This is an archive of past discussions about Second Intifada. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
why is this a source? it's practically an IDF source. so a research organisation comprised mostly of former IDF officials, officers etc criticizes the human rights numbers. i mean if B'Tselem was comprised mostly of former hamas would anyone take anything they say seriously? i changed the bbc numbers to B'Tselem numbers for 2000-2006. BBC was using B'Tselem's numbers.
Muhammed Al-Durrah caption
Isarig wrote in his edit summary "It is actually disputed if he was shot. Read the relevant article." I don't know what he is talking about, because the conspiracy theorists quoted in the "Controversy" section of the Al-Durrah article actually say that he was shot, though they think it was by Palestinian gunmen. It's also not disputed that there was a shootout between the IDF and Palestinians at the time. So the caption is only stating undisputed facts. Those who are interested in conspiracy theories can follow the link to the article. Sanguinalis10:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, according to the Muhammad al-Durrah article and the CAMERA web page Isarig wants to link this page: Yosef Duriel does not dispute that al-Durrah was shot. IDF General Samia does not dispute that al-Durrah was shot. James Fallows does not dispute that al-Durrah was shot. Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte do not dispute that al-Durrah was shot. The producers of the German television documentary do not dispute that al-Durrah was shot. All these people suggest (wtih varying degrees) that al-Durrah was shot by Palestinian gunmen, not Israeli soldiers, but they do not suggest the incident was "staged".
The CAMERA article does not take position, it just purports to "sort out the claims and counterclaims"
Now let us look at the text Isarig wants to insert in the caption: Many organizations and analysts have concluded that the incident was staged. The only organization that claims this is the Metula "News Agency" (actually just a website), and four individuals: Richard Landes, Stephane Juffa, Gerard Huber, and Nahum Shahaf. The first three of these are associated with the Metula "
News Agency". None of them can be called "analysts" - they don't have backgrounds in forensics or ballistics nor have any of them investigated a shooting before al-Durrah. A more accurate statement would be A few individuals claim there is evidence that the event is staged, but it would be inappropriate to put that statement in THIS article. The WP:NPOV policy states: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." Sanguinalis
To Humus sapiens and Shamir1, who have reinserted this material: Who exactly are the "many organizations and analysts" who believe the shooting of Muhammad al-Durrah was staged, besides the one organization and handful of people I listed? What evidence do you have that this belief is NOT held only by a tiny minority? Sanguinalis10:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You haven't answered the question. What evidence is there that the view that the incident was staged is held by more than a tiny minority? If view X is held only by a tiny minority, then clearly inserting the text "There are concerns that X" in a Wikipedia article is a violation of NPOV policy: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view" Sanguinalis03:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Your summary of what the situation, as well as of my position is misleading. I did not insert the text "Many organizations and analysts have..." I inserted the text "Some organiztions..., which is factually correct. Your summary of who disputes the boy was killed is incorrect. Contrary to what you claim, the CAMERA article I cite quotes Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte, 2 independant journalists as saying "when Charles Enderlin gives up the little one for dead, killed by the Israelis, nothing could enable him to affirm that he [Al Dura] is really dead". This is also quoted in the WP:RSLe Figaro. The CAMERA article also cites Luc Rozenzeig (a Le Monde journalist) who "believes that events surrounding the Al Dura incident were staged.". The views of MENA journalists Juffa & Huber were carried by reputable sources such as the Wall Street Journal Europe, Editions Raphael and others. So in summary, in addition to MENA, we have at least 3 other independant journalists who question if the boy is actually dead, and their views, far from being an extreme minority, were aired by numerous WP:RS. I am puttin gback my original caption, incorporating the changes suggest by [[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну?] Isarig18:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you did insert the text "Many organizations and analysts have...", in this edit [1]. You are simply wrong about Jeambar and Leconte. First, take a look at the inverview published by the Cybercast News Service, itself cited in the CAMERA article:
Leconte said he is satisfied that the shooting really happened, but he does not believe the bullets that struck the child could have been fired by Israeli troops.
Leconte said that after seeing further evidence presented by France 2, he believes the shooting scene itself was real. "At the moment of the shooting, it's no longer acting, there's really shooting, there's no doubt about that," Leconte told Cybercast News Service.
Unless there was an "incredible manipulation" by France 2, Leconte said he believes that both father and son were shot. He cited recent footage in which the father, Jamal al-Durra, showed his scars from bullet wounds.
Leconte said that if Juffa believes the whole incident was staged, he would have to provide concrete proof.
...in 2002, a German television documentary concluded that Palestinian and not Israeli gunfire killed the boy. When they viewed the footage, Leconte and Jeambar came to the same conclusion.
Second, in the Le Figaro article, Jeambar and Leconte wrote this:
To those, like Mena, who wanted to use us to support the thesis of that the death of the child was faked by the Palestinians, we say that they are misguided, and are misguiding their readers. Not only do we not share this point of view, but we affirm that based on the knowledge of the file we have today, nothing allows us to affirm this, much to the contrary.
This translation is taken from the Muhammad al-Durrah article; anyone interested in the original French can read it here.
I'll grant you that Luc Rozenzeig supports the "incident was staged" theory. That makes five individuals - still a handful. The fact that one of them got an op-ed published in a right-leaning newspaper and another got his book published doesn't mean it is not a tiny minority view. Sanguinalis03:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I did read it. Many of the people quoted there who are critics of France 2 and the initial reporting of the incident do not actually say that the event was staged (see the above reply to Isarig). Rather they say it was Palestinian, not Israeli, gunfire that killed the boy, a much less incredible claim (friendly fire incidents are very common). I have shown that the conspiracy theory, that Palestinians faked the incident, in collaboration with France 2, is held by only a tiny minority. If there is a prominent individual or organization who endorses the conspiracy theory which I have missed, please tell us who it is. Sanguinalis03:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Stand With Them dot com
The propaganda poster used in the latest edit does not meet WP:V and is not a reliable source. The poster does not cite where it got these figures, so in no way can it stand as a "source" all by itself. Please find a reliable source for these percentages or the highly POV material associated with it will have to be altered or removed. Thanks. Ramallite(talk)19:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
"Iconic image"
In regards to the bolded section of this sentence: "The killings were captured on video by an Italian TV crew and broadcast on TV; the picture (to the right) of one of the lynchers waving his blood-stained hands from the window, shocked and outraged many around the world, and became another iconic image."
The sources cited do NOT make any mention of any worldwide shock or outrage, or of the photograph being an iconic image. In fact the second source goes to any empty earthlink page. Can somebody please provide sources for these claims or can they be removed? Deuterium01:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
january 2006 suicide bombing
i miss the suicide bombing in tel aviv from january / february 2006. it was in the same restaurant as the later april bombing, but there were less people killed. --Herrengedeck21:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
"Palestinian violations" section
This section cannot stay as is because:
The very title is POV in nature, these are Israeli allegations and must be portrayed as such.
Wikipedia is not a mirror of the Israeli government web sites, and pasting a whole POV table from their website (a possible copyright violation) is not within Wikipedia's scope or policy.
It is undue weight to the Israeli POV. If any segment of this stays, it would have to be balanced by the official Palestinian allegations vis-a-vis the same issues as well, and these can be found here and here.
A quick response would be appreciated; we can either remove/condense the Israeli propaganda and/or add the opposing Palestinian propaganda. I prefer removing rather than childish tit-for-tat, but if NPOV is the goal, the opposing POV must be represented. Ramallite(talk)16:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that cutting and pasting from a copyrighted page may be a copyright violation (in fact, in this case I'm pretty sure it is, which is why I removed it). If you'd like to summarize/condense your edit, I'll do the same. Ramallite(talk)19:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This article should be discarded
This artcle is larded with so much anti-historical nonsense that it should be entirely discarded. I don't don't have time to begin. The idea that anyone would still believe in propaganda line Jenin Massacre or the al-Durrah hoax is crazy, that it should be included in an encyclopedia article is an embarrassment. Scott Adler13:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Mitchell Commission Report Twisted to exonerate Sharon in instigating the intifada
How is it that an extremely desperate attempt to revive the dead Oslo process in May 2001 as become the straw that apologists for Israel now cling to exonerate Sharon in responsibility for instigating the Intifada. First off the report completely exonerates the Palestinian Authority and says that there is no evidence that the intifada was in any pre planned or instigated by Arafat. Secondly when this report originally came out it was extremely criticized by right wing supporters of Israel because of the fact that it was highley critical of sharon. True the report did exonerate him of resonsibility for the intifada, but it was still highly critical of his visit to the temple mount. I personally think this was a bit of whitewashing by the Mitchell commission in order to please both the Israelies and the palestinians, seeing how this report was a desperate attempt to restart the peace process. However, reading this article you'd come away with the impression that the article was extremely favorable to sharon and particularly critical of arafat, which it wasn't. As for the other claims that there was activity before the visit to the temple mount that instigated the intifada, there is not one neutral source listed in this article that confirms any of these organizations. Just about all of them are extremely biased, Pro-Zionist organizations. The one bit of factual evidence to support the claim that the Intifada was pre-planned is the video of Imad Falouji shouting his mouth off, a man who by the way who originally worked for Hamas before briefly working for Fatah. The Israely propoganda machine will take any comment from some insignificant Plastinian Authority official and pass it off as the official position of the whole group. Of course some cynical memebers of the Palestinian authority will take advantage of the incident after the fact because it makes them look good to say they had everything planned out from the beginning when in reality they were probably sitting around twittling there thumbs. Most of Fatah, including arafat have denied they planned the intifada beforehand and there is absolutely no solid evidence to support the claim that he did, which the Mitchell Commission acknowledges. I'll agree that Sharon wasn't solely resonsible for the outbreak of the intifada, but he was at least 50% responsible, where as the other 50% was the break down of the peace process. I think this article and the article on Ariel Sharon contain great disinformation in this regard and should therefore be revised.
annoynmous 9:41, 12 Decemeber 2006 (UTC)
Moshe's deletions on Dec. 13, 2006.
See this revision. Moshe, you have a bad habit of deleting totally uncontroversial stuff such as reference link details while deleting other stuff you find controversial. You did this on the Taba Summit page also. That page is currently protected due to your deletions of sourced material, and the edit warring that ensued. That controversy will eventually be sorted out. But on that page you also deleted uncontroversial stuff (reference link details) that had happened in between the edit warring.
On this Al-Aqsa Intifada page you reverted the updated casualty stats while deleting other stuff you find to be controversial. Please learn how to revert only the stuff you find controversial. I stopped reverting your blanking deletions on the Taba Summit page after I learned that your blanking could not be considered to be vandalism as long as you gave any reason, no matter how against the wikipedia guidelines they were. An official request for comments was made on that page, and I encourage others here to make comments, in order to resolve whether your blanking deletions are against wikipedia guidelines.--Timeshifter11:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Biases Statistics
The claim that 77% of Israelies killed were non-combatants while only 36% of palestinians killed were non-combatants is utterly false and the source that is given for this is not a mainstream human rights organization, but a crackpot Pro-Israel website called Myths and Facts. There is nothing at the B'tselem website that concurs with any of this nonsense. People need to stop using biased, Pro-Israel sources when contributing to this article.
