![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 July 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
I don't want this article to be deleted ever. This is a good document describing the ongoing war. What's wrong with that! unless Zionist editor are involved-- علي سمسم ( talk) 20:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the presentation nor is it one sided. Please feel free to add to the article but please don't just cut things short because you can't make an argument. ! truly Hamas is just a militia with some home made rockets and Israel is an organized Army! what's wrong with mentioning that!-- علي سمسم ( talk) 20:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC).
The Israeli civilians have the iron dome, warning systems and shelters while the Palestinian Civilians do NOT. what's wrong with that ?1 why on earth is it one sided presentation?!! If these facts hurt please try to refute them but just don't remove it because it hurts the "image" of Israel. Wikipedia is not not about Israel's Image!!!!!!!!! This is not the CNN or Fox News.-- علي سمسم ( talk) 21:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
WE NEED TO REMIND THE RELENTLESS EDITOR ON THIS PAGE THAT PALESTINIANS ARE NOT LESS HUMANS THAT ISRAELIS. They do have families, lives and strong aspirations for freedom from the Jewish siege/occupations to their lands. They too deserve a place on Wikipedia same as those murdered 3 usurper Jewish colonists living illegally against the international law on the Palestinian West Bank.! --
علي سمسم (
talk)
21:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Some points to take care of:
Moreover I think that this article not worthy of Wikipedia.
Gunrpks ( talk) 20:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
first rt (2) second rt (3) rt (4) fourth rt (5) fifth rt (6) sixth rt I won't report you for this, but I'd advise you not to touch the page for 24 hours. If you do so it is probable that someone will notice the contempt for rules this kind of behaviour exemplifies and ask that you be sanctioned. Any arbitrator, if it comes to his notice, can suspend you. Nishidani ( talk) 21:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello
Nishidani and
علي سمسم. First of all I want to react about the sentence you say I think that israeli are more human then Palestinians, I totally against Such statements that Reminiscent of dark times. this is a real problem that people (much less then you think) belive in that opinion, and we have to fight them. I hope that in someday the peace will come to our area.
About the point I wrote and Ali comment me:
And now for Nishidani:
If you think that threat is the way to make this article more balanced, I don't Argue. This is hearing really good method to manage Wikipedia. I hope we can talk more to the point then our leaders. And please don't react inside my comment but after. Gunrpks ( talk) 09:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
If this article is kept through the AfD then the title needs to be changed "List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge" implies that Israel is the aggressor, there have been Israli injuries and civilian deaths as a indirect/direct result of the rocket attacks by Hamas. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
This does not seem to be the standard page to vote for or against deletion. I came to the Wikipedia because I imagined that there I would find the most comprehensive and up to date list of Palestinian casualties of Israeli actions during Operation Protective Edge. This page provides the information I was searching for. I think this page provides the information that it claims to provide. It does not promise to present the list of Israeli casualties of Operation Protective Edge because that wouldn't make sense. I find it to be NPOV because it is just a list of strikes and the names of casualties. It is not claiming that Operation Protective Edge is immoral and anti-human and part of a history of oppression against the Palestinian people etc. nor is it claiming that the Palestinians want all Jewish people dead and Israel has a right to protect itself or any other claims about the rightness or wrongness of the action. It just presents in a list, the names of Palestinians who have been killed during this operation. It does strike me that the desire to delete this information is, in itself, not neutral and is ideologically driven. If the article were about a list of fictional Jedi Knights who had been killed by the Empire or what have you, I doubt people would be wanting to delete it because it wasn't neutral. But the lists would be the same in that they presented information about casualties. Saudade7 17:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I can not disagree more. I came to this page for some research I am doing testing theories with empirical data. I did not find much of use here that wasn't copy+pasted / lifted from PCHR or other sources, where it was better organized. The amount of citations that involve quotes from the same source might even be a copyright issue. The page in its current state is made problematic (and not just useless)by statements such as this "A local commented:'the result from this match here? The Jews won 9-0.'[30]" under section day 2. This page needs to be heavily revamped or started from scratch, as in its current form it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Another point worth mentioning somewhere in the article is that there is a history of the statistics regarding civilian casualties released in the days after IDF operations to be highly inflated following investigations by international organizations in the months afterwards. Seraphya ( talk) 14:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Many incidents reported by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, based in Gaza, take the formula. 'An Israeli drone launched a missile on a house. .a few minutes later an Israeli warplane fired a missile destroying the house'. I think this is self-evidently coded language for Roof knocking. Now I have been tempted over the past days to add a note, after the note re brackets indicating age of the deceased at the bottom of the lead, to suggest to the reader this might indicate a roof knocking warning (which one can't put into the text because sources don't state that). That would be WP:OR. but it makes sense, both in terms of WP:IAR, to add an explanatory line of the type:
Incidents of drone missile strikes on a house, followed soon after by AIF missile strikes, may indicate a roof knocking warning was given.
