as implying anything, then that's a you problem. --B (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I removed the un-sourced caption from the new photo. Although, I assume the source of the text was taken from this website [21], where it says, "A recent study by Herzog's trauma center found that 33 percent of Israeli youth have been affect-ed personally by terrorism, either by being at the scene of an attack or by knowing someone injured or killed by terrorists. Seventy percent of those surveyed reported increased subjective fear or hopelessness." (Word for word without citing the source), yet neglected to add the NEXT sentence that says, "The rate of post-traumatic stress disorder among Palestinian children is about 70 percent...". "Drama and amateur", indeed -- by adding the captioned text with the image is editorializing propaganda and bias.--KGBarnett (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)