Talk:Palestinian political violence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Palestine (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Israel (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Terrorism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Intro - "for religious reasons"[edit]

NMMNG has introduced "for religious reasons" to the introduction of this article a number of times now [1], [2], [3] using sources that do not support this conclusion. Please cease trying to add things to the intro that are not supported by the sources you are appending and which are not discussed in the body of the article. Not all Palestinian groups have a religious dimension. Hamas does not represent everyone (and even Hamas is described in reliable secondary sources as having as political goals, not religious ones, as in this Haaretz article from yesterday: "Hamas, on the other hand, confines itself to pushing for a Palestinian state, says the sole target of its suicide bombings and missile attacks is Israel, and makes compromises with other movements, even participating in Palestinian elections in 2006.". Tiamuttalk 12:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC) And NMMNG, you are not a new editor. So I'd appreciate it if you would format your own refs when you add them to the article. Adding urls without and formatting or information on title, author, date, publisher, etc., isn't that hard and it shows you interested in improving articles, rather than simply highlighting your preferred take on things. Tiamuttalk 12:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's somewhat amusing that an article about groups like Islamic Jihad, or Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah has no mention of the religious aspect of their actions. Both groups are quite clear that they do things for religious reasons (perhaps not exclusively, but still) yet reading this article you couldn't guess that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is about Palestinian political violence. Its not about one group, but many, most of which are secular in orientation. For you to add "for religious reasons" to the intro based on the charter of one group from 1988, or based on one assessment of the motivations of suicide bombers (which is only one tactic of many employed by Palestinian militants) is undue and misleading. Tryng to force that information in after its been challenged by other editors without bothering to open a section to discuss, is also disruptive. Tiamuttalk 13:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
For you to try to portray the religious component of Palestinian violence as something that is about one group or a charter is misleading, and deliberately so it seems. There is a very strong religious angle to some of this violence, and you know it. What happened to NPOV? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
For you to insist on adding information that is poorly sourced to the introduction of an article shows a lack of interest in article improvmenet. Please find reliable secondary sources that discuss the religious component to Palestinian political violence, add them to the body of the article and then we can decide how to include a mention of this introduction. You have a tendency to jump right into editing introductions without regard for what the body of the article says, appending a random source to support your preferred interpretation of events. Please stop doing that and engage in real editing. Thank you. Tiamuttalk 14:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm interested in making the article accurate. I think that improves it. The complete lack of acknowledgment in the article of the strong religious component in Palestinian political violence may make you feel good, but doesn't make a good article. Calling the Hamas charter - where they repeatedly and in no uncertain terms explain they are a religious movement and that everything they do flows from that - a "random source" is pretty funny. But I guess any excuse to revert works. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Put your money where you mouth is NMMNG. You want to improve the article? Using a 20-year old primary source document of one group out of 20 involved in Palestinian political violence isn't going to help. Add material sourced to reliable secondary sources to the body of the article that reflect what scholarly sources have to say on the subject of religion in the Palestinian national struggle. Here's two to start you off:
Did you seriously just selectively quote from your second source to alter its meaning? The sentence starts with "even though" and ends with "...particularly in cases like Israel and Palestine where religious leaders often recommend political violence".
I don't understand your basic argument. Are you seriously claiming Hamas and Islamic Jihad (among others) are not religiously motivated or that they don't carry out political violence? These two groups command the support of a significant part of the Palestinian population. Possibly the majority. This should be reflected in the article as well as the lead. In fact, this article could do with a whole section describing the shift from almost exclusively secular groups carrying out political violence in the 60s-80s and the rise of the Islamist groups during and after the first intifada. I'm almost certain you're aware of this trend so I'm not sure why you're resisting it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