annoynmous 10:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is the code you deleted:
An additional 215 Palestinians were killed by fellow Palestinians, 118 of them on suspicion of collaboration with Israel. During the conflict from September 2000 to January 2004, 36.2% of Palestinians killed were non-combatants caught in crossfire, while 77.6% of Israelis killed were non-combatants who died in bombings or sniper fire.<ref>{{PDFlink|[http://www.standwithus.com/pdfs/flyers/english/MythFact.pdf Truth, Lies & Stereotypes...]|39.2 [[Kibibyte|KiB]]<!-- application/pdf, 40236 bytes -->}}</ref>
It seems there is an impending edit war between Moshe, annoynmous (66.227.137.56), and railcgun concerning this:
Arafat had first named the explosion of violence the "al-Aqsa Intifada". Imad Faluji, the Palestinian Authority’s communications minister, said in a public speech in December 2000, "[The uprising] had been planned since Chairman Arafat’s return from Camp David, when he turned the tables on the former U.S. president [Clinton] and rejected the American conditions."[http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qb5fIP-MfAc]. [[David Horowitz]] in a Jan. 11, 2002 article wrote that the The Mitchell Commission report would later establish that "[t]he Sharon visit did not cause the Al-Aksa Intifada," and that the violence was planned by the PA leadership <ref> [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4454 Why Israel Is The Victim And The Arabs Are The Indefensible Aggressors In the Middle East]</ref>. The April 30, 2001 [[Mitchell Report]] <ref name=mitchell /> found that the Sharon visit did not cause the Al-Aqsa Intifada, although it was poorly timed and would clearly have a provocative effect. The report also concluded that <blockquote> "Accordingly, we have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity; or to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the Government of Israel to respond with lethal force." </blockquote>
Timeshifter I want to thank you for your timely and courteous response. I like it that you were willing to actually talk to me instead simply threatining to have me removed from wikipedia which I'm sorry to say has been the typical experience for me when I edit wikipedia articles. My main grievance is that a lot of material in this article is biased against the palestinians. I'm sorry to say that this seems to be a bias the permutates through many of the articles on wikipedia dealing with the Israel palestine conflict. All I ask is that when wikipedia cites something as a fact that it relies on respected and mainstream organizations instead of biased groups with an axe to grind like standwithus.com. If you want to cite there accusations as accusations thats fine, but don't cite them as accepted fact. As for the controversy over what was the catalyst for the second intifada, I personally think this section needs to be reworked to reflect a more neutral point of view. The way it's betrayed in the article now gives the impression that Arafat and Fatah were completly responsible for the intifada and that Sharons visit to the temple mount was if anything incidental. This to me is an extremely false characterization. There is abosolutely no solid evidence to support the claim that Fatah pre-planned the intifada. If anyone would bother to actually read the mitchell commission report they would see that they agree that there is no evidence of this claim. The only piece of solid evidence is the speech of Imad Folouji several months after the start of the intifada which can easily be attributed to boasting after the fact to make fatah appear more competent than they actually are. I look forward to your response annoynmous 2:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You will get a lot more respect if you get a user name. I suggest you do. Otherwise there is always the suspicion of sockpuppetry, abrupt editing hidden under multiple IPs, etc., etc.. Patience is required in editing controversial wikipedia pages. You are in danger of violating the 3RR rule. Please wait a day before reverting again. And please go through the process of dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
Now to the substance. NPOV means including all significant viewpoints. It also means indicating clearly who is making each assertion. Currently, this wikipedia page sometimes makes assertions as if they are fact when in actuality they are just one viewpoint among several viewpoints. I have no desire to delete anybody's viewpoints. That is a way of favoring particular POVs, too. --Timeshifter20:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Timeshifter, so far you've been very classy and elegant, so I'll try not to take personally your accusations of sockpupperty or what ever nonsense phrases you guy's use. I am just a concerned reader of wikipedia who wants to contribute and I don't I should have adhere to the mantra "Join the club or shut up". Wikipedia is so suppossed to be a place where all can contribute as long as they are constructive. Believe me when I say theres a lot more on this site I'd like to delete and change, but I don't because there are solid and legitimate sources to back up those things and I don't believe in editing something simply because it doesn't agree with my viewpoint. To me the attitude that I can't contribute because I don't have an official user name reinforces the notion that some have that wikipedia is just a big cult. I don't believe that because although I have encountered some people on wikipedia with a group think attitude, I find eventually that someone comes along with a reasonable attitude and is willing to come to a compromise. You seem like one of those people.
As for my complaints I guess I'm just angry that there at the very beginning of the article and immediately give off a very biased impression of the whole issue. The part on the Mitchell Commission was not added till recently because someone just had to slant the article in Israel's favor. As for the statistics of the number of casualties I know problem with saying that some people criticize the numbers, but to put them at the very beginning of the article and state them as fact when there not is very spurious in my opinion. Again I would like to thank for the classy you have responded to my edits.
annoynmous 8:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The suggestion to get a user name was not so that you could join the club. It was so that your edits could be monitored. Otherwise, your edits end up being spread around under various IP numbers. You will get a lot more done in dispute situations if you have a real registered user name. Otherwise, people will just keep reverting you, and there is little you can do about it. You really can't use all the dispute resolution tools when you have shifting IP numbers over time. --Timeshifter19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Timeshifter I'll make it easy for you, If ever the version of this article comes up without the Mitchell commission report at the front of the article or without the Standwithus.com numbers it's me. The fact that you didn't automatically reverse my edits gave me the impression that you were willing to consider my complaints. I am not interested in gaining an offical user name, I am just a concerned wikipedia reader who feels this article is a little slanted in one direction. If you want I'll try and stick "annoynmous" at the end of every edit I make on this article from now on. I'n the mean time I wish you would have a talk with Isarig and the others who keep reverting my edits. All I want to do is have a discussion on the substance of the article. Again I thank you for the gracious way you've performed yourself.
annoynmous 2:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm done talking to you for now - as far as I'm concerned, you're an anonymous IP vandal, who has blatantly violated WP:3RR despite being warned multiple times. If you can conduct yourself properly when you return from your upcoming block, maybe we'll be able to have a discussion. Isarig19:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I know have an official user name so I believe I'm entitled to make any edits I want and discuss with others how to make the article more neutral. I would appreacite if me and Timeshifter could get back to where we left off and that everyone else such as Isarig and John254 could leave us alone.
My complaint is that the two materials I edited out were at the very beginning of the article and right away give a biased feel for the rest of the article. The Mitchell commission material is already in the prior events section and serves no purpose at the front of the article other than to bias the article against the palestinians. The statistics that state the number of civilians killed on both sides is simply not accurate, they come from a biased pro-israel site called standwithus.com. If you want cite these accusations as accusations that's fine, but don't cite them as if there fact.
I look forward to your response Timeshifter and sincerely hope I will no longer have to deal with the threat of being blocked every time I try and contribute to the article.
annoynmous 7:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Mitchell report is online. Let's quote directly from it.
The David Horowitz info about the Mitchell report is not accurate. I suggest quoting directly from the source. The Mitchell report text is online. Here is the contradictory info below that is currently on the page.
David Horowitz in a Jan. 11, 2002 article wrote that the The Mitchell Commission report would later establish that "[t]he Sharon visit did not cause the Al-Aksa Intifada," and that the violence was planned by the PA leadership
The April 30, 2001 Mitchell Report found that the Sharon visit did not cause the Al-Aqsa Intifada, although it was poorly timed and would clearly have a provocative effect. The report also concluded that
"Accordingly, we have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity; or to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the Government of Israel to respond with lethal force."
This is the info below currently on the page. Is this accurate info?
During the conflict from September 2000 to January 2004, 36.2% of Palestinians killed were non-combatants caught in crossfire, while 77.6% of Israelis killed were non-combatants who died in bombings or sniper fire.
I read the article and followed the links and could find no source for their stats concerning civilian deaths. Anybody else have any better luck? --Timeshifter16:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The stats are from the Institute for Counter Terrorism (www.ict.org.il) which is referenced at the bottom of the page you were looking at. You can access the complete report hereIsarig21:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Through Jan. 1, 2005, and subtracting Palestinians killed by Palestians, one gets 39.6% of Palestinians killed by Israelis were non-combatants. 1099 out of 2773. 764 out of 1010 Israelis killed were non-combatants. That is 75.6%. We need to update the stats, add the reference link, and clearly indicate who is compiling this data. --Timeshifter17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Timeshifter I wonder I you could help me. My edits keep getting reversed by several people and I worry that if I keep reverting them I'll get blocked by John254 again. Could you talk to these people for me sense it seems that you do agree with my complaints about this article.
annoynmous12:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I find that one often has to make their case on a talk page first before changes stick. Overall in my editing of many wikipedia pages I probably end up adding more info to talk pages, than to article pages. On some wikipedia pages I have added a ton of info without any problems. People follow my cites, and they do not feel a need to delete the info. On other wikipedia articles, every cite and piece of info is questioned and debated. :) --Timeshifter04:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I have made my edits once again and I personally think it is very childish to keep blocking me just because you don't like it that I exposed that you have a false statistic in the article. Timeshifter seems to concure with me that the standwithus.com website statistics are highly dubious and therefore unduly prejudice the article.
As for the Mitchell Commission report it, there is no reason for it to be at the very front of the article, especially since it already is in the prior events section. There is surly no reason to include David Horowitz's rantings at the begining of this article. If you want to link to him in the source section fine, but his biased opinion doesn't belong at the beginning of the article.
Please, I would appreciate it if you guys would come to the discussion page and explain to me why you feel these items belong in the article instead of just reverting my edits and blocking me out. I think it's very childish and seems like you are attempting to censor a dissenting opinion.
annoynmous 23:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
No matter how strongly you feel about your edits, please to not repeatedly revert other editors' work in violation of WP:3RR. The statistics quoted by StandWithUs are from the Institute for Counter Terrorism , a reliable source. If you want to update them based on the more recent report quoted by Timeshifter go ahead. Please do not revert the caption of the Al-Durrah photo to remove mention of the controversy around this incident. This topic has been dicussed at lenght here, and the caption you are revertign is the result of consensus. Isarig23:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for finally speaking to me instead of just blindly reverting my edits. I see no problem with your wish to keep the Al-Durrah captions. Actually I didn't realize this until you pointed it out. I have no problem and agree there is a lot of controversy over the Al-Durrah photo. However, I must disagree with your inference that the Institute For Counter Terrorism in an unbiased source. The statistic they supposedly cite can be found at none of the mainstream Human Rights organizations such as Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem etc. If you wish to put this statistic somewhere else in the article and state it as a accusation and not a fact I would have no problem with that. However, if you continue to state this statistic as accepted fact then I will have no choice but to continue reverting the article.
Thank you once again for being finally willing to talk to me sensibly and reasonably.
annoynmous 23:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem. What evidence is there that the ICT is not a relaible source? The fact that the otehr NGO's do not break out the casualties in that way is one of the critcisms of them, as indicated in the article, so the absense of that statistic from them is not evidence f ICT's bias. Isarig23:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
First off the ICT is an organization based and founded in Israel, so to me that biases them a little bit. That fact that there statistics are cited no nowhere else except for in biases Lobbying groups like standwithus.com.
By the way, in the article when that statistic comes up, the link doesn't go to the ICT, it goes to the standwithus.com website. If this was such an accepted statistic why didn't you link to there site instead of the standwithus.com website. I looked at the ICT website and could find no breakdown of casualties figures on the main page. If you could tell me where at the website those statistics are I'd be happy to look further.
However, even if the statistics are there and the ICT a was reliable organization as you say, I think you would have to agree there assesment of the casualties is not the accepted by everybody fact of the matter and therefore should not be presented in the article as such.
As I said, If you want to move these numbers to another part of the article and state them as opinion instead of fact that's fine.
annoynmous 24:18, 18 Decemeber 2006 (UTC)
To allege bias because of where the organization was founded and/or based is not logically sound. Is B'Tselem also biased in a pro Israeli way, using that logic? (And is probably not a wise thing to do from your POV - it would lead to similar objections against the use of many pro-Palestinian claims sourced to Palestinian sources). Second, it is false that the ICT's statistics and reports are used only by lobbying groups. A quick Google search will show you they are quoted by the Library of Congress [2], the USAF academy [3], California State University Sacramento [4] and many others.
finally, I have provided (as did TimeShifter) the direct report from the ICT. Feel free to replace the Standbyus source to the actual ICT report. If you have sources that actually dispute this figures (rather than sources that don't mention them), we may include them in the article as well. Isarig01:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You Have not provided the direct report from the ICT and neither did Timeshifter. Timeshifter looked at the source and came to the conclusion that the statistics had no merit.
As for my comments regarding ICT's bias, you seem to forget that B'tselem is a Human Rights organization, whereas ICT is a so called "Counterrorism Institute" and serves the same function in Israel as organization's like the Heritage Foundation or American Enterprise Institute serve in America. When your organization's whole purpose is so called "Counterrorism" excuse me, but just maybe you have a little bit of interest skewing the evidence in certain direction. Just because some unversity's cite them doesn't mean there informations accurate.
Once again, if you wish to move these numbers to a different part of the article and state them as opinion instead of fact, I have no problem with that.
annoynmous 01:57, 18 Decemeber 2006(UTC)
Also I don't think an organization founded by the Ex-head of Mossad is especially credible in giving a balanced viewpoint on the Intifada. I don't care what university's quote them on Pakistan or suicide bombing, you can't say that this doesn't give them a bias toward one point of view.
annoynmous 02:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I am beginning to lose my respect for you, and finding it very hard to assume good faithwith regards to your edits, when confronted by posts like the above. Take a look above, where I wrote 'The stats are from the Institute for Counter Terrorism (www.ict.org.il) which is referenced at the bottom of the page you were looking at. You can access the complete report here". Note the link at the end- it links directly to the ICT report. Furthermore, Timeshifter also provided a link to an updated report: "Here are later stats from them (through Jan. 1, 2005): http://212.150.54.123/casualties_project/stats_page.cfm '. And contrary to your claim, he did not come "to the conclusion that the statistics had no merit" - he said they needed a little updating, the article currently says "3900 Palestinians and over 1,000 Israelis" were killed, and he wants it updated, and to include the breakdown between civilian and non-civilian. Please do not misrepresent other editors' comments. My comment regarding B'tselem was to counter your claim that ICT is biased becuase it was founded and located in Israel. That is a logical fallacy, and I'm glad my exmaple of B'tselem helped you see the error in your logic. You have now moved to a different claim - that the ICT is a partisan think-tank, analogous to the Heritage Foundation in the US. That is also false. The ICT is a non-partisan academic research institution, a project of the Interdisciplinary Center of Herzliya. You are welcome to your personal POV that if an organization uses "counterterrorism" in its name it is by definition biased, but I am not too impressed by your personal assessment, and you're going to have to produce some tangible evidence beyond your personal beliefs if we are to describe the ICT as biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isarig (talk • contribs) 06:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
I'm sorry I didn't see before in the posts above that you had linked to the article. I didn't mean to implie that you were lying.
