Talk:Violence against Israelis
|
|
For an October 2004 deletion debate over this article see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis
| Contents |
Earlier discussions
false equivalence is wrong
Discussing text books as "similar" is not close to an unbiased approach. No study, including any of those mentioned by MathKnight shows that Israeli text books regularly call for jihad against Palestinians or Muslims in general. Some Israeli text books are guilty of not fulling explaining arguments from both sides, but attempting to compare that to the incitement found in Palestinian and other Arab texts is just ludicrous.
As for the need for a joint "he said, she said" page, it would only be valid if it was all the Arab world V Israel, not just the Palestinians. There has been violence against Jews in the region for long before there was either Israel. It continued up to 1948, when Jews were the Palestinians (The Arabs didn't want to be associated with that name), and continued after 1948 until today. Trying to narrow it down to Israel and a people who didn't identify themselves as such before 1965 is an attempt to ignore the wider problem of violence in the region.
Ithinktfiam 17:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Contd.
Moved this section to disscussion, since it is not directly relevant to the article.
- The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, refers to a survey of 1700 Israeli children's books [1] (http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0999/9909019.html) which states, that Israeli children literature is also seen as not entirely free from bias. Cohen notes that "520 of the (children's) books contained humiliating, negative descriptions of Palestinians. [...] Sixty six percent of the 520 books refer to Arabs as violent; 52 percent as evil; 37 percent as liars; 31 percent as greedy; 28 percent as two-faced; 27 percent as traitors, etc."
- Israelis point out that the books in questions are irrelevant, because they are not textbooks, and have never represented any concerted attempt at indoctrination. Further, these books are mostly obsolete, and have been out of use for more than a decade. In contrast, the Palestinian books are school-books created by and used by the Palestinian Authority; those are still in wide use. An Israeli contributor to this article has studied in the Israeli school system during the 1990s; he didn't once witness a derogatory attitude to Arabs in any schoolbook from which he had studied, and the general attitude towards Israeli-Arabs was one of appreciation to their culture and legacy, and their integration as equal members of the Israeli society.
MathKnight 18:02, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have reverted most edits of 14:59, 3 May 2004 80.3.160.4 for being extermely non-NPOV. Intentionally murdering civilians is wrong, justifying terrorism (whatever grievances are) is wrong, and replacing all occurences of this word with mild "guerilla", "militant" or "violence" is wrong as well. Comparing Israelis with Nazis is plain antisemitic. --Humus sapiens|Talk 01:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. It's "merely" hyperbole. Would you also denounce comparing Arabs with Nazis (which also happens all the time) as Anti-Semitic? -- Dissident (Talk) 01:14, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
About Israelis, pls. see the bottom of my talk page for short discussion and some recommended reading. As for the Arabs, I didn't bring it up - you did. I wish them all kinds of happiness & prosperity as long as they do not strive to complete what the Nazis have not completed. BTW, in their case the term A-S is not applicable, see the etymology. --Humus sapiens|Talk 02:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Lists
(posted here so I don't have to repeat myself five times) I dispute the factual accuracy of the various [[terrorism against Israel in {year}]] pages because sources for the reports therein are (apart from the word of a single Wikipedian) fragmentary or non-existent. I will happily withdraw the accuracy disputes when each item on each list is annotated properly. —No-One Jones 10:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, and furthermore I'm amazed the pages haven't been deleted, as, despite the lack of any citations, they have absolutely no encyclopedic value. Hundreds of thousands of people die due to terrorism and war every year. Does every death deserve a mention in Wikipedia? Overall yearly statistics, with a few selected and cited events, would give enough detail. -- style 10:51, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)
- As a first source person, I can gurantee that at least 99% percents of the incidents reported here are accurate. However, there is a problem to provide on-line citations since many of the sources are Radio broadcasts and short telegrams in Hebrew. Moreover, international press hardly reports attack in which only settlers were killed or ended only with minor injuries.