I didn't alter the meaning of text through the fragment I chose to highlight. In fact, in you read further down, the study's authors decided to drop the variable of "religious committment" due its not being a significant factor at all. So yes, it was a selectie quotation, but the fact remains that religion remains unimportant in this struggle.
You are right to suggest that there has been a shift by which secular groups have been challenged by groups that use religion to frame their actions. I just don't think its as significant in changing to overall thrust of the struggle (and neither do the sources I've read or provided here). If you have sources that say otherwise, please present them and add them to the article's body. No one is stopping you from doing so. What I object to is using 20-year old primary sources related to one group to make OR conclusions about the primary motivation behind Palestinian political violence. I also object to your insertion of this poorly sourced material in the introduction when there is no discussion of it in the body (meaning that your edits fly in the face of WP:LEAD). So get down to work NMMNG. If you in fact serious about improving this article, you should be able to put together a section on what you are talking about. I'll help you do it. But I won't do it for you, since as I said, to me, its simply not as significant a shift as you beliee it to be. Tiamuttalk 17:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Tiamut -- I think the religious aspect is unimportant, and is not relevant to the topic of the article. The conflict is mostly political, focused around disenfranchisement and human rights abuses committed by Israel. Religion is a minor factor which is played up by people who are trying to cover up the political aspect of the struggle. But most importantly, it simply doesn't need to be focused on here, since this is an article on political violence, not religious violence. Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The title LOL[edit]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA is this for real? C'mon lets not kid ourselves this title comes up as more apolgetic rather than netural especially the caption Victims of Acts of Terror Memorial]], a monument to victims of Palestinian political violence, Mount Herzl, Jerusalem Was the actions by the PLO in countries they were guests in against civilians there political violence? The islamic terriorism article is not called Muslim violence for political reasons than why should this? Im not touching this article but the name really does need to be looked into ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:WTA for an explanation as to why "Terrorism" is not used. If you still want to suggest a name change, please do so at WP:RM. Also, please do not mock/laugh and WP:SOAPbox on article talk pages. Its unproductive. Tiamuttalk 22:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry Tiamut but I couldnt help myself not find this funny, you may be able to hold that explaination of the PLO or other Palistinian movements actions if they only targerted military units or its attacks only on Israel when this is not true. Other countries who do not occupy Palestinian land have had their population attributed with this so called political violence which we both know is terrorism. Hijacking planes is also considered terrorism aswell. Islamic terrorism article exists so why not here aswell? There even one for Jewish terrorism even one for Communist terrorism. anyway thats all from me i dont want edit war or to get too involved in this but this needs to be looked into.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't soapbox Yasmina. You've been here long enough to know what that means. This article doesn't cover only attacks on civilians, but also attacks on military targets, and it should also cover civil disobedience and the like as well (though it is currently lacking in that information at present). As WP:WTA says, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Its best to avoid using emotionally laden terms and instead stick to descriptive that don't carry value judgements. I don't know why it was decided that Islamic terrorism or the others titled that way are acceptable, but what happens there does not determine what happens here. But if you do want to use that argument, please note that the article on Zionist militancy is entitled Zionist political violence. Tiamuttalk 23:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand what your getting at here Tiamut but the title is nearly never used in description for these acts,Terrorism is Terrorism is doesnt matter who is doing it or where they are from or why.if civilians are either purposely or indiscriminately targeted then its terrorism.I do think the Zionist political violence page should be reverted to Zionist terrorism or atleast Zionist insurgency if you feel terrorism is a word that shouldnt be used then this article should consider Palestinian insurgency. like i said this is something i just want to mention not get really involved in ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I do have a question has this always been the title of this article?♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead rearrange[edit]

I've never liked the "another key aim" tacked on at the end, it just didn't seem to fit. I propose this, and will leave it up to the more seasoned to determine the suitability:

Palestinian political violence refers to acts of violence undertaken to further the political objectives of Palestinians in their fight for self-determination. These objectives include advancement of the Palestinian right of return, the "liberation of Palestine", and the establishment of a Palestinian state, either in place of both Israel and the Palestinian territories or solely in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. Periodically directed toward more limited goals such as the release of Palestinian prisoners.

--65.127.188.10 (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And now that the lead has established what the "objectives" of the violence is, can we define the violence itself, since this article purports to be about it? Shall we say kidnappings, summary executions, torture, bombings, stabbing, drive-by shootings, media propaganda? Stellarkid (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Why I Put a Disputed Tag On this Article[edit]