It's a fair editorial comment, I think. On the other hand, probably the page won't be read by many people, and therefore it may not be necessary. Thoughts? Nishidani ( talk) 14:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm rotten on formats, but I've been thinking that this requires a list formal where each entry has 5 headings
This would probably avoid the repetitive use of terms like 'an IAF missile struck the house of . . ., and in particular since this necrology will run into 700 at a minimum, keep the article length within limits.
Date | Place | Target | Description | Action | Killer |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
July 8, 2014 | Gaza Strip | IDF |
Any suggestions would be appreciated. Nishidani ( talk) 20:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
As a larger note though, won't this list end up essentially being a duplicate of the timeline article which also details all of these strikes? If we are doing that detail here, the timeline needs to remove the indiivdual strike level details and itself become more WP:SUMMARY I would think? Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Nishidani I agree that the section should be included, but the warning at the top should probably be removed. If there are elements in the section that are not backed by reliable sources, than those individual elements need to be removed. I am not making any assertions that any particular statement is not backed, just a statement of principle. I think the disclaimer at the top of the section should be removed in light of the standard WP:RS and WP:V policies? Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Several edits dealing with rounding up Hamas activists, etc., have nothing to do with the declared content of this article, and should have been made on the sister page. Here we deal with strikes and casualties, and not in narrative fashion, but as briefly as possible. These will have to be expunged or reduced radically, since the page looks like it will have to be split into week by week sub articles already. Nishidani ( talk) 20:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Not everybody in Gaza is Palestinian. So I guess there were casualties that are not Palestinian. -- Distelfinck ( talk) 22:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
As title says the sentence does not reflect a quote or overall content of the referenced article. Comments ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 15:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@ User:Nishidani, please explain this your edit:
Sorry, but I do not see any base for your "Don't edit war" charge. My edit does follow on @ user:Dr. R.R. Pickles erasing the information from ITIC with such symptomatic description as "ITIC is a propaganda source, completely untrustworthy for basic facts", so I've asked him to add his info accurately "This is your opinion only, pls add your data w/out deleting other ones".
Regarding to your "Edit to improve": in fact you've returned the article to Dr. R.R. Pickles's version adding the OCHA data on 03.10.2014 and such for IDF - on 3.09 only (William Booth), for some reason (?) omitting from his article the following important information:
as well as haven't returned data from ITIC (sorry again, but it seems that it was the purpose of your rollback :().
