Talk:Operation Days of Penitence Fatalities

See also Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Operation_Days_of_Penitence_Fatalities

totallydisputed

Facts: no references to any incident are included in the article. not possible to verify any information as currently presented. please see talk pages on Violence against Israelis for level of citation required.

This appears to be the sole source for the list of Palestinian casualties. If we attribute it properly, and mention the other figures (there's some discrepancy between the various counts, right?) that should take care of that. —No-One Jones ^(m) 20:54, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

al-Mezan is not reliable. User:MathKnight has documented instances of al-Mezan reporting inaccurately with corrections.

al-Mezan lists itself as a human rights organization. Unlike the ACLU, al-Mezan appears to limit its definition of "human" (in human rights) to "palestinian arabs". Furthermore al-Mezan fails to differentiate between combatants and non-combatants...an important distinction as shown by the [[Malm%E9dy massacre]]. Soldiers, once captured, many not be killed arbitrarily as they are no longer combantants. Combatants may be killed, even in their sleep. al-Mezan does not address this issue.

The article does not list all the Israeli dead and/or wounded.

The article detail(s/ed) damaged Arab property but not damaged Israeli property. Lance6Wins 20:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV: fails to differentiate between militants/fighters/terrorists killed while fighting/terrorizing, unarmed persons killed.

How is that POV? The article just lists the casualties (on both sides, note, unlike certain pages I could name) without saying either "this person was innocent" or "that person deserved it". It also notes than many of them were "armed and engaged in violence". —No-One Jones ^(m) 20:54, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have done some work to de-POV it. However some POV remains. One example is the two large tables dedicated to the Arab dead, without any tables for the Israeli dead. Another example, here is material on Palestinian casualties but non on Israeli casualties. Lance6Wins 13:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article give the impression that all those killed were civilian, which is not true. The majority of dead were militants - not innocent people,so it is hard to call the killing of terrorists an atrocity. We must notommit the fact that at least 87 of the dead were militants.

OK, this ridiculous article made it through VfD. Now. Will somebody please justify the numbers? Where are they coming from? Is the source neutral? If they can't be proven, I see no point in keeping them here. RickK 22:12, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

The numbers themselves are disputed by various sources, including the Associated Press and Reuters; see Operation Days of Penitence for more detail. The numbers used here are the maximal ones, given by the al-Mezan center, an organization with a strong anti-Israel political bias. Jayjg 23:43, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Exactly what I thought. RickK 23:57, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I know it is hard to believe; a human rights organization based in the largest Palestinian refugee camp, that was just attacked by the IDF, might just have a political bias against Israel. That doesn't mean their data in this case is inaccurate. Al-Mezan neither supports the Israeli claims that they are all or mostly terrorists nor does al-Mezan claim that they are all or mostly civilians. They simply report the facts. Who got killed, how old, and where they lived. It is the most accurate and comprehensive data available. And it is NPOV because it doesn't try to make claims beyond those facts. --Alberuni 00:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They allege these people have been killed, and that they were killed by Israel. Their political bias would impact their view of the latter in particular. Jayjg 15:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, allegedly,

We do not accept at face value Israeli claims for their reasons for attacking the refugee camps. We do not accept Israeli claims that all or most of their victims were "terrorists." I am willing to accept that Israelis do not believe the Al-Mezan Center's documentation. That's why all their data are attributed to them.--Alberuni 00:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Your opinion isn't the issue here; do outside sources dispute that this is the reason? Jayjg 15:38, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Look above about 4 paragraphs at your own quote of 23:43, 31 Oct 2004: "The numbers themselves are disputed by various sources, including the Associated Press and Reuters" --Alberuni 19:47, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who is questioning the neutrality of Al Mezan Center?