However, I think you you need to stop taking things so personally Isarig. There was a point where I lost all respect for you when all you said was "I'm done with you" and refused to talk to me. I had been talking with timeshifer for some time and then you and several others just started maddly reverting my edits and then blocking me from editing. I found that very insulting and hurtful and although I'm glad where talking now in a more civilized matter, I wish we hadn't had to go through that ordeal.
As for the numbers, I have stated again and again that the problem is stating the numbers as absolute fact, which they aren't, and having them right at the beginning of the article. You obviously haven't been listening to me, I haven't said you can't include them, I just said you need to state them as opinion.
As for the ICT's credibilty, I'm sorry they are think tank, plain and simple. Maybe there a think tank that does a lot of research, but that doesn't mean they get instant credibilty. Anyway the links you gave to where there quoted are about Pakistan and suicide bombing, not the intifada. When I asked you who quotes them, I was asking who quotes there numbers on the intifada casualties. I'm sorry there an oragnization founded in Israel, devoted to counterrorism and founded by an ex-head of Mossad. You can't tell me based on all that that there view on the situation is completely neutral.
I know of an Organization called the Palsetine Monitor that says that the number of civilians killed is at least 50% of the 3900 and could be as High as 75%. However, I wouldn't think of including them because I know that they get there stats from a plastinian based medical association and that there would be the appearance of bias. I would fully understand that and I would ask that someone do the same in regards to bias towards the Israelie side.
I have moved your updated numbers to the bottom of the page and stated them as opinion. I hope this will lead us, or at least begin to lead us to a mutual compromise
annoynmous 14:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC
Isarig, it occurs to me that we need to take a different approach to this argument. Something more expansive and nuanced. Namely what is the arguement you and others are trying to make with these numbers.
Please don't take that personally as a slight against you. We use numbers and statistics to advocate an opinion, none of us does to truly just report the facts. I include myself in that mold.
The argument that seems to want to be made with these numbers is that Israel takes great care in the occupied territories to not kill civilians, were as the Palestinians don't care who they kill. Well, form reading the reports of the mainstream human rights groups it would seem that this line of argument is fundementally flawed. They frequently accuse Israel of being reckless and indiscriminate in there killing of palestians. Now you can dispute that and say there wrong, but that is your opinion and not fact.
By the way, where does the ICT get there numbers from. Do they do there own research or do they just go by the IDF's numbers. I don't see a detailed account of every palestinian killed at there site like I do at B'tselem and Amnesty. Also, what is with these terms such as combatant and non-combatant. Why not just use civilian and non-civilian. In there original study back in 2002 they only said 45% were actual confirmed combatants and another 10% or 12% or probable combatants. There definition of probable combatant seems to be any one who is in the area of a battle zone. I really don't understand what the term combatant means. Can someone be a civilian and also be a combatant. If so it seems like highly dubious term. If an Israeli soldier shoots someone than later claims there a combatant that doesn't seems like a great methodology to me. Indeed, elswhere in the article you have it said that the palsetinians have disputed the designation of certian people as combatants.
Let's for the sake of argument assume I accept that the ICT is a respected organization. So is B'tslem, Amnesty and the Palestinian Red Crescent Society and they do not agree with the ICT's assessments. You still haven't shown me any reputable source where the ICT's numbers are quoted as fact. A reasonable person would come to the conclusion that these statistics by the ICT are at the very least disputed, and therefore be stated as opinion instead of fact.
If you want these numbers in the article fine, but don't put them at the very beginning of the article and state them as if they are the accepted fact by everyone.
annoynmous 15:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not know which stats are more reliable than others. I suggest putting the basic stats on the wikipedia page. Maybe in the form of a range of deaths. And a range of civilian versus combatant percents. And some hard numbers for civilian casualties (also a range). And then putting reference links. People can follow the links to make their own decisions as to reliability. --Timeshifter18:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree as long as there not stated as absolute fact. I don't where in the article we would put them, but if Isarig is up for a mutual compromise, so am I.
annoynmous 18:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like the economic costs and human casualties to be separated into 2 sections. Right now there is a section called "Economic and human costs." Also, I dislike using the word "costs" to refer to human casualties. See the Iraq War and Vietnam War pages. They have Casualties sections. --Timeshifter20:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Haaretz. 80 percent of Palestinians killed were civilians.
I think this needs to be quoted directly in the article:
"Here are the disastrous proportions, in the hope that someone in Israel will take notice: 80 percent of the Palestinians killed were not connected to armed actions."
I Think Abu-Ali is right in that the Palestinian response to the accusations needs to remain. It's not as if the section has no balance to it as it is, it says at the end that is disputed that the number came form Shin bet. At the very least the Haaretz article should stay sense that is a sourced claim.
annoynmous 16:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
That whole section on casualties is a mess. It needs to be updated, and clarified in many ways. Multiple estimates should be in the section. With the source for each estimate clearly indentified. Disagreements with the various methods used need to be sourced, and clearly identified by source also.
I have done a lot of editing on the casualties section and infobox on the Iraq War page. Also on these pages:
The consensus reached was to put out nearly all the various estimates and sources. And to break them down in detail as space allowed in the casualties sections, and on the various pages. With criticisms. --Timeshifter17:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Shin Bet info on casualties
This info below is from the casualties section. But I don't see a verifiable source. Unverifiable info should not be in the article. What is the URL for the article? And the title of the article?
On August 24, 2004, Haaretz reporter Zeev Schiff published casualty figures based on Shin Bet data. Here is a summary of the figures presented in the article:
Some 1,001 Israelis were killed by Palestinian attacks in the al-Aqsa Intifada, most of them (more than 75%) civilians.
Palestinians sources claim 2,736 Palestinians killed in the intifada.
The Shin Bet has the names of 2,124 Palestinian dead.
Out of the figure of 2,124 dead, 1,414 (or 66%) were said to be combatants (armed men and/or "terrorists"). The casualties are thus assigned to organizations:
334 of Arafat's guard Force 17, the Palestinian police and the General Intelligence
The above info is unsourced. I am removing it from the article until it is verifiably sourced.
I put in this sourced info:
"But it turned out that according to calculations of the Shin Bet and by its own definitions, of the 2,341 Palestinians who were killed up to the beginning of August [2003] this year, 551 were terrorists, 'that is, bearing arms and explosives' (Ze'ev Schiff, Haaretz, August 8, 2003). ... Here are the disastrous proportions, in the hope that someone in Israel will take notice: 80 percent of the Palestinians killed were not connected to armed actions."
I removed the other info questioning the ICT stats since that criticism is unsourced also. I am referring to this statement:
Palestinians dispute this, as the report treats most people that were killed as combatants, often much to the dispute of locals and international aid workers. Additionally, to reach these numbers, "combatant age" was defined to include ages 15 and up.
Please do not keep up a revert war for that unsourced statement. If someone can source it, then put it in the article in an NPOV way. Preferably with a quote. --Timeshifter20:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Maariv info on casualties
I removed this unsourced info below also. Is there a verifiable source and URL for this? And is the date for 2006?:
Bnwwf91 added the word "terrorist" to the Palestinian combatant section of the infobox. It says "Palestinian Authority: Several Palestinian terrorist/militant groups." See this revision difference:
NPOV requires all significant points of view. So I added the word "terrorist" to the Israeli combatant section of
the infobox: "Israel: Israeli Defense Forces, and several Israeli terrorist/militant settler groups." --Timeshifter02:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks for the wikilink. I have often wondered how to use the word "terrorist" in wikipedia. Here is a relevant quote from the wikilink page:
"The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format 'X says Y'. If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the 'narrative voice' of the article. In other cases, terms such as 'militant(s)' may be a suitable alternative, implying a group or individual who uses force to attain their objectives." --Timeshifter04:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Dec. 28, 2006 reversions
About Tewfik's messy, large, undiscussed deletions on Dec. 28, 2006.
It looks like the method you used on Dec. 28, 2006 to delete large amounts of material was to go back to a Dec. 21, 2006 revision. Here is the revision difference:
The problem is that in the meantime many changes have been made. There were 17 edits made since that Dec. 21, 2006 revision. Most of them were explained or resolved on the talk page. In the last week only one change has been objected to on the talk page, and I came to agree with that objection.
The revert wars had stopped for a week before this latest undiscussed mass deletion of yours. You seem to be the only registered wikipedia user to have a problem with these edits. Please. Let us not go back to abrupt editing. Please discuss major changes on the talk page first. Deleting uncontroversial casualty stat updates can only be looked upon as vandalism. Why did you go back to older casualty stats in the infobox and the casualties section? --Timeshifter07:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, here is the diff between my edit and that of Humus sapiens. I did not mass-revert, but rather painstakingly attempted to preserve any and all corrections of grammar, as well as rephrasing the image caption to flow better and link to the proper place while preserving your attempt to fix its neutrality (while you did mass revert my edits). What I did do was restore sourced information which you removed [without even noting in the edit summary] while you moved some data and juxtaposed other unconnected information which served as original research to push an unsourced POV. What I also did was to revert your updates to the casualties, which did not correlate to the cited source, as well as removing the passage added by Annoynmous which had been previously removed by two other users. While it is commendable that you view consensus-building on Talk as important, simply leaving a message there is not the same as having consensus, especially when no one with an opposing viewpoint was even active there in the last week (only one other user even used the Talk, and to comment on a general principle unrelated to the edits which I reverted). I would be more than happy to have a discussion with you about including some of this new information, including updates to the numbers, but I sincerely hope that you can see what the problem with this last set of edits was. Additionally, please don't misuse charges of vandalismTewfikTalk18:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The revision difference that you link to proves my point. My point was "Basically you went back to this Dec. 21, 2006 revision:"
"The shooting of a 12-year-old Palestinian, Muhammad al-Durrah in 2000 figured prominently in the Arab and world media. For suggestions that the incident was staged, see See Muhammad al-Durrah#Controversy."
to
"The shooting of 12-year-old Palestinian Muhammad al-Durrah in 2000 figured prominently in the Arab and world media, although it was also surrounded by allegations of staging."
So you put back all the unsourced material discussed in the previous talk sections. That unsourced material is original research. It is against wikipedia policy to put unsourced material and original research in an article. You recombined the economic costs and casualties sections. What logic is there for that? You went back to much older casualty stats. The newer stats matched up with the stats at the source at the time the stats were added to the article. There are newer numbers now of course. As I said you made a messy, lazy, large edit. It may not have been intentional vandalism on your part. But if you do it again, then it could be considered to be vandalism. --Timeshifter01:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the unsourced material and I just put in the very latest death stats. 4046 Palestinians killed by Israelis. 1017 Israelis killed by Palestinians. Please do not put back in the unsourced material, and please do not recombine the 2 aforementioned sections. --Timeshifter01:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It is up to you to provide sources before putting back that unsourced material. From Wikipedia:Verifiability:
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
2. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. --Timeshifter01:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I changed the section name per Talk page guidelines. Secondly, as I said before, your posting to Talk when no one else has commented is not the same as consensus, and it is also not "material discussed in the previous talk sections" by anyone other than you, at least as far as the last week. Therefore, I reverted your additions, changes, and deletions, and I provided diffs above to show the major problems. Maybe you didn't realise, but the new numbers you added did not match the given citation, and while I'm not against separating the economic and human casualty sections, you should not remove a sourced passage about the internal Palestinian casualties, especially without even a mention in the edit summary or Talk of the removal. You also should not keep reverting wholesale to include the outright OR removed twice by Isarig and Humus sapiens. If you believe that I've reverted some other part of your work unfairly, please let me know which part.
I will try to separate the two sections, and since you keep making mention of unsourced material, perhaps you could make use of the {{cn}} citation request tag so that myself and others can know what you see as objectionable (while I found a link to the Haaretz article that you mentioned on Talk, keep in mind that print can also be cited). As for the casualty numbers, I disagree that the new B'Tselem report just added by Habitual gardner should be immediately accepted for the conflict box, especially as the past numbers in use here have been a compromise that also did not accept B'Tselem's at face value. Thus older [sourced, consensus] numbers will have to do until one of us can find newer sourced, consensus numbers. If you have another idea on how to approach this, please let me know. TewfikTalk04:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I returned the original talk section title. It does not violate any wikipedia guidelines. It is not a personal attack. It describes your actions, and not your character. It is not a personal insult. See the same wiki guideline page you referred to: Talk page guidelines. It says "Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details)." I will reply in more detail later. --Timeshifter06:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.