By the way, they continue with check a list of casualties and have new update issued on 07/10/2014 :
As I think this information should be added to the article as it made for main one. -- Igorp_lj ( talk) 23:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
By 21 July, 132 of the casualties to that date were children [1] B'tselem tried to obtain a radio spot in which the names of those children killed in the conflict were to be read out. The Israeli Broadcasting Authority banned the attempt to air the information on the airwaves. 97% of the children killed in the last five years of the conflict have been Palestinian. [2]
The fact is that Israeli children were killed too "in the last five years of the conflict". Does somebody hear about any such requirement to other side of conflict "to air the information" or at least to regret about Israeli casualties, either from B'tselem or other body? Or such requirements apply only to Israel? :(
So I'd propose to delete this B'tselem's information from the article remaining "97% of the children killed in the last five years" from other source because of the current one has such irrelevant "Israel bans radio ad listing dead children's names" title and isn't updated with information about 4-year-old Daniel killed in the last hours of this conflict. -- Igorp_lj ( talk) 21:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The ITIC is a private, though government-assisted organization, whose reputation as a reliable source for anything has yet to be shown. I wouldn't be surprised if children were at times involved in helping the defence of their homes and cities: it happens in every war,(The children in the Warsaw Uprising sang Warsawskie dezieci promising to spill their blood to kill the Nazis. There is a statue to the 'Little Insurgent' commemorating their role; Soviet armies had many child combatants in defending themselves against Nazis; Jewish youths often refused to buckle to the Judenräte and became child soldiers throughout Eastern Europe) but spinning this as 'exploitation' has zero value, given the widespread practice of children taking on dangerous activities on behalf of their families or a resistance. This is not a history of the conflict. Cf. WP:Undue, and in any case this is only a specious and hypocritical propaganda meme, as you would expect from the source. I.e.'The participation of Jewish children and youth in warfare was driven by a combination of necessity, honor, and moral duty.'(David M. Rosen, Armies of the Young: Child Soldiers in War and Terrorism, Rutgers University Press 2005 pp.54-55. Chapter 2 pp.19 has a chapter on it.) Nishidani ( talk) 18:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Considering that it has no objective value, that the ITIC is nothing more then a pro-IDF "think tank" that exists to blame the Palestinians killed or maimed by Israel for their own deaths or maiming, that the ITIC seeks to lyingly make claims about how "conscientious" the IDF is and to parrot Likudnik agitprop and lies--
all of these things factor into the equation and it is ultimately a good idea to not have what that organization claims, as some kind of objective truth on this page. The kyle 3 ( talk) 13:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
If pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian hasbarat propagandists are going to whine every time I remove their precious ITIC reference, then I guess it'll have to stay for now. Edited the sentence to reflect the wholly subjective nature of that group's claims. The kyle 3 ( talk) 18:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 July 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
I don't want this article to be deleted ever. This is a good document describing the ongoing war. What's wrong with that! unless Zionist editor are involved-- علي سمسم ( talk) 20:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the presentation nor is it one sided. Please feel free to add to the article but please don't just cut things short because you can't make an argument. ! truly Hamas is just a militia with some home made rockets and Israel is an organized Army! what's wrong with mentioning that!-- علي سمسم ( talk) 20:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC).
The Israeli civilians have the iron dome, warning systems and shelters while the Palestinian Civilians do NOT. what's wrong with that ?1 why on earth is it one sided presentation?!! If these facts hurt please try to refute them but just don't remove it because it hurts the "image" of Israel. Wikipedia is not not about Israel's Image!!!!!!!!! This is not the CNN or Fox News.-- علي سمسم ( talk) 21:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
WE NEED TO REMIND THE RELENTLESS EDITOR ON THIS PAGE THAT PALESTINIANS ARE NOT LESS HUMANS THAT ISRAELIS. They do have families, lives and strong aspirations for freedom from the Jewish siege/occupations to their lands. They too deserve a place on Wikipedia same as those murdered 3 usurper Jewish colonists living illegally against the international law on the Palestinian West Bank.! --
علي سمسم (
talk)
21:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Some points to take care of:
Moreover I think that this article not worthy of Wikipedia.
Gunrpks ( talk) 20:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
first rt (2) second rt (3) rt (4) fourth rt (5) fifth rt (6) sixth rt I won't report you for this, but I'd advise you not to touch the page for 24 hours. If you do so it is probable that someone will notice the contempt for rules this kind of behaviour exemplifies and ask that you be sanctioned. Any arbitrator, if it comes to his notice, can suspend you. Nishidani ( talk) 21:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello
Nishidani and
علي سمسم. First of all I want to react about the sentence you say I think that israeli are more human then Palestinians, I totally against Such statements that Reminiscent of dark times. this is a real problem that people (much less then you think) belive in that opinion, and we have to fight them. I hope that in someday the peace will come to our area.