Because it does not discuss Palestinian political violence but Palestinian political aspirations. It does not describe Fatah-Hamas political violence. This article acts mainly as a rationalization for political violence rather than as a description of the reality of political violence. If there is a better tag, such as one dealing with bias, please feel free to substitute it for this one. Stellarkid (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a long running discussion at the talk for Zionist Political Violence where it was determined that the aims of terrorist groups were appropriate in the lead of the article. The previous version simply said "..for political reasons". The current lead and article represents the efforts and concessions of parties from all different facets of the debate. I hope this helps. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks AnonIP for your input and yes I do not disagree with the consensus that the aims of Palestinian violence belongs in the article. It is however the issue of the emphasis or WP:WEIGHT on those aims and objectives, as opposed to the emphasis on the violence which is supposedly being discussed and described in the article. An article about Palestinian violence should have some description of such. Are we talking about kidnappings, bombs, so-called suicide bombers, drive by shootings, house invasions, bus bombings or what? There is no mention in the article of Palestinian on Palestinian violence and the objectives of that, such as for example Hamas and Fatah violence over control of the Gaza Strip, the (summary executions?) of Palestinians believed to be selling land to Israel or collaborating with Israel, nor any of the points mentioned by Wikifan12345 below, ie violence predating Israel, and the Palestinian political violence in Jordan and Lebanon. The second paragraph of the lead originally said (until I moved it a few paragraphs down) "While violence is one tactic that Palestinians have used in pursuit of their national aspirations, the Palestinian struggle has also employed non-violent measures such as peaceful protests, public relations and negotiations." This unsourced comment does not belong in the lead either, true or not, since the article is not about such, nor is this expanded upon in the rest of the article as is appropriate for WP:LEAD. One final point, a discussion of political violence of another group (even if related to this one as "the (an) opponent") does not substitute for discussion of political violence for this group, though certainly the relevant and corresponding points can and should be brought up. Again, thanks for your input. Stellarkid (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that the infighting between Hamas and Fatah is out of scope for this article. That information is important, and has a place, but not here. While the violence may pre-date the state of Israel, it does not predate the Zionist movement, so in effect it has been politically motivated from day one. You're right about that final statement, and frankly, I think it could be removed without much objection. As for wikifan, putting Palestinian in quotes like that is to me as offensive as putting "Israeli" in quotes might be to someone else, as it questions the legitimacy of the existence of a people who do quite clearly exist. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah the article is rather biased. Palestinian violence predates Palestinian national aspiration. The PLO was founded in 1964. The original charter did not call for a Palestinian state and violence was never predicated on achieving independence. In fact, the original Fatah narrative was that the WB, Gaza, and East J'lem rightfully belonged to their Arab occupiers - Egypt and Jordan. At best the PLO was merely an extension of Arab foreign policy, as Fatah was the brainchild of Egyptian and Syrian leadership. It was not until AFTER the Six Day War did the PLO modify their charter adding claims to the territories. But even then it was more about fighting Israel than creating a real political apparatus capable of independence. Also, the article MUST have information about the Palestinian-Arab conflict, particularly the Jordan and Lebanon wars. PLO tried to take over Jordan and was crushed by the Hashemites, then they fled to Lebanon where they were crushed again by Israel. All this in the name of self-determination? Unlikely. Lastly, what about violence prior to the founding of Israel? Nearly 5,000 Arabs were killed during the 30s revolts, and nearly a thousand Jews were massacred or killed between the early 20th century and the civil war. The article should probably be renamed since Palestinian violence had little to do with politics until rather recently, and that too is debatable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your points and so consider my tag well and appropriately placed. I hope to find some time to work on this article and make it more NPOV, but would ask first what you would rename this to? Stellarkid (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Personally, Palestinian terrorism but some might consider that POV. I think the parallel with Zionist political violence is dishonest because Zionism is inherently political, whereas Palestinian violence originally revolved around a rejection of the Zionist presence and Jewish activism. The modern definition "Palestinian" did not exist prior to 1948, and some may say 1967. After all what is a Palestinian? A resident of Palestine? Does that not include Jews? The British made no distinction between Jews and Arabs, all were considered "Palestinian." I'd say the best compromise is Palestinian militancy. This a shared POV of both Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon as all have at one point dealt with Palestinian militancy. "Political violence" seems more of a euphemism than anything else. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Please continue the "rename the article" discussion below, and indicate specific objections with the neutrality of the article here. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


Since this turned into a "rename the article" discussion with no consensus, I'm going to remove the tag. --72.148.136.13 (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Rename the article[edit]

As a debate about the neutrality of the article has a subthread of actually re-naming it, I encourage interested parties to continue that topic of discussion below.