Oh, that's right. Dore Gold and NGO Monitor! According to Jayjg, we don't have to cite all this detail because any reader can go to Al Mezan Center for Human Rights and find links that take them back to Dore Gold eventually. Jayjg, what do you think? Is unsourced questioning of Al-Mezan Center's neutrality in this article acceptable? --Alberuni 01:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NGO Monitor questions the neutrality of the Al Mezan Center, and gives its documented reasons. I don't know how Dore Gold feels about it, we have no information on that. And it doesn't matter what I think about the Al Mezan Center, since we're not interested in original research. Jayjg

I was asking you your editing opinion about including unsourced attribution of disputed neutrality in the article, not your personal opinions about Al Mezan. --Alberuni 02:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Um, I didn't give any personal opinions about Al Mezan. What point are you trying to make or question are you trying to ask? Jayjg

Death Figures

As stated in Operation Days of Penitence

• According to the Associated Press, at least 109 Palestinians were killed (including 18 minors): "Since Israel launched the offensive Sept. 29, after a deadly rocket attack on the southern Israeli border town Sderot, at least 109 Palestinians have been killed and hundreds wounded. Dozens of civilians, including 18 minors, died in the offensive. Five Israelis, including two preschoolers killed in the Sderot attack, also died." [1]
• According to Reuters, Palestinian medics states that at least 104 Palestinians were killed "Palestinian medics said Israeli forces killed at least 62 militants and 42 other Palestinians believed to be civilians. Gunmen killed three Israelis in north Gaza and a Thai farm worker in a retaliation raid." [2]
• According to Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, 133 Palestinians (including 31 children) were killed. The Al-Mezan Center reports that 550 Palestinians, including 169 children, have been killed or injured during the Israeli offensive. Names, ages, and addresses of each Palestinian fatality, militants and civilians, are available on the website, though not combat status (militant or civilian). (Al Mezan Center for Human Rights)[3].
• Property damage: About 77 homes have been completely destroyed, hundreds more have been damaged, and an area of 610 dunams of farmland have been cleared. In addition, numerous public facilities, including police and security posts, schools, mosques and kindergartens have been damaged or destroyed. (Al Mezan Center for Human Rights)
• The Israel Defence Forces reported killing 130 Palestinians, the vast majority of them combatants. (Haaretz)
• According to Haaretz, 129 Palestinians were killed in the operation, 42 of whom were civilians and 87 were combatants: 68 from Hamas and Islamic Jihad and 19 from the Fatah associated al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and Popular Resistance Committees. (Haaretz)

Characterizing those who dispute Al Mezan's totals as "Israeli sources" would be false, of course, since Associated Press, Reuters, and Palestinian medics are not "Israeli sources". Jayjg 02:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The AP is not disputing Al Mezan totals, they just have inconsistent results, based on compiled sources including IDF reports most likely. Te only people who dispute Al Mezan are Israelis, as far as I know (IDF and NGO Monitor) - well not including RickK, but he doesn't count. We're talking about 'officially' disputed, not 'Wikipedia disputed'. --Alberuni 02:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't count, huh? If you'll provide valid figures, I'll stop bothering you. But you need to justify these numbers. RickK 23:28, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

The Reuters source says the numbers come from Palestinian medics, not the IDF; I don't know why you consistently ignore this source. Also, the AP's numbers are considerably lower than the IDF's numbers, so I don't understand why you imagine they come from the IDF. Jayjg 23:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Allegedly

If you're going to stick the word "allegedly" in front of the some claims, then you'll need to stick them in front of all claims. Jayjg 02:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did. Reportedly, allegedly, claimed. I think it is quite NPOV. --Alberuni 02:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not in front of all claims. I've put them back in now. Jayjg 15:41, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We do not accept IDF claims that 67 or 87 or 107 fatalities were militants