Tewfik, I also put this on your user talk page. You have reverted 3 times within 24 hours. You returned the same unsourced material 3 times. You put back the old casualty stats 3 times. You removed the same sourced material 3 times. --Timeshifter06:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this is the relevant section - I linked to the subsection above it accidentally. As for the warning, while I appreciate your concern, I am indeed aware of the three revert rule. I would really appreciate, however, if you would acknowledge the problems that I've pointed out with the lack of sourcing to some of your edits, the undisclosed removal of sourced information, and the repeated addition of a total OR section with which I do not even believe you disagree (not to mention the wholesale reversion of my grammatical and stylistic corrections). TewfikTalk06:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see that the guideline does not want a position to be taken in the section title. So I put my view on your deletions below the section title. The guideline says: "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."
You wrote: "Maybe you didn't realise, but the new numbers you added did not match the given citation." They did match the citation at the time they were added. Since then the number of deaths has gone up, and in my last edit I updated to the very latest death stats. In your last edit you deleted the up-to-date stats in this sourced sentence: "From September 29, 2000 to December 27 2006 there were 1,017 Israelis killed by Palestinians and 4,046 Palestinians killed by Israelis." You put back the very old stats again.
I can't help it if you don't know how to add the columns and rows on the source page to get the total numbers for the stats. You also deleted the hidden note I put in the infobox explaining how to do this. Why did you delete a helpful hidden note? I have many edits on the Iraq War casualties template and no one has complained about the helpful hidden notes started by others and expanded by me. Your editing problem is that in your zeal to revert to an 8-day old version of the article here you also revert almost every change since then. That is lazy editing on your part.
You wrote: "you should not remove a sourced passage about the internal Palestinian casualties." I did not removed any sourced material. You did.
You wrote: "You also should not keep reverting wholesale to include the outright OR removed twice by Isarig and Humus sapiens." I did not put back that OR (original research). I put in this sourced quote:
"But it turned out that according to calculations of the Shin Bet and by its own definitions, of the 2,341 Palestinians who were killed up to the beginning of August [2003] this year, 551 were terrorists, 'that is, bearing arms and explosives' (Ze'ev Schiff, Haaretz, August 8 2003). ... Here are the disastrous proportions, in the hope that someone in Israel will take notice: 80 percent of the Palestinians killed were not connected to armed actions."
I reported this sourced quote insertion in a previous talk section titled: "Shin Bet info on casualties." Do you read the talk page as requested in my edit summaries?
You wrote: "I disagree that the new B'Tselem report just added by Habitual gardner should be immediately accepted for the conflict box." He put that Haaretz article info in the 2006 section of the article. The conflict box has long used B'Tselem stats. Do you even bother to read the talk page at all here, or did you even read the hidden note in the conflict box before you deleted it? Do you read anything at all before you add your original research?
You have done this type of incoherent disruptive activity on another wikipedia page: Taba Summit. Your edit war there along with other users (not me) caused the page to be fully protected. I stopped reverting on that page several days before that page was fully protected. I followed the wikipedia rules and tried to get some honest discussion going on the talk page. After the page was fully protected I even put in an official request for comment. Maybe we need to do that here to stop your vandalism. Yes, I am calling it vandalism. It says on the page about assuming good faith: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." I have provided abundant evidence. --Timeshifter07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Tewfik, did you notice this template that has been at the top of the talk page for awhile?:
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
If you self-revert your last set of mass deletions, and mass inclusions of unsourced material, then admins may look more favorably on whether your actions are in good faith or not. Please pay particular attention to this sentence in the template: "Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles." --Timeshifter07:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I did not want to wait any longer for you to self-revert, so I corrected the page, and added this edit summary:
Put back updated deaths total. Removed unsourced material. See WP:V. "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." See talk. --Timeshifter09:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the communication breakdown is happening. I reexamined all my edits to ensure I that I hadn't missed something. What I found that you are indeed correct about the numbers meeting the original B'Tselem citation (I failed to add the secondary column), and so you have my apologies for saying that they did not. However, you have still repeatedly reinstituted your changes wholesale including:
continually removing a sourced passage without even making mention in the edit summary (or recording it on Talk, though you did then [oddly] say that I removed it)
continually removing references to newspaper articles with dates, publishers, and in one of the cases an author already provided without even a citation request (though a print reference would have been perfectly acceptable)
and continuing to mass-revert after I went ahead and found a url for the article, as well as also reverting my removal of weasel-wording, further cleanup and spelling corrections as well as my attempt to create the separation of "casualties" and "economic cost" sections with which you seemed concerned
Additionally, the brand-new B'Tselem numbers as the official statistics are controversial and need to be discussed, though I will let them stand for now in the interest of compromise. Additionally, I think that I have been quite civil to you, and I do not appreciate your continual misuse of the terms vandalism and original research regarding my reversion of your work, nor the continual claim that I am 'lazily mass-reverting', when I have worked hard to preserve noncontroversial edits, while seeing them mass-reverted by you. Please add {{cn}} citation requests to any information which you believe is unsourced, as I did to information which I challenge. I don't mean this to come across as hostile, but perhaps you should review your edits as I have mine. TewfikTalk06:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I see that you've mass reverted again to continue removing sourced information. I don't understand how you can continuously accuse me of "lazy" reversions when you've numerous times wholesale reverted including changes that have absolutely no potential to be controversial, when I continue to incorporate your discussion and compromise. Needless to say, this is quite unproductive. TewfikTalk07:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to figure out how to add up the B'Tselem columns and rows to get the death stats. No one is claiming any stats as "official". So stop acting like people are making that claim. Feel free to clarify it further in the article and infobox. By writing in "B'Tselem stats" or something similar. That is what is done in the casualties sections of other wikipedia pages. I listed some previously.
The quote from the Amira Hass editorial on casualties in Haaretz is sourced info, and is thus allowed in wikipedia. Stop deleting sourced material.
I did not remove any sourced material. The material you claim is sourced can't be found anywhere. When you find proof of the source, other than your word, then you can put it back in the wikipedia article.
I checked your latest edit. I reverted it with this edit summary: "Put back Solonium's fantastic casualties chart that Tewfik deleted. Removed yet again the unsourced material that Tewfik keeps reinserting in violation of wikipedia guidelines. See talk."
Deleting Solonium's casualties chart was pure vandalism on your part. It takes a lot of work to make such a chart. It is based on B'Tselem's casualty stats which this wikipedia page has been using a long time. --Timeshifter07:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Will archive old talk sections unless objections
I asked on December 13, 2006 in the talk section higher up titled "Proposal. Archive old talk?" if we could archive the old talk. If there are no objections I will go ahead and archive any sections that have not had any comments in the last few months. Are there any objections? --Timeshifter14:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Total number of Palestinians killed by Israelis (2000-2006): 4046
Total number of Israelis killed by Palestinians (2000-2006): 1017
It is clearly marked as to its source being B'Tselem. So it is not the official stats for Al-Aqsa Intifada. We can add other stats so that the readers have a choice of stats. That way there is even less appearance of any kind of "official" stats. That is what is done on the other casualty pages and sections I mentioned previously. --Timeshifter07:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
If all you wanted to do was to delete the chart, and discuss it more before we allow it, why did you not just delete the chart by itself? Instead of putting back all the other unsourced info too. I will correct this. The chart will be deleted until we discuss it further. Please do not revert again, or your true motives are obvious. In assuming good faith it says: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."
Humus sapiens and Tewfik. Now that I put back in the section below that has a newly-added reference link, can we also put back this referenced chart? --Timeshifter12:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
and more so there shouldn't be a problem citing the report on wikipedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Solonium (talk • contribs).
Hi Solonium,
There isn't a problem with citing the report, and there is actually already a paragraph about it in the "Casualties" section. The problem would be with dedicating space to replicating the linked chart, which would give undue weight to this controversial set of numbers, especially as it is now extremely new and so there are no specific critiques of it available yet. TewfikTalk21:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I returned the chart, but I did not make it any more prominent than the other stats in the casualties section. I got rid of the bold text. All stats are controversial, Tewfik. Including the ones you put in the section. WP:NPOV solves the problem of controversial info by putting in all significant viewpoints, and letting the readers decide. Anything else is favoring one particular viewpoint. I apologized for mistakenly deleting your preferred stats, Tewfik, once I noticed that you had finally sourced the stats. I would appreciate you returning the favor, leaving in all sourced stats, and following the wikipedia guidelines. Also, B'Tselem has been compiling stats a long time, and so they are not as you say "extremely new". I have seen that chart being updated for years. The fact that the stats are in chart form does not make them ineligible for wikipedia. In fact wikipedia readers, editors, and guidelines encourage charts, images, etc.. See the Iraq War casualties page. It has a couple charts. The top chart is on other pages, too. I have been working on that page, and other casualty pages, for awhile. Along with many other people. --Timeshifter11:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Palestinian Intrafada info
This seems to be a mess and in need of a rewrite, and more specific references. The info does not match up with the links. And I think it needs to be in a subsection of the Casualties section.
The Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group reports that everyday disagreements and clashes between the various political factions, families and cities paints a complete picture of Palestinian society. These divisions have during the course of the al Aqsa Intifada also led to an increasingly violent 'Intrafada'. In the 10 year period from 1993 to 2003, 16% of Palestinian civilian deaths were caused by Palestinian groups or individuals.[1]Freedom House's annual survey of political rights and civil liberties, Freedom in the World 2001-2002, reports Civil liberties declined due to: shooting deaths of Palestinian civilians by Palestinian security personnel; the summary trial and executions of alleged collaborators by the Palestinian Authority (PA); extra-judicial killings of suspected collaborators by militias; and the apparent official encouragement of Palestinian youth to confront Israeli soldiers, thus placing them directly in harm's way.
--Timeshifter11:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC). The paragraph was unclear as to sourcing and who said what. I rewrote some of it and put it in the casualties section of the article. Here is what I have so far:
Concerning the killing of Palestinians by other Palestinians a January 2003 Humanist article [2] reports:
According to Freedom House's annual survey of political rights and civil liberties, Freedom in the World 2001-2002, the chaotic nature of the intifada along with strong Israeli reprisals has resulted in a deterioration of living conditions for Palestinians in Israeli-administered areas. The survey states:
Civil liberties declined due to: shooting deaths of Palestinian civilians by Palestinian security personnel; the summary trial and executions of alleged collaborators by the Palestinian Authority (PA); extra-judicial killings of suspected collaborators by militias; and the apparent official encouragement of Palestinian youth to confront Israeli soldiers, thus placing them directly in harm's way.
I found the article on the Humanist site, so I used its URL instead of the URL used before which was for the copy of the article elsewhere.
Still working on the other info. We need it in quote form, I believe. Because otherwise it is unclear as to source, spin, etc.. --Timeshifter11:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I found the original source of the 16% figure and put that quote in the casualties section:
The Humanist article also reports: "For over a decade the PA has violated Palestinian human rights and civil liberties by routinely killing civilians—including collaborators, demonstrators, journalists, and others—without charge or fair trial. Of the total number of Palestinian civilians killed during this period by both Israeli and Palestinian security forces, 16 percent were the victims of Palestinian security forces." --Timeshifter12:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I also added this:
Internal Palestinian violence has been called an ‘Intra’fada during this Intifada and the previous one. [3]
I put this info below back in the article. My edit summary: "Oops. My bad. I see that some of the previously unsourced info has recently had a reference link added. I put back that info. See talk concerning the rest."
On August 24, 2004, Haaretz reporter Zeev Schiff published casualty figures based on Shin Bet data. Here is a summary of the figures presented in the article:
Some 1,001 Israelis were killed by Palestinian attacks in the al-Aqsa Intifada, most of them (more than 75%) civilians.
Palestinians sources claim 2,736 Palestinians killed in the intifada.
The Shin Bet has the names of 2,124 Palestinian dead.
Out of the figure of 2,124 dead, 1,414 (or 66%) were said to be combatants (armed men and/or "terrorists"). The casualties are thus assigned to organizations:
Here is the December 29, 2006 revision difference where you first added the reference link. So many other additions of unsourced material were added, and removals of sourced material, that I did not notice. That is why I ask you to stop these mass reversions, and to discuss the individual parts here on the talk page. There is a section for almost each part here on the talk page. Much confusion could be avoided. We could get a lot more done. --Timeshifter12:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that you are finally reading through my edits and Talk. I pointed out exactly what I did four times in Talk, and most of my edits each incorporated different changes to your wholesale reversions, but in the interests of compromise, I will ignore your previous remarks calling my edits "lazy" and "mean-spirited," of course hoping that you recognise why that is inappropriate. However, while you've finally altered your reversion slightly, you are still reverting all of my noncontroversial edits (spelling, wfy, weasel-wording, my alteration to the note). Your version also keeps adding the Amira Hass editorial (in case my previous Talk wasn't sufficiently clear about what the problem is, there is no reason for us to give undue weight to an opinion piece in a section discussing the various numbers), and removing the Maariv numbers without so much as a citation request tag. As for the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group section, could you detail what problem you see, perhaps also making use of a {{cn}}? TewfikTalk18:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
In my last edit today of the casualty section I took special care not to revert the minor changes you made such as typos, spelling, clarification, etc.. It must be said though that you rarely took special care to avoid reverting my minor edits typos, spelling, clarification. That being said though, let us both start to use the talk page more so we can avoid these problems. I really think much of the problem is due to confusion.