About the point I wrote and Ali comment me:
And now for Nishidani:
If you think that threat is the way to make this article more balanced, I don't Argue. This is hearing really good method to manage Wikipedia. I hope we can talk more to the point then our leaders. And please don't react inside my comment but after. Gunrpks ( talk) 09:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
If this article is kept through the AfD then the title needs to be changed "List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge" implies that Israel is the aggressor, there have been Israli injuries and civilian deaths as a indirect/direct result of the rocket attacks by Hamas. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
This does not seem to be the standard page to vote for or against deletion. I came to the Wikipedia because I imagined that there I would find the most comprehensive and up to date list of Palestinian casualties of Israeli actions during Operation Protective Edge. This page provides the information I was searching for. I think this page provides the information that it claims to provide. It does not promise to present the list of Israeli casualties of Operation Protective Edge because that wouldn't make sense. I find it to be NPOV because it is just a list of strikes and the names of casualties. It is not claiming that Operation Protective Edge is immoral and anti-human and part of a history of oppression against the Palestinian people etc. nor is it claiming that the Palestinians want all Jewish people dead and Israel has a right to protect itself or any other claims about the rightness or wrongness of the action. It just presents in a list, the names of Palestinians who have been killed during this operation. It does strike me that the desire to delete this information is, in itself, not neutral and is ideologically driven. If the article were about a list of fictional Jedi Knights who had been killed by the Empire or what have you, I doubt people would be wanting to delete it because it wasn't neutral. But the lists would be the same in that they presented information about casualties. Saudade7 17:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I can not disagree more. I came to this page for some research I am doing testing theories with empirical data. I did not find much of use here that wasn't copy+pasted / lifted from PCHR or other sources, where it was better organized. The amount of citations that involve quotes from the same source might even be a copyright issue. The page in its current state is made problematic (and not just useless)by statements such as this "A local commented:'the result from this match here? The Jews won 9-0.'[30]" under section day 2. This page needs to be heavily revamped or started from scratch, as in its current form it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Another point worth mentioning somewhere in the article is that there is a history of the statistics regarding civilian casualties released in the days after IDF operations to be highly inflated following investigations by international organizations in the months afterwards. Seraphya ( talk) 14:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Many incidents reported by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, based in Gaza, take the formula. 'An Israeli drone launched a missile on a house. .a few minutes later an Israeli warplane fired a missile destroying the house'. I think this is self-evidently coded language for Roof knocking. Now I have been tempted over the past days to add a note, after the note re brackets indicating age of the deceased at the bottom of the lead, to suggest to the reader this might indicate a roof knocking warning (which one can't put into the text because sources don't state that). That would be WP:OR. but it makes sense, both in terms of WP:IAR, to add an explanatory line of the type:
Incidents of drone missile strikes on a house, followed soon after by AIF missile strikes, may indicate a roof knocking warning was given.
It's a fair editorial comment, I think. On the other hand, probably the page won't be read by many people, and therefore it may not be necessary. Thoughts? Nishidani ( talk) 14:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm rotten on formats, but I've been thinking that this requires a list formal where each entry has 5 headings
This would probably avoid the repetitive use of terms like 'an IAF missile struck the house of . . ., and in particular since this necrology will run into 700 at a minimum, keep the article length within limits.
