Talk:Baby Suicide Bomber

Missing, bad citations[edit]

Problems:

1. Article has several quotes as well as references articulating editorial positions and attributed to named newspapers that are not cited. WP:CITE states that:

"Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is policy, says that attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." (bolded in original).

It applies to each source. Original sources needs to be dug up.

2. Blogs are not allowed per WP:V. The blog/personal homepage used as a cite is created by David Melle and it's located at www.factsofisrael.com (not the University of Minnesota as it has been claimed in edit summary).

3. Personal homepages are not allowed per WP:V. The personal homepage used as a cite is the one located at the University of Minnesota. It's the personal homepage of Dr. Yaakov Nahmias, who is (AFAIK) employed there, see [1]. Note the disclaimer at the bottom of that page: "The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author.".

I see no problem with properly sourcing this article, all someone (not me) has to do is the work. -- Steve Hart 01:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Clearly, Both citations meet the standard of WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS. One is not a blog (facts of israel) and is used as a secondary source, which is allowed. The haaretz link is dead, as common, but no reason to doubt it. The University of Minnesota page is filled with photos with no reason to doubt it either. It's not the opinions, it's the photos that that are in question. If it's a faculty member posting pictures from Life Magazin and AP, do you believe he photo-shopped them ? Show proof if you think they're a foregery (?) . if you have any more issues, you can use citation requests but please do so carefully, no need to use a million tags. One tag suffices, there are even general ones to be used in articles at the top of the page. Amoruso 02:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pay notice: the link's main portion is: factsofisrael.com/blog, that is, ending with blog and dated June 28, 2002, using typical blog formatting. The introduction page states that: "My name is David Melle and I decided to create this site ... ". Blogs are notr allowed. Regarding the Haaretz article: verify, then add. WP:V states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". It's your responsibility to both verify and cite. Finally, personal homepages are not allowed. You can find the same material using AP or Reuters. Do that. -- Steve Hart 02:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is now sourced. The Haaretz is quoted in secondary source (it used to be valid-this is for reading purposes), no problem of it. Explained the Minnesota photos, no problem with it either. I guess that's it. Amoruso 02:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amoruso: Reverting plus adding one ref that was already there in the past is not proper sourcing. You know fully well that quotes must be cited and you know fully well that neither personal homepages or blogs can be used as soures in all but a few cases. As you can see, I have now tracked down the sources and updated the article, even though I would be fully justified in just moving the content here to talk. And as it happens, the blog you kept promoting was actually wrong in citing its source. I hope this teaches you a lesson. I have kept the link to the homepage with the images for now, but only because another editor has joined in on that matter. I expect those too to be properly cited, either by you or by someone else. -- Steve Hart 21:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of Israeli children[edit]

I do not think that this sentence "Pictures of Israelie children with weapons have also been published.[3][4][5]" should be in the article. It is about children scribbling messages on a missiles that where later to be fired. While that should not have been done in the eyes of many people in the quoted article, it is not a picture of children being indoctrinated with weapons, like in the other articles and sources quoted. Any objections before I delete it? (I'll give it a week) Leppi 08:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spinout to it's own article? More sources (including more pictures of children being indoctrinated with weapons [2] [3]) could be found if that's a problem. // Liftarn 11:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links that are currently in the article are not relevant, they do not show indoctrination with weapons. If you want to post the link you just gave me, that would be different. But those articles are very POV. They are editorial type articles and not factual source based articles. And I must say, some of those pictures are not accurate. For example, three of the pictures are of kids sitting on or next to a large gun. It's a picture of a kids visiting an army base and climbing on the tanks. In any society that has an army, that happens all the time, and it not called indoctrinating children with weapons. Also, in the last picture of all the kids holding toy guns in the air, it's a picture from the Jewish holiday called Purim. It's traditional that when the 'bad guys' name is said, lots of noise is made, so as to drown out the name of the bad guy. The kids are not holding guns, they are holding noise makers in the shapes of guns. None of the examples are examples of kids being indoctrinated with weapons.Leppi 15:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the photo this article is about isn't an example of kids being indoctrinated with weapons either so that's a moot point. It's all just pictures of kids with guns and a lot of hot air. // Liftarn —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:50, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

I'm inclined to agree with Leppi. I didn't touch the photo links when I was sourcing this article a short while ago, awaiting discussion. The two new links introduced above isn't useable because they are blogs; note that the first photo link in the article is a personal homepage so it does not conform with WP:RS either. If either one of you are considering a spin off, see Military use of children -- Steve Hart 18:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sites linked above are used just because they contain a collections of photos. The individual photos can be tracked down to reliable sources if so is needed. // Liftarn

Please therefore show proof that those pictures are of children being indoctrinated with weapons and not just pictures of kids holding and playing with guns and then link to the individual pictures, and not using someones blog. Leppi 15:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I need to prove that. All I need to prove that they are pictures of kids with guns. That's basicly what this article is about. Why the double standards? // Liftarn

This is not an article about kids with guns. It's an article about a certain specific picture of a baby dressed up as a suicide bomber and the reactions it caused. If you would like to start a new article about kids playing with guns, that is a different story. But kids with guns is not the subject of this article. Leppi 04:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A week has passed since my original post. You have still not given me verifiable sources of Israeli children being indoctrinated with guns. You have given me pictures of Israeli children playing with guns, something that children from all around the world in all cultures do. In addition to the fact that it is not relevant to the article. Therefore, I am deleting the extraneous sentence. Leppi 05:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is exacly my point. Children all around the world play with guns, but it's only in the case of childrens of one specific ethnicity where this is called "indoctrination with weapons". It's interesting really. // Liftarn

The sentence/link you deleted is of reference to the article. These pictures are of children being indoctrinated with weapons. It's not a picture of a random child picking up a gun and playing with it, but rather a pictures of children being given guns and being taught that these guns should be used to kill the enemy. That's why it's called indoctrination in this case. That's why the other pictures are not. Leppi 10:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are refering to [4] it's just a collection of pictures of kids playing (or in most cases posing or being posed) with guns. The pictures are from a personal website so it's not a reliable source anyway. The picture collection at [5] and [6] are also a mixed bunch. This[7] photo for instance is clearly not just playing with toy guns. // Liftarn

I agree with Leppi as well. Isarig 01:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC) .[reply]

consensus[edit]

As far as I can see, you are the only one who disagrees and everyone else has come to a consensus. The links you have posted are either irrelevant or POV. you should not have undone the revert. Leppi 11:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might wanna see WP:CON. Consensus builds over time. While I agree with the edit, it was premature of Isarig to remove the info, particularly when you yourself had suggested here on Talk to leave it in for a week. -- Steve Hart 12:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]