I removed all the remaining unsourced material today from the casualties section. See WP:V. "it may be challenged or removed by any editor." You have had plenty of time to find sources for that remaining material. For weeks now sources have been asked for in specific discussion sections on this talk page.
I have no "preferred stats" - you arrived at this article and began to remove sourced and mostly sourced (everything but 'title') uncontroversial information without so much as a citation request or any discussion with others, a point that I have repeatedly attempted to get across. I do not appreciate your claim that I "rarely took special care to avoid reverting [your] minor edits typos, spelling, clarification" when the edit history is quite clear and when I pointed out that you were mass reverting uncontroversial material multiple times - this is not a game of being right, lets please just follow the policies. And yes, Amira Hass's editorial is sourced, and would be a great inclusion on Amira Hass' views on the al-Aqsa Intifada, but it is not an objective piece which should be included alongside the work of statisticians. I have this time "mass reverted" as you are continually removing the same information, with the exception of the expansion to the "Intrafada" reference, a reference which I added after you simply removed the passage without so much as a citation request - that is something which needs to stop. Please, please use the proper channels and work together. TewfikTalk10:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
January 5, 2007 reversions
In your last comment you wrote:
I have this time "mass reverted"
So you admit it. I have not purposely removed any sourced material on this page. I apologized when I did so by accident. I corrected some poorly sourced info (the Intrafada material). On the other hand you have repeatedly removed sourced material. The IBC chart, the Amira Hass info, etc.. Without apologies at all. In fact, you do it defiantly, and with prejudice, and while removing totally uncontroversial minor edits, too, as in your last revert. You just reverted updated Palestine Red Crescent Society stats. A source you approve. You just reverted the much clearer Intrafada info to a poorly sourced unclear version that you later tried to fix, but did not succeed at. That makes no sense at all. In your zeal to mass revert you are destroying collaboration on this page, and scaring off excellent editors such as the creator of the IBC chart. Wikipedia:Assume good faith says:
"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."
My latest edit summary: "Revert. I took incredible care to not change any of your minor edits. Whereas you reverted all of mine in one click, and added nothing new. See talk. Admins, please help."
I will probably be reporting you for blanking and reverting soon. Also for repeatedly reinserting unsourced material. I notice other people mentioning some of these problems on your talk pages.
Pick out the appropriate warning templates from here:
And please respect Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and stop editing other people's comments. That means stop removing your name from the section titles. Such as the one about your Dec. 28, 2006 reversions. User names are allowed in talk section titles. As long as it not biased. It is strictly descriptive. It is your deletions that are being discussed. Thus the title of the talk section. --Timeshifter20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Reversions of January 5, 2006
Humus sapiens. You did the exact same thing as Tewfik. I make the same objections. Could you reply please to all my points in the above section? In a previous message concerning the B'Tselem chart you wrote:
"This statistics is highly controversial and POV. Instead, we should follow WP:NPOV."
You never explained why. Could you explain why? I note on your talk page that you are an admin. I point you to this page of casualty statistics: Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003. All casualty stats are included there. That is the NPOV solution there. Why not here? Why do we favor some stats here by including them, and disfavor others by not including them here? NPOV page says:
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias."
"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."
Since some biased POV-pushing editors will not allow stats to be put in the article in chart form except in the infobox, how will the B'Tselem stats be put in the chart? Or will these censoring editors selectively put in some stats, but not others? They have continually blocked most of the B'Tselem stats for a long time now. Rather than put them in the article in the form they prefer, they just delete them. Wikipedia rules say editors should edit first, instead of deleting first.
Solonium, we may have to go to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in order to stop this violation of the NPOV rules by these 2 editors. I suggest people read some of the previous incident discussion there to understand the POV posses that form up in order to violate wikipedia guidelines. Some people don't seem capable of setting aside their POVs and letting the NPOV rules here be respected.
Anybody know how to make wikipedia templates, userboxes, banners, etc.? I want some with the slogan "Meatpuppets for NPOV!
I think we sometimes have to fight fire with fire. It seems that various groups on wikipedia are recruiting for their "side" or ideology, and just don't understand NPOV. --Timeshifter17:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Where and how shall Amira Hass info on casualty stats be put in the article?
Tewfik wrote: "And yes, Amira Hass's editorial is sourced, and would be a great inclusion on Amira Hass' views on the al-Aqsa Intifada, but it is not an objective piece which should be included alongside the work of statisticians."
Where will the POV-pusher Tewfik allow us to put in this sourced info in the article:
"But it turned out that according to calculations of the Shin Bet and by its own definitions, of the 2,341 Palestinians who were killed up to the beginning of August [2003] this year, 551 were terrorists, 'that is, bearing arms and explosives' (Ze'ev Schiff, Haaretz, August 8 2003). ... Here are the disastrous proportions, in the hope that someone in Israel will take notice: 80 percent of the Palestinians killed were not connected to armed actions."
No one else has objected to the sourced version of this being in the article, I believe. At least I have seen no objections on the talk page concerning the sourced version. --Timeshifter17:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Three of the last four editors involved (including the both of us in the four) have removed that passage... I appreciate your frustration at not being able to include what you feel is a relevant piece, but that does not give licence to name-calling and the intimidating headers which you keep adding (consider that I could have taken the position that they should be titled "Timeshifter's removal of sourced information and addition of POV/undue weight", since those were the edits that I reverted - surely you can understand what is wrong with this method of communication).
As for the actual substance of the edits, as I said before, the Hass editorial has no place alongside the various sets of numbers, nor does any other opinion-piece. She is neither providing new numbers, nor is she at all qualified to provide an analysis of the numbers.
The B'Tselem numbers do have a place in the article, however there is no reason that they should get three places. They are currently employed in the conflictbox, and have a paragraph dedicated to their release and conclusions. Further presenting a large and formal reproduction of a chart easily retreivable by merely clicking on the link lends undue weight within the article to this one point of view over all others.
You are the only editor removing the sourced Amira Hass quote. Previous editors removed the unsourced version. My frustration is in your continual removal of sourced info from 2 different articles on the Arab-Israel conflict in an obvious POV-favoring way. In both articles you did not answer my question about where to put the sourced info in the article. You said you did not like it being in certain places in both articles. But did not answer my question about where it should go. I will be reporting your actions to the appropriate incident boards.
As usual you ignored the substance of my comment concerning the B'Tselem numbers. I asked where the additional overall B'Tselem stats should go, and in what form. You obfuscated again, and talked about the main stat of total deaths, and the 2006 stats in the article. The chart has overall stats which are not in the article. I will be including this refusal to allow sourced info also in my report to the appropriate incident boards. --Timeshifter00:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can see my specific replies as obfuscations, but I'm certainly attempting to be quite clear. The Amira Hass editorial should not appear alongside actual analysis and sets of numbers from experts, just like no other opinion piece should be mixed with the data. The B'Tselem numbers have an entire paragraph dedicated to the newest report alone, and there is no need to duplicate the linked chart in this article, which lends undue weight to this set of numbers above all others. If you really believe these concerns to be illegitimate, then by all means approach someone else, but please do not threaten or misrepresent either my actions or those of other editors on Talk. TewfikTalk19:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I am talking to you, not other editors. Haaretz reporter Amira Hass references her info by referring to her expert sources. Amira Hass references Shin Bet. Her info is as valid, or more valid, than the questionable organizations and their stats that you have allowed in the article. Such as the stats from the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism. Or the unsourced stats supposedly from Maariv. You allowed Haaretz reporter Zeev Schiff and his report on casualty stats in the article. But not Haaretz reporter Amira Hass.
"But it turned out that according to calculations of the Shin Bet and by its own definitions, of the 2,341 Palestinians who were killed up to the beginning of August [2003] this year, 551 were terrorists, 'that is, bearing arms and explosives' (Ze'ev Schiff, Haaretz, August 8 2003). ... Here are the disastrous proportions, in the hope that someone in Israel will take notice: 80 percent of the Palestinians killed were not connected to armed actions."
Wikipedia does not require that editors agree with POVs, only that they include all significant POVs. In the form of "X says Y". Amira Hass is a significant viewpoint. Click her name: Amira Hass.
You still haven't answered this question about the latest B'Tselem numbers: In what form will you allow the latest overall B'Tselem numbers in the article? I am not talking about the 2006 numbers. I am talking about the totals for the whole conflict. Why are you blocking these numbers? You are violating WP:NPOV by blocking sourced info from a particular viewpoint. Wikipedia asks people to discuss things with editors before taking disputes to incident boards. That is what I am doing. I am following Wikipedia procedure before going to an incident board. Probably this one:
So if I take this info below out of chart form, and put it in prose form, will you block it? And if so, what will be your reason? You have already included longterm info from the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism. Also from Haaretz reporter Zeev Schiff. It is in list form. So lists are OK, but not charts? OK, then if I put the B'Tselem stats in list form you will not block it?
From September 29, 2000 to December 27 2006 there were 1,017 Israelis killed by Palestinians and 4,046 Palestinians killed by Israelis. Source for chart below is B'Tselem[6]
Occupied Territories
Israel
Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces
3944
61
Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians
41
0
Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians
235
466
Israeli security force personnel killed by Palestinians
229
87
Foreign citizens killed by Palestinians
17
36
Foreign citizens killed by Israeli security forces
10
0
Palestinians killed by Palestinians
223
0
B'Tselem reports that there were 118 "Palestinians killed by Palestinians for suspected collaboration with Israel." [6]
Here is info already in the article in list form:
On August 24, 2004, Haaretz reporter Zeev Schiff published casualty figures based on Shabak data.[7] Here is a summary of the figures presented in the article:
Some 1,001 Israelis were killed by Palestinian attacks in the al-Aqsa Intifada, most of them (more than 75%) civilians.
Palestinians sources claim 2,736 Palestinians killed in the intifada.
The Shin Bet has the names of 2,124 Palestinian dead.
Out of the figure of 2,124 dead, 1,414 (or 66%) were said to be combatants (armed men and/or "terrorists"). The casualties are thus assigned to organizations:
334 of Arafat's guard Force 17, the Palestinian police and the General Intelligence
So unless there are legitimate objections based on Wikipedia guidelines, then the B'Tselem stats need to be in the article. Don't you agree? Or do you have any legitimate objections? Based on wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter21:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately it is hard to find a reliable source of statistics acceptable to all sides. Therefore we list several. Among them is B'Tselem, a controversial political advocacy group. We mention their numbers but we should not give them too much prominence and take their POV. ←Humus sapiensну?22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I'm puzzled as to what is unclear about this. Amira Hass's editorial does not belong alongside the statistics. The Ze'ev Schiff report on the Israeli statistics which she quotes could be included, and the 2004 version of that report is in fact included (though you seem to question the reliability of it despite Amira Hass's quoting). The B'Tselem numbers are included in both the conflictbox and in their own dedicated paragraph. However duplicating the linked chart on this page in addition to those lends undue weight. I am not sure what you meant by "I am talking to you, not other editors", but I still request that you both not misrepresent the actions of myself or other editors, and that you maintain a more calm and civil tone. TewfikTalk22:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The Amira Hass quote reports on the number of combatants versus civilians killed. From Shin Bet info. She is reporting. All casualty stats are controversial. WP:NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints be included. I edit several casualty pages. I know what I am talking about, because I have had numerous discussions about it on other talk pages. Sometimes we had to go to admins or an incident board to resolve things. People are understandably highly opinionated about casualty stats and conflict pages. I do my very best to put out balanced info, stats, and opinions on stats. From all sourced significant viewpoints. I am on a mission from God. Just kidding. :)
You two are currently blocking the most recent and comprehensive B'Tselem stats in any form, chart or otherwise. That has got to stop. Feel free to put the B'Tselem chart stats on the page in any form you want. But wikipedia guidelines require that those stats be in the article. Not just the total deaths. But the breakdown of those total deaths also. That kind of info is what encyclopedia readers are interested in. They should not just be getting comprehensive stats mainly from ShabakShin Bet and the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism.
The article is not currently balanced as concerns casualties. And all casualties sections and articles have criticism too. So the Amira Hass info has to be in the article for that reason too. You can't have unsourced Maariv info, and then block sourced Haaretz criticism. WP:NPOV requires putting out fairly all significant viewpoints. --Timeshifter01:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the article, in its present form, does not appear to be balanced. If the details from the Schiff article to be included, then surely the B'Tselem information should be incorporated as well. Neither source appears to be definitive, and we should strive to attain some measure of balance between them.