Date | Place | Target | Description | Action | Killer |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
July 8, 2014 | Gaza Strip | IDF |
Any suggestions would be appreciated. Nishidani ( talk) 20:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
As a larger note though, won't this list end up essentially being a duplicate of the timeline article which also details all of these strikes? If we are doing that detail here, the timeline needs to remove the indiivdual strike level details and itself become more WP:SUMMARY I would think? Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Nishidani I agree that the section should be included, but the warning at the top should probably be removed. If there are elements in the section that are not backed by reliable sources, than those individual elements need to be removed. I am not making any assertions that any particular statement is not backed, just a statement of principle. I think the disclaimer at the top of the section should be removed in light of the standard WP:RS and WP:V policies? Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Several edits dealing with rounding up Hamas activists, etc., have nothing to do with the declared content of this article, and should have been made on the sister page. Here we deal with strikes and casualties, and not in narrative fashion, but as briefly as possible. These will have to be expunged or reduced radically, since the page looks like it will have to be split into week by week sub articles already. Nishidani ( talk) 20:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Not everybody in Gaza is Palestinian. So I guess there were casualties that are not Palestinian. -- Distelfinck ( talk) 22:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
As title says the sentence does not reflect a quote or overall content of the referenced article. Comments ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 15:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@ User:Nishidani, please explain this your edit:
Sorry, but I do not see any base for your "Don't edit war" charge. My edit does follow on @ user:Dr. R.R. Pickles erasing the information from ITIC with such symptomatic description as "ITIC is a propaganda source, completely untrustworthy for basic facts", so I've asked him to add his info accurately "This is your opinion only, pls add your data w/out deleting other ones".
Regarding to your "Edit to improve": in fact you've returned the article to Dr. R.R. Pickles's version adding the OCHA data on 03.10.2014 and such for IDF - on 3.09 only (William Booth), for some reason (?) omitting from his article the following important information:
as well as haven't returned data from ITIC (sorry again, but it seems that it was the purpose of your rollback :().
By the way, they continue with check a list of casualties and have new update issued on 07/10/2014 :
As I think this information should be added to the article as it made for main one. -- Igorp_lj ( talk) 23:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
By 21 July, 132 of the casualties to that date were children [1] B'tselem tried to obtain a radio spot in which the names of those children killed in the conflict were to be read out. The Israeli Broadcasting Authority banned the attempt to air the information on the airwaves. 97% of the children killed in the last five years of the conflict have been Palestinian. [2]
The fact is that Israeli children were killed too "in the last five years of the conflict". Does somebody hear about any such requirement to other side of conflict "to air the information" or at least to regret about Israeli casualties, either from B'tselem or other body? Or such requirements apply only to Israel? :(
So I'd propose to delete this B'tselem's information from the article remaining "97% of the children killed in the last five years" from other source because of the current one has such irrelevant "Israel bans radio ad listing dead children's names" title and isn't updated with information about 4-year-old Daniel killed in the last hours of this conflict. -- Igorp_lj ( talk) 21:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The ITIC is a private, though government-assisted organization, whose reputation as a reliable source for anything has yet to be shown. I wouldn't be surprised if children were at times involved in helping the defence of their homes and cities: it happens in every war,(The children in the Warsaw Uprising sang Warsawskie dezieci promising to spill their blood to kill the Nazis. There is a statue to the 'Little Insurgent' commemorating their role; Soviet armies had many child combatants in defending themselves against Nazis; Jewish youths often refused to buckle to the Judenräte and became child soldiers throughout Eastern Europe) but spinning this as 'exploitation' has zero value, given the widespread practice of children taking on dangerous activities on behalf of their families or a resistance. This is not a history of the conflict. Cf. WP:Undue, and in any case this is only a specious and hypocritical propaganda meme, as you would expect from the source. I.e.'The participation of Jewish children and youth in warfare was driven by a combination of necessity, honor, and moral duty.'(David M. Rosen, Armies of the Young: Child Soldiers in War and Terrorism, Rutgers University Press 2005 pp.54-55. Chapter 2 pp.19 has a chapter on it.) Nishidani ( talk) 18:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Considering that it has no objective value, that the ITIC is nothing more then a pro-IDF "think tank" that exists to blame the Palestinians killed or maimed by Israel for their own deaths or maiming, that the ITIC seeks to lyingly make claims about how "conscientious" the IDF is and to parrot Likudnik agitprop and lies--
all of these things factor into the equation and it is ultimately a good idea to not have what that organization claims, as some kind of objective truth on this page. The kyle 3 ( talk) 13:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
If pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian hasbarat propagandists are going to whine every time I remove their precious ITIC reference, then I guess it'll have to stay for now. Edited the sentence to reflect the wholly subjective nature of that group's claims. The kyle 3 ( talk) 18:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)