Personally, Palestinian terrorism but some might consider that POV. I think the parallel with Zionist political violence is dishonest because Zionism is inherently political, whereas Palestinian violence originally revolved around a rejection of the Zionist presence and Jewish activism. The modern definition "Palestinian" did not exist prior to 1948, and some may say 1967. After all what is a Palestinian? A resident of Palestine? Does that not include Jews? The British made no distinction between Jews and Arabs, all were considered "Palestinian." I'd say the best compromise is Palestinian militancy. This a shared POV of both Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon as all have at one point dealt with Palestinian militancy. "Political violence" seems more of a euphemism than anything else. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree I think the title should be changed♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I think that the title is as neutral as possible. This was discussed previously under "the title LOL" --65.127.188.10 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Disagree. Terrorism is a word to avoid because it is an extremely loaded term with no universally accepted meaning, and is commonly used as a propaganda term to delegitamize political movements. Factsontheground (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I urge you to go reread what Wikifan12345 wrote, since your comment does not logically follow. With all due respect, Stellarkid (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the above user the title does not appear neutral but more apologetic to the actions. Being Apologetic is not neutral as I explained to Tiamut and as another user pointed out correctly Palestinian violence isn't limited against Israelis only. it happened in Lebanon,Egypt,Jordan and Kuwait. None of these countries are occupying the Palestinian land so to suggest that any violent actions against the people there can be granted under political reasons is absurd. ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Both Jordan and Egypt occupied Palestinian territory. nableezy - 20:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
How is it apologetic? Is PLO violence outside of Israel not also politically motivated? Please answer these two separate questions separately. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Lebanon still very much discriminates against descendants of those who fled the 1948 war. Perhaps a parallel article should be describing the acts of Palestinians outside of Israel. --Shuki (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with Wikifan12345 that "militancy" is a better word and serves as a compromise. Agree with Yasmina that the current title serves as Apologetics. Stellarkid (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Or simply postfix the word 'apologetics' to the end of every I-P conflict related article title until editors stop using them to fight narrative wars. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Lebanon supposedly discriminating against Palestinian refugees does not justify Palestinians using their weapons to harm the native civilians there or them using that country to fight for their land back and undermine the national soverignity of that country or even setting up checkpoints asking Lebanese citizens for their I.D in their own country on the spot. If you dont like the law of the land then leave. The restriction on jobs and rights for Palestinains happened after the taef agreement after when the country had been reduced to rubble. Prior to that Palestinians were free to get education and trainign there like George Habbash,Ghassan Kanaffi infact many leading Palestinians got there education or wealth from pre-civil war Lebanon.Nableezy you know very well most Palestinians dont recognize the occupation Jordan and Egypt did in Gaza & West bank as an occupation or milltary agression. The only reason those countries even occupied Gaza and West bank was they fought several wars on the Palestinians behalf to protect that land.Besides violence Palestinians did against those countries happened when the Israelis began to occupy the area. ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And yet that fails to explain how 1) The current title of the article is "apologetic" and 2) how violence committed by outside of Israel by Palestinian groups is not politically motivated. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there any source establishing a definition for the term "Palestinian political violence"? What is the definition of "Palestinian political violence" and what source provides us with that definition? Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Political violence and terrorism are overlapping but distinct concepts. Changing the title to Palestinian militancy could be a good way to include both of them. Alternatively, we can have two articles: Palestinian political violence and Palestinian terrorism. Needless to say, WP:WTA is being grossly abused here. Some things simply are terrorism, and many of those things are of Palestinian origin. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Many of the actions that you, or others, would call terrorism would be disputed. And nearly everything that you would call "Palestinian terrorism" would be covered under "political violence". And while OTHERCRAP isnt a reason to not move the article, but most of the "Zionist political violence" prior to 1948 was "terrorism". nableezy - 21:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
A renaming is well over-due. Palestinian "political a violence" almost seems like a parody. I'd imagine some Palestinian militants might actually be offended by the notion that their fight is somehow based on "politics." Certainly some violent actions could be attributed to politics, but up until the 67' war Palestinian violence was indistinguishable from Arab violence. Most of the modern day Palestinian groups (e.g, Fatah) were simply extensions of Egyptian/Jordanian/Syrian foreign policy and took orders from their masters. There was no quest for a state under the original charter. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
A search for "Palestinian political violence" in Google Books shows that it is a valid and salient concept. "Terrorism" is a WP:WTA. With all due respect Wikifan12345, your latest comment gives a good sense of your personal opinions on the Palestinian national struggle but are entirely irrelevant to this renaming discussion. Suggest you focus on sources, and relevant policies and guidelines instead wheen crafting your arguments. Tiamuttalk 08:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
No one is disputing the concept of "Palestinian political violence" but hijacking airplanes and torching embassies can't simply be filed under the "political violence" category. This article also fails to distinguish between Palestinian violence towards Israel and violence towards other Palestinians/Arab states. War of the camps killed more people than both intifadas combined. What did that have to do with the national struggle? And what about the violence before a Palestinian national aspiration was defined? Some of the first registered terrorist organizations were of Palestinian origin, and Arafat himself was indicted by the US government for the murder of American diplomats. So where does terrorism end and politics begin? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
you missed..."Suggest you focus on sources, and relevant policies and guidelines instead wheen crafting your arguments." Sean.hoyland - talk 10:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
WTA doesn't even remotely justify classifying blatant acts of terror as "political violence." There are registered terrorist organizations that happen to represent certain Palestinian factions (Hamas and Islamic Jihad come to mind). Are they participating in political violence to this day? And like I said, what about violence committed in Lebanon or Jordan? I personally don't dispute the legitimacy of political violence, but right now it acts as more of a euphemism than anything else. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Settlements?[edit]

In the sentence "Targets of attacks included buses, IDF checkpoints, restaurants, discothèques, shopping malls, a university, and civilian homes in Israeli settlements within the West Bank and Gaza Strip," the phrase "in Israeli settlements within the West Bank and Gaza Strip" is plain false. Even if it refers only to the civilian homes, civilian homes in Sderot and other areas attacked by rockets from Beit Hanoun are not in the West Bank or Gaza Strip, yet the article does cover them. Removing "in Israeli settlements within the West Bank and Gaza Strip." (76.94.127.254 (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