I'd recommend including both charts in the footnotes section, or both in the main body of the article. Either outcome would be acceptable, as long as we're consistent.
A question for Timeshifter: are there any other sections of the article where you believe the Amira Hass quote would be appropriate? CJCurrie06:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. If we could find good sources for the latest Shin Bet numbers in detail, then we could put them in the main casualties section. Then the Amira Hass analysis of those numbers could go in a subsection titled "analysis" or "controversies" or "criticisms" or ... Other analysis could go there too such as the Intrafada info. This way we could put the stats in the main section, and the differing analyses of those stats in the analysis subsection. --Timeshifter07:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Amira Hass is "famous for living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and reporting on events from the Palestinian perspective". It would be wrong to treat her editorials as neutral.
B'Tselem is a political advocacy group. Hardly neutral.
The casualty statistics (as tragic as it is) is not an objective metric. The numbers are an important aspect in this complex asymmetric conflict, but we see evidence that they are too often (mis)interpreted to lead the reader to one-sided conclusions. Unfortunately, those who insist on giving B'Tselem & Hass undue prominence seem to be trying to accomplish just that. ←Humus sapiensну?02:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV states: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." --Timeshifter11:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I have changed my mind. Since all the stats are controversial, and not neutral, then they should all go in the main casualties section, and not have some of them separated out into a subsection. See this excerpt below from a wikipedia guideline page section:
Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other. --Timeshifter01:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Its very nice that a chart was put together, but anyone can access it on the B'Tselem website by following one of the two appearing references; including this third reproduction of that data, while a summary of the report and its conclusions already exists on this page would be giving it undue weight. I'm sure you would agree to the point if a second section was devoted to the Shabak numbers. And I'm not clear what you changed your mind about...
. TewfikTalk06:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed a studious lack of understanding on your part about most of my points - even after explaining them several times. So I am not surprised that you are not clear.
. Is it intentional or natural on your part? I would not mind a second section devoted to the Shabak numbers. But only if you were to allow a single insertion of the overall B'Tselem numbers in some form or another. Since you and Humus are blocking sourced info I guess I will have to go to the appropriate incident boards. I have made the necessary attempts at discussion as required by Wikipedia. Yet you both continue to come up with bogus reasons to block the info. Reasons not allowed by wikipedia. Such as claims that the info has to be neutral. Yet the info you two do allow in is not neutral. I rest my case. --Timeshifter08:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Please don't make uncivil statements like "Is [lack of understanding] intentional or natural on your part?", even if you do juxtapose them with a smiley. While I'm glad to see that you would have sections devoted to all sets of numbers, it would not be encyclopaedic to have either, which is why I have insisted on limiting the mention to the whole paragraph which deals exclusively with the B'Tselem report, and excluding the chart which is easily accessible through the provided link. I don't appreciate the charges of 'inventing reasons to keep out your information', but you are certainly welcome to solicit a neutral third party. TewfikTalk00:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
You still are not answering the question about why you and Humus are violating the wikipedia WP:NPOV guidelines about including criticisms such as by Amira Hass. Criticism is not allowed in the casualty section according to you and Humus. You are both in violation of wikipedia guidelines that I have quoted from previously in this section and other talk sections.
Another problem is that the Shabak breakdown of Palestinian deaths by group does not say whether these people were fighting at the time of their death. To be a member of a group (according to Shabak) does not mean they were combatants at the time they were killed by Israeli fire. That is a criticism not found in the casualties section.
Another problem is that the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism stats say a certain percentage of the Palestinian deaths were combatants, but there is no criticism or analysis of that in the casualties section. How do they get their stats? What are the criticisms of their methodology? --Timeshifter03:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Criticism might be allowed, but an editorial by a partisan non-expert is not. There are dozens of opinion pieces criticising B'Tselem, yet they are by and large not RS for this article, and vice versa. TewfikTalk07:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Amira Hass is a well-known reporter at Haaretz reporting on stats in a critical way. That is considered a reliable source (RS) according to wikipedia. Look at these wikipedia pages below for many similar examples of editorial reporters writing about stats in a critical way. From many different POVs:
From WP:RS: "Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view.
From WP:NPOV: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology."
From WP:NPOV: "Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."
Currently the article is biased towards the Shabak and International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism stats for the percentage of civilian Palestinian casualties. Amira Hass points out other interpretations of civilian stats. --Timeshifter09:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The only criticism which currently exists in the section comes from academic, expert sources. By all means do some research and find similar criticism of whatever you'd like, but including an opinion piece by a partisan non-expert, however notable she may be as an editorialist, simply is not neutral. I'm sure you would have a similar objection where someone to include some scathing editorial of B'Tselem's numbers etc. (in the examples you provided I saw either expert sources quoted or articles that elicited a specific response from the numbers' compilers; if indeed there are opinion pieces which I missed, then they should not be there) TewfikTalk17:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Shabak/Shin Bet and International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (IPICT) are partisan sources. Their expertness is questionable, too. Currently, neither Shabak/Shin Bet nor IPICT have the stats on their sites. Maybe because they are embarrassed to have put out stats that seem partisan, inaccurate, and possibly deceptive. Their methods are not explained. They don't say whether the Palestinian casualties that were past members of militant groups were combatants at the time of their deaths. They leave that hanging. This should be noted in the wikipedia article, or otherwise wikipedia is inferring also that these Palestinians were combatants. The same is true of the August 24, 2004 article by Haaretz reporter Zeev Schiff.
You are POV-favoring, and violating wikipedia policies by this favoring of certain partisan sources - by not allowing other sourced info, stats, and criticisms. I have no problem with sourced scathing criticisms of any stats. There are plenty of such scathing criticisms on the other wikipedia casualty stats pages I linked to previously.
The Shabak/Shin Bet and IPICT info comes from other sites that have copied parts of their old stat reports. This is not normally acceptable for use as a source by wikipedia. See WP:RS
I am building up a case here for when I go to the wikipedia incident boards. And they require that I make an attempt at resolving issues first on the talk page. --Timeshifter08:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop "threatening" me with reports and such. I have told you several times that you should feel free to seek a third party if you wish, but I'm not going to change my position as a result of intimidation.
Now as I said in my edit summary, there are many things which the article doesn't mention, and it isn't up to you or me or any user to add in the tidbit that we think is relevant. On the other hand, if some other RS criticised this set of numbers for that reason, then including that critique would be valid. My position on the other points is clear above, and I won't burden you with a repetition. I can appreciate that it may be frustrating since I have challenged many of your edits, but I genuinely hope that you'll really understand what the problem is, and thus be able to make a greater contribution both to this article and the encyclopaedia as a whole. TewfikTalk23:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
In your favor you have allowed me to correct various errors after I objected sufficiently on the talk page to your violations of various wikipedia guidelines. So the wikipedia Dispute resolution process has been working to some degree. With enough prodding I have been able to help you, as you say, "understand what the problem is, and thus be able to make a greater contribution both to this article and the encyclopaedia as a whole." I am glad to be of such service to you, and I will continue to point out to you, and other readers, your violations of wikipedia guidelines, and sometimes may find it necessary to point out the appropriate incident boards also. I am sorry that you feel that pointing out wikipedia guidelines and incident boards and dispute resolution processes are a threat. They are not. In your service, yours truly, --Timeshifter10:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
i tried to add Abbas and Haniyeh, because they are current pal president and prime minister. should mesh'al, sheikh ahmad yassin, or other figures be added? Peace. --Nielswik(talk)05:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Truce
The war is considered over, who keeps editing this to make it ongoing?
The conflict isn't over. Just last week there was a suicide bombing in Eilat. It's more calmed now because the Palestinian factions are quarreling, but unfortunately it's still ongoing. Krynnish Conspiracy20:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I think there are more accusations, I just need to start spending some time. But clearly I see no attempt whatosever in merging on this page, while it was constantly argued on the talk of the recently deleted article that there was going to be a merger. But let's work from now not the pastBless sins20:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) I removed the "Accusations of violation of international law". We shouldn't create such sections, especially when the parts of their content that are relevant are already integrated into the article body. TewfikTalk20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Where in the body were the specific facts that I included already integrated? I assume this, since you deleted my additions, instead of moving them.Bless sins20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
That Israel is criticised for its "administrative detention" is noted in the article (albeit in an extremely POV manner). The AI criticism which you provided refers to Lebanon and has nothing to do with the al-Aqsa intifada, other than it occurred three months before the latter commences. I know that you are aware of OR etc. - please don't do it (and I appreciate that we like to keep each other informed, but don't you think this is a bit much: "I see you're active on the article. I'm still waiting for a response") TewfikTalk06:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I see your argument, which is a legititmate one. I guess this should be moved to another article. However, i don't think that htis is OR. I sourced what I inserted. About my notes on your talk page, I got a little impatient seeing you active but not responding to my questions.Bless sins21:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Sourced information can still be OR when we draw original conclusions from it - its one of the trickier parts of the policy, but one we should all be aware of. I didn't mind your notes per se, but my point was that you left them during a period that I wasn't active, with the exception of the last which you left as soon as I had made my first edit (and on this Talk as well =D). Cheers, TewfikTalk16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The article states: "The draft law would allow the Chief of General Staff of Israel's armed forces to imprison indefinitely without charge or trial any person who is a member of a force fighting against Israel or who participates in hostile activities of such a force, if they are not entitled to prisoner of war status."
The Amnesty International criticism is of that law. Its criticism and its mention of the Geneva Conventions are not mentioned in the article in reference to this law.
It can be made clear in the article that Amnesty International's criticism came before this Intifada. And it is not "a bit much" to ask you to explain your editing. Several times you have deleted sourced material I have put in a couple articles, and then disappeared for a few days, only to come back and delete it again. All while not explaining your edits. Or only explaining them in one line cryptic messages and edit summaries using your personal system of acronyms. --Timeshifter09:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Below is the sourced info that Tewfik deleted. I pulled out the reference link:
In June of 2002, Israel's Knesset debated and passed a bill which allowed for indefinite detention of people suspected of being combatants against Israel - a bill which the Amnesty International called an attempt to undermine the Geneva Conventions.
So who deleted it? I may file a complaint at the appropriate incident board as to the process used to delete it. I don't mind it being deleted if it followed wikipedia procedures, and it allowed for a merge.
But it seems to me that it was deleted unilaterally in spite of no consensus and no record of admin-only voting. And it was done in such a way that the material (in effect) was censored so that it could not be found and merged.
Wikipedia should not work unilaterally like that. I want to file a complaint against the wikipedia editor(s) or admin(s) that did this.
Material can not be merged if the material can no longer be found. Where is it? I found an old version here at Answers.com:
I suggest people save that page, in case Answers.com follows wikipedia's lead in deleting it.
I want to see the latest version that was on wikipedia. It is not possible to easily copy material from
Answers.com since we can not access the wiki code that was originally used. --Timeshifter23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Timeshifter, no one deleted anything. The content of the article can be found in its page history, like every other article on Wikipedia. TewfikTalk03:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I see no page history for the article. The article link redirects to this article. So where is the old article? Do you have a link for the page history? I need the specific URL. --Timeshifter10:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I have discovered at Talk:Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada that you, Tewfik, admit to deleting the article and redirecting it. Tewfik, you are not an admin, and you have no right to delete the article and redirect the link to Al-Aqsa Intifada. It is illegal according to WP:MERGE. You did not follow the procedure outlined there. Please revert your illegal redirect. On the other talk page you further claim that there is nothing that needs to be merged. You, Tewfik, have a history of deleting sourced material. For further info anybody can see my longstanding Request for Comment concerning Taba Summit. For more info see Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict. I have been discussing Tewfik's questionable editing on several pages since December 2006. --Timeshifter11:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I've tolerated your incivility quite long enough, but I don't intend to engage in any nonconstructive discussion. I suggest you review the policy, review the talk, and cool down, else I don't anticipate working together here at all. TewfikTalk17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I am calm, and I am civil. As I have said previously I am sorry that you are offended by my pointing out of wikipedia policies that you are violating. It seems that you can't or won't answer the question about what the URL is to find the deleted material. So your previous claim that there is such a location is unsubstantiated. I am following the wikipedia dispute resolution process by talking to you first before possibly taking your wikipedia violations to the appropriate incident boards. --Timeshifter00:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The protected redirect blocks view of the article. So it can not be merged
I had to go to the 3RR incident board to find the code to use to create this:
The redirect has since been protected by an unknown admin who did not discuss their protection of the redirect on the talk pages. I hope to hear an explanation for this protected redirect by this admin, and I hope this admin can explain how the page is to be merged if it can not be found. One can not view the article by clicking any of the page history links. All go to a page saying
Still can not access revisions from page history. Click the history link, and then try opening up any revision to see what I mean. Until a few minutes ago it said it was protected. But now it does not say it is protected, but still can not access any of the page history revisions. --Timeshifter21:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The protection of the redirect has now been removed by Tizio. See this revision difference. I copied the last revision by Bless sins and pasted it here:
Here is the last revision by Bless sins. It is the last complete version of the article. I could not open up the link until the protection was lifted on February 19, 2007 by Tizio. --Timeshifter12:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
An archive needed for the page to be merged
I suggest an archive page be created here. It can be labeled something like "old page: Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada"
I put a link to it in the archive box at the top of the current talk page.