- As a partial reference, you can find list of name of terror victims in Israeli Foreign Affair Ministry website (http://www.mfa.gov.il) if you follow the following links:
- Palestinian terrorism since September 2000 (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/terrorism-%20obstacle%20to%20peace/palestinian%20terror%20since%202000/Palestinian%20violence%20and%20terrorism%20since%20September)
- Victims of Palestinian Violence and terrorism since September 2000 (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/terrorism-%20obstacle%20to%20peace/palestinian%20terror%20since%202000/Victims%20of%20Palestinian%20Violence%20and%20Terrorism%20sinc)
- MathKnight 11:08, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, I retract what I said about citations. But what encyclopedic value do these lists have? I might start a list of all the acts of violent crime in my city, state or country. Does every single act of violence deserve inclusion in Wikipedia? And if not, why is Israel/Palestine an exception? --style 13:08, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)
Thank you for the links, MathKnight; they are a helpful start. I have added them to the articles. —No-One Jones 11:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Mirv, these page do not have citations for each act. The could be added over time. It will take a lot of time, I would expecd a year as the anniversy of each murder occurs. There is a standard Wikipedia policy of NOT placing citations for each fact in the articles. Are you advocating a new standard? If so, that's great! We have much work to do. Till that new standard is accepted please remove the dispute label. Lance6Wins 12:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Citations are absolutely necessary for controversial and intensely political articles like these lists. If a statement is not verifiable, then it is disputable. MathKnight has helpfully cited some of the sources for these articles; when we get the rest, I'll drop the dispute. —No-One Jones 20:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- P.S. regarding your statement There is a standard Wikipedia policy of NOT placing citations for each fact in the articles.—actually there is a standard Wikipedia policy of providing citations for what one writes: Wikipedia:Cite sources.
- And here are some examples of dubious statements (copied from an e-mail I sent to the list):
- August 23: A female motorist was wounded by large rocks thrown at her vehicle while traveling late at night. (Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004)
Here we have no name for the victim, no location for the attack, and no word other than that of the author (whose political views and agenda are well-known to anyone who watches Wikipedia's articles on the Middle East) on who was responsible. Without a source we don't even know that if the item is anything other than word-of-mouth rumour.
- April 28: An Israeli woman stabbed to death in Karmiel, Galilee. (Terrorism against Israel in 2001)
This item at least has a location, but the rest of it suffers from the same vagueness: no name, no way to confirm that this even happened, and no way to tell if it belongs on the list.
—No-One Jones 21:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Can we have some concensus on these pages Terrorism against Israel in 2000/Terrorism against Israel in 2001/ etc. For example,
January 14th 2001: A settler was murdered. Ok, by whom, why, what if he was murdered as a result of an armed robbery, January 29th 2001: Israeli killed in drive-by North Jerusalem ??? was it Hamas? was he involved in a drugs deal gone wrong? May 1: a Israeli was killed by gunfire while driving. Again, details, was it part of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict?????
This is ambiguous information. These pages are a waste of time, all NPoV material should be merged to one of the Israeli/Palestinian pages. --SpaceMonkey 15:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Inherently Flawed
- It is a heavily biased article, its approach is flawed to begin with; it is in need of more than a massive revision. Either deletion or merger with corresponding Palestinian casualties. Since violence against Israelis by Palestinians is so interlinked with violence against Palestinians by Israelis, they need to be listed side by side, chronologically. The article's title in itself is inflamatory. If we are to describe the violence in Kashmir, for example, it would be likewise flawed to have two seperate articles for violence against/by Hindu and Muslim populations. When divided, we not only lose historical continuity and connectedness, but the susceptability for bias becomes much more accute. I am against having compeeting, one-sided articles of this sort, and in favour of a NPOV article that depicts (lists, etc.) -both- sides of the coin. El_C
- Strongly agreed. The difficulty is finding someone both knowledgable and neutral to do this. Israel/Palestine seems to be a dreadfully polarising situation. Smyth 11:57, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. Just to qualify my thoughts above, it should be deleted -only- if the article remains Palestinianly (sic.) unintegrated indefinitely, but this should be avoided. A merger is greatly preferable, but would be quite the undertaking. If the information listed thus far is accurate then it certainly could be considered useful, though with the number of individuals killed, not just for both, even if we only view (either) one side, is quite sizable on a per-individual basis thereby rendering the article rather prohibitive effort-wise. As for the hypothetical integrated article, the approach I envision for it, which again, is very demanding, would involve listing whenever possible, the formal claims behind deaths, i.e. X-Israeli soldier/adult/child was killed by [specific instrument/cause of death]; it was claimed by X-Palestinian-Group as being a response to the death of X-Palestinian militia-member/adult/child by Israeli soliders/settlers [or generalized reasons] using [specific instrument/cause of death], and vice versa. El_C
