Alberuni, on what basis are you:

1) Removing the NPOV notice? 2) Removing the link to the IDF code of Conduct page?--Josiah 17:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You guys are funny. You slap an NPOV notice on any article about Israel that displeases you without even bothering to dispute any aspect of the article's neutrality. It's as if you think NPOV means "Potentially Harmful to Israel". The IDF conduct link is in there. What a joke. Lt. William Calley also committed atrocities while soldiering under the US military code of conduct. As if the existence of laws stops criminals. You guys are really funny. --Alberuni 20:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cut the Rhetoric and answer my questions please. --Josiah 22:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You have it backwards, Yoshi. If you dispute some aspect of this article's neutrality, you are supposed to bring up your issues on Talk first so that they can be resolved. --Alberuni 01:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Believe it or not, but I agree with you. I actually don't agree with the NPOV notice. But when edit wars are happening (as was the scenario between you and the other person), there is no justification to remove it.--Josiah 06:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On what basis was the NPOV notice added in the first place? - Mustafaa 00:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't add it.I don't know--Josiah 06:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The POV is obvious. The article is written as if this was a typical murder done by those bloodthirsty Israelis. For those who harp and stir hatred on sad incidents like this, remember what caused it: rockets were continuously fired into the Israeli cities. BTW, were those who do it ever investigated? Or it was also the Joos who did it? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"POV is obvious" doesn't quite cut it. According to Wikipedia:NPOV dispute:

Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to you to be biased, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article.

So what's your description? Any specifics? - Mustafaa 21:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. It uses the highest possible estimate of casualties, that of the Al-Mezan Center, ignoring the many other estimates, all of which are lower.

2. It is highly selective in the quotes used, and then follows up by pointing out that the soldiers later admitted that they lied to get their superior in trouble. I consider both of these POV. Jayjg 21:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. is easily fixed, and I see no evidence of 2. - Mustafaa 22:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. Perhaps it's easily fixed by you. Whenever I try, it's immediately reverted by Alberuni. He's not shy about reverting you on the Dore Gold page either, perhaps he'll revert you here too.

2. Um, quoting soldiers who later said they lied? What is the point of quoting admitted lies? Jayjg 22:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"admitted lies" or truths later retracted under political pressure? I don't know, and neither does anyone else here. - Mustafaa 22:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just too naive and trusting, Mustafaa. ;-) Jayjg 22:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa makes a relevant point. If something that they later denied is quoted, it should be mentioned that they later retracted their comments.--Josiah 22:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, can someone provide any sources on the soldiers (or some of them) later having claimed to have lied? None of the links at the bottom mention it, nor does a quick Google search yield anything. - Mustafaa 00:12, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I use Google news (rather than "normal" google) for stuff like this. A search for "soldiers lied iman" (sans quotes) produced the following results which mentioned some lieing. CNN Jerusalem Post Maariv Int.. To quote the last of the 3 articles, "According to the two, the soldiers who claimed that the platoon commander had carried out the procedure lied in an attempt to frame him."--Josiah 03:50, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interesting - Maariv says that 2 of the soldiers claimed the others were lying (the other two talk about the commander lying.) No "change of testimony" at all (contra the anon edit that inserted that statement.) I will change the article accordingly. - Mustafaa 15:33, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So are any further grounds suggested for keeping the NPOV tag? - Mustafaa 15:43, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so. I removed it along with a slight rewording of the beggining paragraph for redudancy reasons.--Josiah 23:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I made a couple edits to begin to bring the article to neutrality. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The quote you removed is entirely relevant, while the claim you replaced it with is false. And "militant" does not equal "combatant". And "anti-terrorist" is the IDF's self-description, not by any means NPOV. - Mustafaa 14:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Iman was not a militant so the number of Palestinians killed by Israelis that the Israelis claim were militants is irrelevant here. --Alberuni 20:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If the numbers killed aren't relevant, and it's only about Iman, then leave all the numbers out and link to the Operation Days of Penitence article for those who want the bigger picture. Jayjg 21:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Trolls have such poor reading comprehension. Iman was not a militant so the number of people who the Israelis killed and claimed were militants is not relevant to Iman. Iman was a child so the number of people who the Israelis killed who were children is relevant to Iman. --Alberuni 22:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Children were casualties. So were militants. This is a page about Iman, not about the total casualties, which is readily found in the linked article. Jayjg 22:14, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The number of children killed clearly is relevant to this article; it helps one judge to what extent Iman's case is representative. - Mustafaa 22:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fine. Jayjg 22:53, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article is about Iman, whose death occurred during an Israeli military incursion into Gaza that "killed at least 133 Palestinians, including 31 children (according to Al Mezan Center for Human Rights". That's NPOV. I'm glad you have decided to stop obstructing this article just because your political bias is against documentation of Israeli atrocities. --Alberuni 22:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HS wants to insert the claim "Palestinian children are routinely recruited for activities such as reconnaissance and suicide bombings", and added a whole bunch of links purporting to demonstrate this. The claim that they are routinely recruited for suicide bombings is plainly false, as any list of suicide bombers should show. The claim that they are routinely recruited for reconnaissance is irrelevant - unless HS maintains that children doing reconnaissance deserve to be shot... - Mustafaa 17:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If a sentence like that is to be included like that, it ought to be reworded. Like maybe something like "Palestinian children are routinely recruited for reconnaissance, and in rare occassions as suicide bombers." I do agree, however, that as it was written it was out of place.--Josiah 18:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe someone could write a POV essay about Palestinian violence against Palestinian children, including recruiting them to be suicide bombers; it could modelled after this one: Israeli violence against Palestinian children. Jayjg 17:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, such articles are ever a point of contention and are always POV.--Josiah 18:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was a sarcastic suggestion. However, if various editors succeed in turning Wikipedia into a POV mess of Israel-bashing, as they are currently attempting to do, then I might take it more seriously. Jayjg 18:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

since we've gone back and forth a few times, i'll comment. i would think links to racist and slanted articles would kind of impede the pursuit of NPOV, wouldn't it? the one from chronwatch is absolutely ridiculous. there's no supporting evidence, so the only reason i can see for keeping it up is to either distort the facts, or make people laugh out loud at the absurdity. the ones from israeli insider and counterpunch are equally slanted, just at opposite sides of the spectrum. but pawning off opposing viewpoints as neutral or fair doesn't pass the bullshit test. if you want to do that, go work for fox news.

so does anyone care to comment on why they keep restoring those crappy links?

"A separate Israeli military police investigation into the killing cleared "Captain R" of wrongdoing, accepting his claim that he had aimed his shots at the ground near where Iman lay. Two of his men claimed that the soldiers who had given damning testimony to the IDF were lying in order to frame their commander, while other soldiers claimed that they too had taken part in the shooting of Iman al-Hams, not just their commander"

The first sentence is incorrect and should be removed; the military police investigation did find him guilty of wrongdoing (there would not have been an indictment otherwise, for one thing). The sentence needs to be deleted, and the rest of the paragraph rewritten appropritely (possibly moved down). I'll do it in a few days if no one has an objection (e.g. a source stating the investigation did not find him guilty)--Eyl 10:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)