I partially reverted that, changing it to "primarily in the Israeli-occupied territories", because that's what the data in the cited sources shows. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Israeli political violence[edit]

For balance, given that this article is about Palestinians and political violence, should there also be an article on Israelis and political violence, maybe it would be called Israeli political violence? Mrchris (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Zionist political violence Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Zionism seems to be an ideology, vs. Palestinians a group of people. Is there a similar term to Zionist to describe Palestinian nationalists? I can't see any similar articles such as Irish political violence or American political violence. ~~ Mrchris (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Since September 17, 1948, there seems to have been no zionist political violence according to the article, however there is an article Israeli settler violence. But, I still can not find an article about Israeli violence or Israeli political violence to compare this article with. Overall, I think this article should be renamed to Palestinian nationalist political violence, Palestinian resistance violence, or just Palestinian resistance or something less pov.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrchris (talkcontribs) .
This article's topic is commonly called Palestinian terrorism by reliable sources. "political violence" is a sugar coating, and "resistance" is far worse, implying that it is legitimate. The closest counter article for this one is Jewish religious terrorism (Palestinian people in this article as contrasted to Jewish People in that), and I am certainly not proposing a rename to "Jewish political violence" or "Jewish resistance". Marokwitz (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
No, the analogous article to Jewish religious terrorism is Islamic terrorism. The actions described here are also often described in reliable sources as "resistance". You cant say that one title is bad because it implies it is legitimate but the other is ok even though it implies it is illegitimate. nableezy - 19:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I was just trying to ssy that the current name is a compromise between two POVs, and find it difficult to believe that there will be consensus to rename any way. Marokwitz (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
In that case I think we are in agreement. nableezy - 21:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense[edit]

The Zion Square Explosive Refrigerator? I take it this is spam... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_political_violence&diff=76003779&oldid=76003127 I'm not sure though, so change it if you see fit. FMasic (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It sounds funny but it was a real event... On Friday, July 4, 1975, a refrigerator that had five kilograms of explosives packed into its sides exploded on Zion Square. Fifteen people were killed and 77 injured in the attack. Marokwitz (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Aziz Salha bloody hands image[edit]

Hi, all. The use here of the photo of Aziz Salha waving his bloody hands in exultation seems to me to be unduly prejudicial; it's use in this context implies that any Palestinian who takes up arms does so gleefully and is wholly given over to blood lust. And if the Palestinians are all like that, the reader is given to infer, then surely their cause doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

Yes, war and politically-motivated murder are ugly as hell, and there are men and women, too, who debase their humanity by dehumanizing their victims and exulting in their suffering and murder. But this image implies that it's the typical attitude of Palestinians who take up arms against an occupation that is, after all, condemned by most nations as a violation of international law.

There are videos on the web of Israeli soldiers dancing around bound and blindfolded female prisoners, videos of soldiers shooting unarmed civilians, videos of former Israeli soldiers describing war crimes they saw or even took part in, and one particularly horrifying video of soldiers holding a semi-conscious victim in place while one soldier holds his arm out straight and another repeatedly pounds it with a very large and heavy rock, against the bend of the elbow, to try to break the arm. I'm sure there are other, equally disturbing images available, that I'm not aware of, as well. Would those videos, or images copied from those videos be representative of "Israeli political violence"? Or how about a video showing Israeli forces setting fire to large areas of densely populated Gaza with sophisticated weapons that can't be narrowly targeted?

Should we go looking for the most gruesome and repugnant images of Israeli-perpetrated violence we can find, put that in an article, and link every I/P article we possibly can to it? I don't think so. This bestial image belongs in our 2000 Ramallah lynching article. It doesn't belong here, and in this edit I've removed it from this article.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Basically what you're saying is that you don't like this picture because you think it implies all sorts of things. That's not a valid reason to remove such an iconic image from an article it is a good representation of. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this one more iconic ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
That one is also iconic. Someone should include it as well, probably in the section that talks about Munich. If you want to remove something, the bottom one seems unnecessarily graphic and of an event I doubt most people have heard of. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I moved the photo to the section where it is discussed. OhioStandard's concerns are valid. If its going to remain in the article, it can where it is discussed and not at the top of the page where it is used to not so subtlely scream that Palestinians have blood on their hands. Tiamuttalk 11:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
For those interested in alternate or more photo options, the page on Palestinian fedayeen has some good ones. Tiamuttalk 11:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Now that I've considered this further, I find I have to withdraw any implied objection to the idea that images from the shelling of Gaza with white phosphorus could appropriately represent "Israeli political violence" since those bombardments were pre-planned and deliberate acts of the nation's military forces. The video I linked to, for example, has some very "iconic" images as well, especially in some of the "frames" that occur at around 1:21 and 1:22, if that's what people here are looking for.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason you keep posting links to that video here? You already posted it once today, so I have to wonder what your point is. Better google placement? Trying to start a discussion about Israel's use of WP in an article it's not relevant to? What? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought you said you liked iconic images? Perhaps I misunderstood your intention. But to address your question, "Better google placement"? Please be serious. Since I was mentioning it a second time, and particularly since I gave "frame cites" it was appropriate to keep the link so people didn't have to hunt for it above. Seems odd you'd object to that on a talk page, though, where it will barely be noticed, when you don't mind having similarly "iconic" images in article space, where they're seen by many more people. In any case, unless someone has a new issue to raise, I see no point in continuing this thread.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Your "iconic frames" are not relevant to this article, and neither are your musings about Israel's use of WP. Please stop wasting our time with irrelevant stuff. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