I have been working through these articles adding ages, names, places of residence, manner of death, claims of responsibility. It will take time. Lance6Wins 12:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wow, that is quite the undertaking, and I applaud you for expending such considerable efforts on this. My vote, though, will be against removal of the {NPOV} tag until the article reflects a more-or-less comparable (completion-wise) death-toll list of Palestinian casualties within this article, and until the name of the article is changed. As I noted, it would be impertinent to have both lists in two separate articles. And the same should be applied to the Hebrew, Arabic, etc. wikipedias in the case they choose to have the article translated/expanded. El_C
The article was originally entitled Terrorism against Israelis. The redirect still works. Certain individuals insist on renaming it to "Violence...". At least some of those individuals now maintain the article is NPOV for the reason you cite immediately above. Perhaps we should change the name back. Lance6Wins 19:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The title of the article is not the problem so much, what is is that it fails to, at the same time, also be Violence Against Palestinians to which it is so often inextricably tied, causally — the issue with the title, then, is merely symptomatic of the absolute one-sidedness of the contents. The reader sees a list, which while correct, is devoid of this crucial historical context. The problem, the inherent limitation thus far seems to have been just for someone to actually compile such a corresponding list here in WP; merging and integrating it within this article afterwards is the easy part. That the imbalance is largely inadvertant rather than intentional does not negate from its historically unbalanced, disconnected quality. That is the alpha & omega of my contention here; the semantic of the article's title, while not unimportant, was scacely a consideration compared to its sort to speak 'half-list' property. Some may disagree with my position here (claiming that, in this case, separation facilitates clarity and fusion confusion), but I do believe it is important for this article to be structured in this way. As long as there is consensus for what I have said in principle, then, in my view, that ammounts to some measure of success (albeit only in potentia). El_C
I'm not sure all these pages from Isreali Terrorism/Palestinian Terrorism/Terrorism against Isreal/Violence against Israelis etc etc are really that relevant on an encyclopedia. Seems to me these pages are just using wkipedia in a propoganda war against each other. All of them should be deleted and we should start again with all the relevant non-biased information being incorporated into the Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --SpaceMonkey 13:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"All of them should be deleted"
- That is a bit too extereme of a measure. I maintain that deletion of any articles or portions of which should be approached more selectively. El_C
Cut from intro:
- There are several items that should be noted:
- a significantly larger number of Arabs have been killed than Israelis
- a significantly larger number of Israelis civilians have been killed by Arabs than Israeli soldiers
- a significantly larger number of Arab militants have been killed by Israelis than Arab civilians
Why should this be noted? What point are you trying to make?
Is this an argument condemning or endorsing violence against Israelis?
It sounds like you're trying to say that Israel kills Arab militants (although a few Arab civilians seem to get killed along with them) while the Evil Arabs deliberately target civilians instead of "fighting fair" and only engaging military targets. If so, this is a point of view and should be attributed to its source.
(Sorry, but just because I agree with your POV doesn't mean that it can go in the article as unattributed fact. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:58, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC))
This is not a debate forum!
Why does an ENCYCLOPEDIA (which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be, in case you forgot) need an article about Violence against Israelis, an article about Palestinian terrorism, and an article about Israeli terrorism? Encyclopedia articles should not depend on other articles to balance out bias. If a person were to read the Violence against Israelis article and no other article, they would be presented with a one sided argument. Violence against Israelis, Palestinian terrorism, and Israeli terrorism should be part of the Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. --NoPetrol 21:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- let's be serious, suicide bomings against civilian are terrorism. But is wikipedia the place to discuss these matters?--equitor 02:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
This article does need a rewrite its kind of " ranty" -Cm
I actually haven't read the other articles that are supposed to state the opposing point of views yet. but this article alone is too aggresive and one sided to be informative. It needs either a more tempered explaination of the facts or inclusion of the counter points. this could be solved by a thoughtful rewriting or consolidation of the different viewpoints articles under a larger head topic. Mabey both.
Perhaps they could share one of those boilerplate template navigation boxes. dma 02:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What about Yitzhak Rabin?
Although I think that it is not possible to have an article that is considered NPOV by on this subject (it's a desperate task!) I am curious about one thing.
Would you include the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin as a violence against Israelis? :) --equitor 04:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- Negative, it would be grammatically incorrect to use the plural form. El_C 11:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- What about Dr. Barud Goldstein? After the incident, some paper published (I think it was related to Gush Emounim) "Dr. Goldstein savagely murdered by palestinians"--equitor 02:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Soldiers?
I object to including attacks against soldiers under the "terrorism against israelis in **year**" lists. Terrorism implies attacks against civilians. Attacks against occupying troops are not terrorism and to my knowledge are not even illegal under the terms of post-ww2 international law. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:24, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)