I suggest that an admin copy the most complete version of the old article into the archive. Probably the last revision by Bless sins would be best. That way we can copy what we want from the old page into Al-Aqsa Intifada. --Timeshifter02:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, just as we're not going to say "Israeli Jews", there is no point in saying "Palestinian Arabs". Besides, if there were any non-Arab Palestinians, then they were also part of the conflict. "Uri Davis" describnes himself as an "anti-Zionist", quite opposed to Israel.Bless sins06:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the spirit of Bless sins change was that it would be offensive and incorrect to introduce the article with a sentence similar to this in the first paragraph: "The al-Aqsa Intifada is the wave of violence that began in September 2000 between Arabs and Jews."
It is more accurate to say "between Palestinians and Israelis." Actually the most accurate would be "between some Palestinians and some Israelis". Many other Palestinians and many other Israelis think some of their combatant compatriots are fanatic fundamentalists who want theocratic governments in their respective nations. I would like to see some sourced quotes on that. Because it is true. And it would provide some more balance to the article.
For a long time the explanation for the name "Al-Aqsa" kept being deleted from the article. I could never understand that except in the context that some editors do not even want the Islamic point of view and roots of this conflict acknowledged. And the religious significance of Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount keeps getting downplayed in the article. As in he did not really know how inflammatory his visit would be. I would like to see more sourced quotes on that too. This article needs to respect WP:NPOV and show all significant viewpoints and stop whitewashing and covering up the POVs of all the people involved in this conflict.
The fact is that their are many elements to this conflict. Religious, territorial, nationalism, infighting, brinkmanship, etc.. Combined with politics internal to Palestine and Israel. The most obvious angle left out is that Ariel Sharon and Hamas need each other since neither wanted Oslo to go anywhere. The extremists on each side wanted to scuttle the middle path. I would like to see some sourced info on that too. As in "The al-Aqsa Intifada is the wave of violence that escalated dramatically starting in September 2000 between the more-religious elements of Palestine and Israel who did not want the middle path of the Oslo process and the Road Map. All with the tacit approval of the fundamentalist-supported President George Bush who believed he was fulfilling the beliefs of the Rapture wackos in the Republican Party."
I invite you to present your specific objections to the sources I cited in the paragraph you attempted to delete under tactics regarding non-violent resistance techniques used by Palestinians. At the very least, you could simply replace allegedly objectionable sources with a fact needed citation and leave the text I worked hard to prepare. Please stop. Tiamut00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate that you put effort into preparing the passage, but you cannot expect me to take seriously a passage phrased to suggest that the major tactics of the al-Aqsa Intifada were nonviolent, and then place that before any mention of suicide bombings and such. Morover, many of the sources and/or the assertions they are supposed to support are problematic.
[8] Is a nice general discussion of nonviolence, but makes no specific reference to this conflict. Even excepting the biased tone of the narrative, that "long history" etc. is not really relevant here.
[9] This link proves that some parties call for nonviolence, but its extremely biased tone and non-objective representation of facts make it a bad source for actual occurrences.
[10] similar to the last link, this is good for documenting that there is a call for nonviolence, but not much else.
[11] This is a totally POV source that mischaracterises an event known for its weekly violence.
I suggest that if you want to write a broad summary, you do so using news-media or scholarly papers that qualify as RS, preferably from objective third-parties. TewfikTalk01:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that if you want to avoid being reported for repeatedly vandalising my work, that you abide by my suggestion to keep the text intact, remove the links to sources you find objectionable and place fact needed citations and let me work from there. My additions were not lies and they provide balance to that section on Palestiniant tactics which currently only mentions violent acts as if there were no popular non-violent resistance. Tiamut10:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Last time I checked the lead, it stated this intifada was a war against Israel, not a non-violent peace movement. Your additions appeared to clearly violate NPOV and RS. —Viriditas | Talk02:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
See: http://www.answers.com/intifada&r=67 and see that "intifada" represents both violent and nonviolent protest and resistance. "In 1952, citizens of Baghdad engaged in a series of large-scale protests against the Iraqi government, widely referred to as 'the Intifada'."
Also, from that article:
"Intifada of Independence" is also the term used by the Lebanese media to refer to the events that occurred after Rafiq Hariri's assassination. It is also known as the "Cedar Revolution". --Timeshifter07:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Tiamut, your version was predicated on and filled with unsourced claims, and used pretty weak sources, most of them non-reliable. "The vast majority is non-violent"? Find a reliable source for that claim. Jayjg (talk)19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, your entirely partial intervention ignoring the discussion in progress just above on the issue of reliability is quite respectfully, and yet wholly unwelcome. I continue to work to understand what you (and Tewfik) mean by reliable sources, (in particular after your defence of the Mr. Daniel Pipes as a reliable source for the article on the Palestinian people, who Pipes argues do not exist). I guess that the non-violent Palestinian peace center who did a historical and present-day review of Palestinian resistance [14]doesn't make the grade for you. Or did you not see it since Tewfik reverted. I will work to find others. But for now, considering that the rest of the section lacks sources - I have placed fact needed citations where appropriate - I suggest you work on that and let me work on finding sources that pass your unbelievably POV way of evaluating credibility. In particular, can you find a source that support that the involvement of people in the activities of militant groups is greater than their involvement in non-violent activities? I don't think you will be able to, since general strikes are common and involve tens of thousands of people, whereas guerilla cells number much less and carry out faw fewer activities. Please restore to my most recent edit, thank you. Tiamut19:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this message which you left on my Talk, I hurried to this page to see if maybe you had left a Talk message just after I had left or something to that effect. I found that my last edit was four hours prior, so that the claim that I was currently editing and intentionally not responding is totally wrong, not to mention the inherent assumption of bad faith. What you believe I was ignoring is also unclear, since I had left a response detailing all of my objections to the sources used above per your request, and the only Talk you had left since then was a broad attack on Jayjg (and Tewfik), which seems to focus on this link. I already explained my objections to it above, but I'll restate the most important one: it doesn't support the claim that a majority of Palestinian activity was nonviolent. I would again like to implore you to stop viewing myself or other users as if we're out to get you, and then you'll probably be able to present your valid points far more effectively. TewfikTalk18:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Your objection to this source [15] stated as: "Is a nice general discussion of nonviolence, but makes no specific reference to this conflict. Even excepting the biased tone of the narrative, that "long history" etc. is not really relevant here," is quite frankly BS. There is specific reference to the mass involvement in non-violent activities during the al-Aqsa Intifada and specific reference to the minority of people involved in violent resistance during the al-Aqsa intifada. You have not provided a single source to support your assertion that the vast majority of Palestinian resistance in violent. Most of the info in the rest of the section on Tactics is almost totally unsourced, and yet you choose to nit-pick over the most than a dozen sources I have provided you with. It is up to you to prove your assertion that Palestinian resistance of a violent nature inolves more people than alestinian resistance of a non-violent nature. I have provided plenty of sources describing a number of events involving as many as a ten to ten thousand people. You have provided absolutely nothing. I am reverting your edits. Tiamut19:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That is not accurate. In addition to that source not asserting that most activity was nonviolent, it is biased and not an RS. And as always in Wikipedia, the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate your assertion, in this case that non violent resistance is the more prominent aspect of the Intifada. TewfikTalk21:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
How is the AFSC Middle East Resource Series biased or not RS? You haven't even cited now they don't meet this requirement, not once. And you are ignoring the wider issue I raised which is why is there such emphasis given to violent resistance when it involves a minority of the population, whereas popular non-violent resistance occurs regularly and involves mass nubmers of people, as evidenced in the sources I provided. Add these too, [16][17]. Where are your sources again exactly in that section? Tiamut22:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't followed this except to read some of the talk, and I noticed some inconsistency in applying the wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia says that claims of "most" or "the majority" must be backed up. And other significant viewpoints disagreeing with it must also be included.
From that wikipedia guideline is this: "Just as underlying facts must be sourced, claims of consensus must be sourced in the presence of differences of opinion. Claims that 'most' or 'all' scientists, scholars, ministers (or rabbis or imams etc.) of a religious denomination, voters, etc. hold a view require sourcing, particularly on matters that are subject to dispute. In the absence of a reliable source of consensus or majority view, opinions should be identified as those of the sources."
So if either Tewfik or Tiamut is making sweeping generalizations about the level of violence among protesters and resistance, then they both need to state who is making the claim. And the word "claim" should be used. Counterclaims also need to be included. That is my understanding of the guideline. --Timeshifter00:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
There are elements of both. And more. Is the Israeli response to peaceful demonstrations in Israel or the West Bank during the time of the intifada always warlike or always peaceful? Generalizations serve no useful purpose and are against wikipedia policy. There are many different groups involved. There are many levels of resistance. There are many levels of reaction and overreaction. There is no centralized control on either side. Israeli settlers do not coordinate all their actions with the IDF. Hamas and Fatah don't like each other very much at some points. Other times they work out agreements. There are many other groups involved besides them. Some peaceful demonstrations become violent. Some of the more radical elements who come to any demonstration worldwide will often become violent. Are the peaceful demonstrators lumped together with the more violent ones when the events are described later? Claims must be backed up. Details must be fleshed out. --Timeshifter17:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Please do not engage in revisionism. Every single reliable source characterizes AAI as a violent, non-peaceful movement, and so do its organizers and leaders. I have studied social movements that have peaceful and militant members, such as the Counterculture of the 1960s; the non-violent and militant elements are entirely distinct. This particular intifada may or may not be part of a broader social movement that includes non-violent participants, but the AAI is in and of itself defined by violence. —Viriditas | Talk20:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course, all Palestinian protest are violent. Even Palestinian speach and Palestinian thought is violent. While the Israeli Armys shootings and the Israeli airforce bombings and targetted assasination are non-violent. ابو علي20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see your comments as helpful or constructive. At least the comment you were replying to was funny. Go ahead and laugh. It will do you good. --Timeshifter21:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you have identified the problem. I fail to find death and human suffering "funny". Let's examine this "peace movement" in the interviews with the "Mothers of the Martyrs of the Aqsa Intifada" by Nahed Habiballah in Arab Studies Quarterly: Interviewer: Are you angry with anyone? Mother: The Jews, if I will get a chance to avenge my son, I would but there is no way that I will let my other son do that. Interviewer: Do you support peace with Israel? Mother: Not this kind of peace, they took all of our land and they want to give us half of it now, not even a half, maybe a quarter and they refuse to give us Jerusalem and this is the problem. If they really wanted peace, they would have never entered Al-Aqsa mosque, it is not theirs, why would they go there? Al-Aqsa is ours, it is the Muslims'. All our fighting and massacres are for the sake of Al-Aqsa." Mother: ...We hate the Israelis so much now; even when peace comes it will be hard to deal with them because they caused us so much pain..." Mother:...somebody from the Palestinian side should take all these young Palestinians and teach them and arrange them to attack not with stones but with something that would hurt the Israelis. Mother: If I have the chance to become a suicide bomber, I would. Mother: But it was in his blood, to fight for his country, for the Al-Aqsa mosque. We used to tell him that if he wanted to do something, he should do something big, he is going to die anyways so at least he should harm the Jews, like the martyrs who bomb themselves (suicide bombers). If one Israeli died in return for my son's death then that would have made it easier. Mother: We told him that it is in his blood to fight, so if he wants to fight he should become a suicide bomber. Mother: It would be better if our children could fight, kill and come back sate and sound to their families. Mother: He wanted to fight and hurt the Israeli soldiers. Mother: Again, if he died while hurting them then I would not be as hurt. I am sad because they are killing us, although they say that these martyrs go to heaven, still if lot every Palestinian that is killed there is a Jew that is killed in return, it would be better. Mother: Interviewer: Did he ever show any signs of anger towards the Israeli soldiers and the occupation? Mother: He would be happy whenever he heard about a suicide bombing. Frankly, he used to adore Hamas, he would become ecstatic when he would hear that Hamas had inflicted losses among Israeli lives. Mother: It comforts me because I know that my son is alive in the heavens and it allowed peace to enter my heart when she talked about the status of martyrs in the heaven and how they are able to absolve the rest of his family. It relaxes me because I know that my son is alive and he is beside his God. If it were a normal death, he would have never reached this higher status. He is a martyr, he is a young martyr which means that he does not have many sins, may he put a good word for us with God." —Viriditas | Talk23:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you did not understand the sarcasm in the comment in question. But what you wrote was great fucking stuff, and should be in the article. Since it is sourced. Your comments illustrate some of my previous comments about the religious fanatic wacko elements in this conflict. There are more rational peaceful elements, too. --Timeshifter07:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