adding a terrorism tag and a picture[edit]

i was told to post here what i want to add before i add it i'll add it when someone replies to this post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone35 (talkcontribs) 05:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You added a large template to the beginning of an article that discusses much more than terrorism. I would not be opposed to adding the template to a section that specifically discusses terrorism, but having it be in the beginning of the article unfairly, and incorrectly, pushes the view that the subject of the article is equivalent to terrorism. You also removed a see also to Israeli settler violence. You provided no reason for doing this. You have been reverted by a number of editors when adding this template, please gain consensus for edits instead of periodically returning to restore your favored version. Also, keep in mind that while the current rule for articles in the Arab/Israeli topic area is 1RR/day, slower edit warring is still edit-warring. See WP:EW. nableezy - 07:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
ok i added the terrorism tag in the "violence against civilians" tag and a picture (exactly like in zionist political violence article, same size and same position). that article IS only about palestinian terrorism (read the name of the article maybe?...) and if there is a picture in the beginning of the article zionist political violence then there can be a picture in the palestinian political violence article too. i removed the israeli settler violence because it has nothing to do with palestinian political violence. you have no reason to revert my edit now and if you still want to then please write on my talk page--Someone35 (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Images[edit]

A couple of people have removed the lead images with claims they they are "unrepresentative". Perhaps they can elaborate on why images of the results of Palestinian political violence (burned bus, damage to a kindergarten) are "unrepresentative" of "Palestinian political violence", and what the characteristics of a representative image would be. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't answer your good questions, obvious sockpuppet, but I am curious to see who will pull the hypocritical revert trigger first at the "corresponding" Zionist political violence.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Not a sockpuppet. I'm active on other wikis as well. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Brewcrewer, your edit over there was a bit pointy wasn't it given that it wasn't "corresponding" ? You removed everything didn't you ? Couldn't you move the images down/resize/reorganize them a bit rather than remove ? The most iconic image suitable for the lead here is from the Munich massacre in my view. I think the argument that the school damage is unrepresentative has a point. That attack took place during a military conflict. Hundreds of Palestinian children where killed and hundreds of schools were destroyed or damaged by the IDF. It seems entirely inappropriate in so many ways to use that particular image to illustrate the notion of "political violence". I was fine with the bus though. Firkin Flying Fox, I don't believe you. No one is allowed to collaborate with sockpuppets because to do so is against policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The Munich terrorist photo is good, too. I guess you'll have no problem with me adding it instead of the bus. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
You guess wrong. I have no problem with Brewcrewer adding it. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Your life, dude. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
why remove the photos from zionist political violence, brewcrewer? --Someone35 (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Munich pic is fine but honestly the lead deserves a photo that has more color and illustration. A guy in a mask? WikifanBe nice 07:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
edit: Okay looks like the pic is being added by this sock fellow? Who originally proposed the munich pic? The last I recall reading this article the 40s bus was in the lead. Anyways, I don't endorse any edits made by Fox. WikifanBe nice 07:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I proposed Munich sometime ago and again just above. My reasoning is based on my understanding of Wikipedia:Image#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature. I think that image more than any other I can think of is an iconic visual representation of the notion of "Palestinian political violence". It has become a symbol in the formal, representational sense. Another iconic image that has been used as a symbol to represent what we are calling "Palestinian political violence" is the photo of Wafa Idris taken during the first intifada. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
A photo of a suicide bomber? I can see a photo of the aftermath of a suicide attack. If the lead is going to demonstrate violence than a guy in a mask isn't the best when there are so many other pictures. Like this or this or this. I think the second one is the best as it is one of the first acts carried out by a Palestinian movement. WikifanBe nice 09:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, although I'm personally strongly in favour of using images that show the effects of violence in their most graphic form in articles about conflict, that image of Wafa Idris, taken long before the attack, played an important role in subsequent events and debates in all sorts of ways and contexts. Much has been written about it and Wafa Idris by serious people. I should clarify that I'm only suggesting the Wafa Idris image for the article body, not the lead area. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • “I'm only suggesting the Wafa Idris image for the article body” - ?!
There is already Wafa Idris article about her with so pleasant picture. And now you want to have it here too? Nice.
Sorry, but I think there are a lot of specific Internet places for icons of such murders, other than this article in Wiki what is (so hope) about the terrorism and its victims.
--Igorp_lj (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Nothing you've said is relevant to content decisions. This article isn't about "the terrorism and its victims", it's about Palestinian political violence. Wafa Idris was a significant figure in what is being described here as "Palestinian political violence" for all sorts of reasons and images of her have played a notable role. These are facts. It seems you have forgotten the significance of imagery in the conflict, the role of images in Wikipedia articles and that this is an encylopedia, although oddly you acknowledge that Wafa Idris is an "icon" which is kind of self-contradictory. It's not my fault that the image is significant to the subject of this article, Palestinian political violence, nor do I care in the slightest about editor's feelings about her or her victims. If you are unable to control your emotions about this topic, don't edit the article or comment on the talk page. This topic area is covered by discretionary sanctions partly to ensure that editors don't have to deal with this kind of nonsense. Read them and comply with them. Don't involve me or any other editors in a conflict that they are not a part of just because you lack the self-discipline to put your personal views aside and focus of building an encyclopedia based on our policies and guidelines. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Back on topic. I like the 1948 bombing of Israel by Palestinians to start the lead. The suicide bomber can be in the body somewhere if it already isn't. The rest of the pics (like munich) should be moved to the appropriate section. The Munich event was a huge deal for Palestinians but eventually forgotten after 82 Lebanon war. WikifanBe nice 23:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. Either the current picture or the picture from Mercaz HaRav massacre would be the best in my opinion.-- Someone35 (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"liberation of Palestine"[edit]