We are not asserting any specific number are militant or civilian. We are just listing fatalities as reported by Al Mezan. Period. readers can go to the Al Mezan page to see what NGO Monitor thinks of them. . We have no confidence in the IDF assertions. How do they know who they killed? They killed dozens of children. Surely their idea of "militant" or "terrorist" is off the mark. We are not trying to cloud the picture by saying Haaretz reports 129 but AP reports at least 100 and Reuters reports 112. We are just reporting Al Mezan data because it is most comprehensive and richest data source with ages, names, and places of residence. We are attributing it to Al Mezan and people can check Al Mezan article if they need more info about the source. --Alberuni 02:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please read the article closely. These are not IDF claims, but many claims from many sources, including Palestinian ones. The Al Mezan claims provide no more "confidence" than any other sources. Jayjg 03:15, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes actually the Al Mezan list documents names, ages and residence locations of all recorded fatalities, a level of detail that no other source provides to my knowledge. The conflicting claims are not disputes of Al Mezan as you pointed out in your last edit to Israeli terrorism:

"who is "disputing" them? Please bring a reference to a group which "disputes" them. The sources simply differ.".--Alberuni 04:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Al Mazen write names of terrorists as well, while not pointing out that they were combatants. Making the impression that a Hamas Qassam launcher operators is an "innocent civilian" is, to put it straight, is a lie. MathKnight 16:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Where do you get the impression that the names are names of civilians? No one said they were all civilians. They were all fatalities and that's all that is reported. --Alberuni 18:48, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They were all fatalities, indeed. But writing a name of a terrorist (such as Bashir Dabash, Islamic Jihad) near a name of a civilian - is misleading. The average person can't sort them out. Haaretz and under sources report how many of those killed were combatants, and therefore they report must be mentioned. MathKnight 19:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing misleading about it. They were all fatalities and that is all that the article claims. You even agree. Haaretz reports what the IDF tells them. They do not report names most of the time. It's not exactly an unbiased source. You seem to accept those reports as facts. The sources don't agree on Israeli allegations of "terrorist", "combatant" or "militant". Therefore, those attributions are deleted. That doesn't mean they were all civilians and it doesn't mean they were all militants. It just means they were fatalities. --Alberuni 19:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. You are wrong. Haaretz is a left wing paper, who is considered to be very critical against Israel and considered very pro-Palestinian by Israelis. If you had bothered to read, Haaretz stated that the numbers are a result of its independent counting (note also that the IDF figures appear seperately). Haaretz publishes list of names of all Palestinian killed each month (for example: in November 1, they published the names of all Palestinians killed in October). Unlike Al Mazen, Haaretz also state the reason of death and whether the dead was a militant.
2. Now, the other sources agree with Haaretz count and also report that about third of the deads were civilian, while the rest where militants. A guy who shoots rockets against Israelis cannot use the civilian immunity. Since 87 out of the 130 were militants, the article must mention it. MathKnight 20:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand your point here. There are difference accounts of the casualties; I haven't seen any sources "disputing" any of the accounts. NPOV requires that the different sources simply be provided. The differences aren't huge, it's not like any source is claiming under 100 casualties or over 135. Small honest differences of opinion can exist amongst people about these things. Jayjg 15:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? I'm disputing the Al Mezan numbers as non-neutral. RickK 08:07, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

You don't count. Your complaints can't be inserted into an encyclopedia article. Is there a person or group who can be cited, a published account of a dispute with Al Mezan's accounting? --Alberuni 18:48, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In addition, numerous public facilities, including police and security posts, schools, mosques and kindergartens were damaged or destroyed.

I think the statement "In addition, numerous public facilities, including police and security posts, schools, mosques and kindergartens were damaged or destroyed." in the Property section needs to be qualified. But frankly, property damage is not a "fatality", and doesn't belong here at all, especially when it is already in the Operation Days of Penitence article. Jayjg 17:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, property damage is not a fatality. Delete it. It's just more unfortunate collateral damage incurred while Israel takes the measures necessary to defend itself. Too bad for the victims but the Jewish state comes first, right Jay? Good thing you caught that. --Alberuni 17:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I think it's about time this was merged into the timeline at Operation Days of Penitence.
Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 12:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Given that the articles are influenced by 'recentism' and this operation is not notable, there is certainly no legitimacy to a separate article. --Shuki (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)