And don't forget to include some equally powerful info about some of the equally fucking crazy fundamentalist Israeli settlers and their many violent, murderous, torturing, terrorist actions. --Timeshifter07:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly the point I was going to make Abu Ali - that there is a context to the violent resistance AND it's a minority of the population that is involved. Those opposing the inclusion of this information have not provided a source that claims that the bulk of Palestinians are involved in militia activities and the way the article was written made it seem that was the case. It was (and still is in other areas) very POV. I would further add that "At 50% of Palestinians killed during the al-Aqsa Intifada 'did not take part in the hostilities and were killed by Israeli security forces' [18]," (something that should be noted in the Israeli section on tactics perhaps?) and "Finally, it must be stated that Palestinian resistance, which for the most part has been a nonviolent and popular movement, shall continue as long as the circumstances that contributed to its commencement remain in place." [19]Tiamut20:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
"al-Aqsa Intifada" is an over-arching conflict name used as shorthand. There are many levels to this conflict. There are many levels to most conflicts. Some violent and some non-violent. --Timeshifter21:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The Al-Aqsa Intifada is characterized as a violent conflict, not as non-violent. You may want to consult some actual sources, like the Journal of Palestine Studies, which describes the second intifada: "...took the form of a militant but essentially unarmed civil insurrection...largely made up of confrontations at the military checkpoints that either mark the entrances of Palestinian towns or are used to control settlement roads (Netzarim Junction) and religious sites (Joseph's Tomb, Rachel's Tomb)... The main result of this new geography is that the Israeli army is better able to confine the insurgency to specific sites and to protect itself in secure strategic locations. This geography of the "battle front" has also made possible the greater militarization of the clashes.. Another difference from the first intifada is the existence of armed Palestinian security forces (with about 40,000 Palestinian police under arms). Among other things, this allows for greater justification for the use of Israeli military force...the majority of armed actions have been led by "Fatah tanzim," a murky designation that includes Fatah's street cadre (often with privately licensed weaponry) and by elements of the PA Preventive Security Force. Armed Palestinian action succeeded in clearing the Israeli military from only one site, Joseph's Tomb in Nablus...In most other cases where armed cadres got involved in clashes in the midst of civilian demonstrations, there were soon popular calls for their retrenchment, since the main result was that Israeli sharpshooters could exact a higher price...religion has played a major mobilizing and symbolic role in the current uprising, even while the participation of Hamas has been largely confined (at least to the time of writing) to raising Hamas flags at funeral processions. Instead, the clashes have been dominated by secular groups (mainly Fatah, but with a visible presence of the Popular Front and other leftist organizations). Nevertheless, with al-Aqsa as the main trigger for the uprising, religious fervor has been a salient dimension that at times has engulfed the entire conflict...Following the Palestinian assault on Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, Israelis burned mosques in Tiberias and Acre and attempted burnings in Jaffa; Palestinians then burned the Jericho synagogue. At the start of the uprising's third week, several imams used the Friday sermon--widely broadcast on Palestinian TV on 13 October--to emphasize the Muslim-Jewish dimension of the conflict. In Gaza and Nablus, Hamas elements attacked several cafés and stores selling alcoholic beverages...The religious dimension is what initially galvanized Palestinian Israelis and led to a wave of clashes inside Israel.... (Information Minister Yasir `Abid Rabbuh observed) that the intifada should be transformed into a peaceful means of protest and that the use of gunfire should be abandoned in view of the disastrous retribution from the Israelis..."[20] —Viriditas | Talk03:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
More great stuff. It shows both the violent and nonviolent elements of the resistance. Wikipedia is supposed to show the whole picture. Sourced. And not whitewashed. And no censorship of the more peaceful protests, funerals, strikes, etc.. No bullshit downplaying of any of the violent aspects either. From both sides. See also:
You are correct that "Wikipedia is not censored", which is why no one is objecting to this material based on claims that it is pornographic or otherwise offensive. I think the primary objection is due to the undue weight given to this theory that the Intifada is primarily known as a non-violent phenomenon. That there may be a non-violent component is reflected in the article, but barring sourcing showing that this conception of the Intifada is now held by many prominent sources, it would be improper for Wikipedia to present that view. TewfikTalk08:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It only takes a relatively few suicide bombers to kill hundreds of Israeli civilians. And it only takes a relatively small number of trigger-happy Israeli military, settlers, tank crews, artillery crews, and pilots to kill thousands of Palestinian civilians. That does not mean that the majority of Palestinians or Israelis are violent. And the thousands of peaceful demonstrators and strikers (in Israel and Palestinian territories) far outnumber the violent combatants. So the correct thing to do is to describe specific events and not generalize in an attempt to propagandize for either side. We at wikipedia are far too sophisticated for such primitive bullshit propaganda from any side. --Timeshifter09:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Timeshifter, I would like to thank you for your comments throughout this discussion. You are right on point. Tewfik, it's funny that you would claim that your objection is to the emphasis placed on non-violence, when you actually just deleted the entire paragraph in question when I first posted it, without any explanation [21], thus accounting for the heading under which this discussion is taking place. The section was entirely POV in that it only described violent resistance and totally ignored the wider popular resistance in which most segments of the Palestinian population (from children to grandparents) take part. I will work on incorporating some of Viriditas' sources (thank you so much for finding that article in the JPS that characterizes the majority of resistance as "militant" but "unarmed" - I need to better flesh out the tactical distinction between passive non-violent resistance, active non-violent resistance, stone-throwing, armed resistance against military targets, armed action against civilian targets, etc, etc. So much food for thought on this page. Tiamut14:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Tiamut. While cleaning up links at Iraq War I found a Human Rights Watch report of interest:
Just check out the index. I bet there is equally good stuff from them concerning civilian casualties in the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Civilian casualties on all sides. --Timeshifter20:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone here read WP:ATT#No_original_research? You really should, it's policy. One of the primary things it forbids is introducing "an analysis or synthesis of published facts, opinions, or arguments in a way that advances a position favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article." Please stop doing this. Note also, WP:ATT#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources. Electronic Intifada doesn't even qualify as a WP:ATT#Reliable_sources, much less an exceptional source. Jayjg (talk)20:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
And yet again, Jayjg wikilawyers in an attempt to prevent the inclusion of information that challenges his POV. And yet again, he ignores that the sources do in fact say that the majority of resistance is non-violent. And not just mine, but also Viridatas' source, cited to prove that the formulation was wrong, characterizes the resistance as "militant" but largely non-weaponized. Also, the claim that Electronic Intifada does not meet WP:RS is totally false. Jayjg also knows this because he has previously tried to have it excluded, a fact noted at the Talk:Anti-Zionism page. I would like to propose that Jayjg's actions as an administrator be reviewed. Does anybody know exactly where to go to make that kind of complaint? Is it the same place for regular users? Or what. Tiamut21:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
See my user page for links to notice boards. Those notice boards link to other more specific notice boards. I suggest describing the incidents of nonviolent resistance, their number, etc.. That will best allow the readers to decide whether it is the "majority" of resistance. I suggest also putting some analysis from all sides about the percentage of violent versus nonviolent resistance. And noting carefully the source of that analysis. Also, putting some analysis of the analyzers themselves. And then link to Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc. for further info. That way more of the bases are covered. More info is better than less info. --Timeshifter22:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think everybody should seek to describe events first. That is the easiest to source. Analysis should be avoided in my opinion. Let the facts speak for themselves. I see many editors from many POVs trying to spin the analysis. --Timeshifter20:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
So, I changed the sentence to read, "While the violent actions of Palestinian militants receive more widespread coverage [3], much of the resistance to Zionist aims in Palestine consists of non-violent protest,[4][5] [6], [7][8], or a "militant", unarmed resistance [9]" I also added Viriditas' source from the Journal of Palestine Studies (a reputable academic source). I hope this is one step towards a new way of dealing with this controversy. Looking forward to hearing about your ideas for changes, additions, etc. Tiamut22:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest removing the word "Zionist". Not all Israelis are Zionists. Not all Israelis who support the occupation are Zionist. Many Israelis are just afraid to end the occupation. And I suggest using the term "Palestinian territories" instead of Palestine. Palestine does not technically exist yet in many peoples' minds. It should, but it hasn't been accepted by the UN, I believe. Has it? --Timeshifter22:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Electronic Intifada in no way meets the requirements of WP:ATT, and cannot be used as a source in Wikipedia. Please don't use policy violating sources. Thanks. Jayjg (talk)02:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) 'Militant but not weaponised' means violent but lacking in weapons, not nonviolent. Please read the relevant policies - your assumption that everyone is manipulating policy to keep your view out doesn't make very much sense when a compromise wording was included by "the other side". And EI is not an RS for this. TewfikTalk22:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It is good to see that you are attempting to compromise, but I think you'll find myself and other editors far more receptive to your changes if you review the problems that we pointed out on Talk and take those into account. TewfikTalk22:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The source Viriditas used actually reads "militant but essentially unarmed civil insurrection". If you spent less time reading and citing policy and more reading and writing encyclopedic content, we could probably get a whole lot more done. And I compromise a lot Tewfik. I sometimes compromise the truth here, because of how much effort it takes to get it included. Peace my friend with the Arabic name, who doesn't identify as Arabic. Maybe one day you'll see I'm your sister, not the enemy. And that we Palestinians ain't all violent, but human just like you. Tiamut22:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that Timeshifter. But it seems some are not partaking in the tea party. Tewfik just reverted my edits that incorporated the new sources and added the "militant" but unarmed info saying it is was POV again. He also undid a number of other edits, deleting a sourcer of casualty figures for Palestinians. I reverted his edits again while retaining some wiki-linking and other minor additions. While I try very hard to retain parts of his edits that are sourced and not part of our dispute, he doesn't do the same with me. Everywhere I go, no matter how many hours of research I do, he reverts. I invite you to check out his and my user contributions to see what I mean. Note that I do not mass revert his additions to articles, but he always does mine, which is how we get into these edit wars. I was hoping his behaviour would change after this extended discussion, but he just jumps right back into the same pattern. I don't want to waste time reverting one another's work but instead want to build on one another's additions. A revert is just so rude I think. It's part of why we have 3RR, but 3RR doesn't mean make 3 reverts every 24 hours, it designates a maximum allowed. I'm at my wit's end really. How do I get this kind of behaviour reviewed? Tiamut11:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You are correct about Tiamut in that he frequently mass reverts. See the previous discussion on this talk page. He just deleted a whole article and redirected it: Alleged human rights violations by Israel during Al-Aqsa Intifada after I took "war crimes" out of the original name of the article and started reworking the links. I did a lot of work yesterday converting links to reference links, and there is a lot more to do. Sometimes Tewfik is careful and does good edits. But many times he loses patience and goes against wikipedia guidelines. Sometimes I do too. Everybody needs to cool down. See this talk page please: Talk:Alleged human rights violations by Israel during Al-Aqsa Intifada --Timeshifter19:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Tewfik not only mass reverts at times. He also mass deletes whole articles. He lost an AFD he initiated concerning this page:
I may be going to this notice board Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if Tewfik and others keep deleting the article and redirecting it in violation of WP:MERGE. See the article revision history link (for whatever the current name of the article happens to be) to see that Tewfik and another editor just deleted the article. My last revision of the article can be found here. Tewfik is blocking inclusion of material from that article into this article. Bless sins already tried. Tewfik also blocked sourced material at this page: Taba Summit. Please see the request for comment on the talk page: Talk:Taba Summit --Timeshifter19:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I will continue to convert the links to reference links there. That way the relevant sourced parts of the article can be copied to the appropriate wikipedia pages. --Timeshifter23:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That is not an accurate reflection of what has gone on here. For example, I "full reverted" to reinclude all of the minor corrections etc. that you removed when you "mass reverted" my work. I am always careful to include any reasonable edits of yours. I'm really sorry that you choose to view this as an attack on your culture, or as somehow connected to me or others viewing you or Palestinians as 'violent and not human', when we are clearly discussing very specific points that have exactly nothing to do with that. TewfikTalk17:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hit there Humus! With respect, there is no consensus as to whether Electronic Intifada is a reliable source, but it has been used before many times. Sometimes RS is determined by what the source is being used for. In this case, I added this addition to the end of a sentence on casualities: "an average of 93 people per month - the highest monthly average since its invasion of the West Bank in 2002 [22]." Can you explain how this is disputable? It is simple math based on the casulaty statistics available which are used from reputable sources (all cited) throughout the article at EI. How does this fail RS exactly? Tiamut12:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Electronic Intifida does not meet the requirements of WP:ATT; your views on "consensus" are irrelevant to that. It is a self-published source with no editorial oversight, intended to promote a partisan POV. Jayjg (talk)22:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
. TewfikTalk 06:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