Could someone explain what this phrase add to the lead and why its need it(except POV push)?I think the sentense without this phrase have exactly the same meaning These political objectives include self-determination in and sovereignty over Palestine,[1][2] and establishment of a Palestinian state, either in place of both Israel and the Palestinian territories or solely in the Palestinian territories. If no one will object I will remove this phrase.--Shrike (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the lead probably needs a rewrite in general. For example, it doesn't mention that much of the violence is, according to the groups involved, "resistance to foreign occupation"/"colonization" etc or however those objectives are phrased by the sources that describe them. Perhaps that was what was meant by "liberation of Palestine". Either way, it's not clear. It also doesn't mention that groups that carry out the violence are designated as terrorist organizations by x,y,z although I appreciate that the article is trying to give a more historical overview rather than focus on recent history. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a very old compromise from circa 2009 where some "context" was needed in the lead of Zionist Terrorism. The consensus then was that the stated aims of these groups belongs in the article, even if the claims are considered disingenuous by editors. These should help:

I put the lead back the way it has been for a very long time. Putting "liberation of palestine" in quotes isn't very nice, and I can't think of a justification which doesn't violate WP:NOR or WP:NPOV somehow. --Sinophobe (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Because the source use it in the quotes anyhow I don't understand how its not redundant?
Why is putting it in quotes not very nice? That's the terminology they use. The way it is now isn't very nice either, as some people will find it offensive that it suggests there is a Palestine that needs "liberation." What exactly does "liberation" mean? Does this refer to the West Bank? Does it refer to all of it, or also Area C? Does it refer to Gaza? Does it refer to Israel? Putting it in quotes would solve the whole issue. Putting it in quotes doesn't mean you're skeptical of it, rather quoting them. Another possible solution is to simply remove the phrase. The sentence is fine without it. The current wording though is terrible and needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activism1234 (talkcontribs) 01:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for addition statisical analisys of targets[edit]

This articale lacks the emphesis on targets , person reading this articale get the assumption that violance is against militrary and civilian when the facts will show a diffrent image, could someone please phrase in the most POV way that information ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.51.101 (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Denial of service attacks[edit]

I was asked to help clean up the grammar in the 'Violence against civilians' sections. I tried to do that, at least for the DoS attack section with these edits. I see the 'alleged' was removed. That's fine by me, I don't care either way, but I'm more concerned that the only sources used are non-English at the moment and that there is currently a somewhat weak and implicit link to the subject of the article, political violence (hence the alleged). I had a quick look through the Ynet site to see whether I could find English versions of the Hebrew Ynet articles without success. I may have missed them so if someone else could try to track down some English sources for this it would be great. What would be even better would be sources that explictly link these DoS attacks to Palestinian militant groups even if it is just an allegation without proof so that the link to the topic of the article is more direct. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:NONENG. A personal translation is good enough, as is a machine translation. The Haaretz Ynet source in Hebrew is good enough to include material here. These are not things that require your agreement or that you need to voice an opinion about. So, I suggest you move past that. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Jeff Song (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if ArbCom has specifically addressed blatant use of double standards as part of its findings and remedies, but this one is pretty egregious. Do take more care in the future, as you seem to be skating very very close to violating the editing standards required in this topic area. Jeff Song (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that is one of the most amazingly fucking idiotic pieces of bullshit I have ever seen here. That sounds like the kind of idiotic shit NoCal100 comes out with. Everything I wrote is true in both cases and I stand by everything. If you would like to add a translation, do it. If you want to add English sources do it. Unlike you, I have no intention of removing any of the material on the basis that there are only Hebrew sources. Seriously, Jeff, do not get on my radar. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
If you think that by threatening me, or hurling obscenities you are going to deflect attention from what you are doing, you are dead wrong. I called you out on a blatant display of hypocrisy, and recommend that you stop it. Keep it up, and you'll be at WP:AE shortly. Jeff Song (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
"blatant display of hypocrisy"...unbelievable. Get some fucking ethics man and stop saying stupid and patently false things. I regard them as personal attacks. Normally I don't care about personal attacks but I could make an exception in your case since you are looking more and more like someone who isn't allowed to be here and who is here to cause conflict. If you want to report me at AE just do it. I would be interested to see you explain the warped reasoning you use to draw your conclusions that in your mind justify making totally false, unethical and very stupid statements about another editor. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the reasoning is warped at all. Just 3 weeks ago, when I raised an objection to something based on the fact that it was sourced to a single article in Hebrew, you wrote back a very blunt response saying non-English sources are perfectly fine and telling me to get lost. And here you are, complaining (or as you would have it "concerned that the only sources used are non-English ") about the use of non-English sources. And when I quote back to you the EXACT words you used to tell me to get lost, you get all prissy. This is out-and-out hypocrisy, and no amount of obscenities will change that fact. Telling others to get "ethics" after pulling a stunt like this is mildly amusing. Jeff Song (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Unbelievable. Try to understand these simple things. I personally looked at all of the Hebrew sources used in the DoS attacks section. I read them all using Google translate. I rewrote the section from scratch based on the machine translations because someone, an Israel supporter I might add, asked me nicely for help. I hit save. That means that I am personally endorsing everything there because I have personally verified that it is present in the Hebrew sources. I am not complaining about lack of English sources. I'm saying that it would be better if we could find English versions of the Hebrew Ynet articles because Ynet also publishes in English and add any other English sources available about the DoS attacks because "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones" as it says in WP:NONENG. Did I remove http://news.walla.co.il (a source I assume doesn't exist as an en version) ? Did I remove anything ? Did I say anything at all about removing any sources or any content ? Now, let's compare that to the other instance (Talk:NGO_Monitor#Obscured_donors) you are bizarrely using to accuse me of double standards. The only source available is a lengthy in-depth investigative report in a magazine in Hebrew, a source you wanted to remove simply on the basis that it wasn't in English (I assume you didn't like what it had to say because there is no other reason to try to get it removed). There are no English versions of that source out there. It is all there is. Removal and replacement with English versions per WP:NONENG is not an option. So, don't tell me about double standards in the topic area. I spend half my time here fixing the shit caused by people with double standards. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
If you are not complaining about lack of English sources, you should avoid saying things like "I'm more concerned that the only sources used are non-English", which really sounds a whole lot like a complaint about the lack of English sources, at least to my untrained ear. But as Shrike says below, , I'm going to let it go. Jeff Song (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
You are going to let it go. How very generous and noble-minded of you. If only you had been smart enough to not cross my path in the first place. I guess some people never learn. Now I am obliged to do something about your presence in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the dispute is over so everybody let it go--Shrike (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Mercaz HaRav massacre.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Mercaz HaRav massacre.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mercaz HaRav massacre.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Palestinian political violence[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Palestinian political violence's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BBC_catandmouse":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 02:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Home front reactions[edit]

I've started to write an addition then I realized it cannot be added as all sources are Hebrew (laws and guidance) I have no idea how to continue and it would not be acceptable due to wikipedia:NOR and wikipedia:NONENG

A guidance paper by the Israeli home front command , that is given for each household in Israel, include sections for basic treatment of Chemical warfare victims[1]. The Home front command perform periodic training for citizens for Chemical and Biological attacks. As of 2006 [2][3] all public educational facilities in confrontation areas are ordered to be built bomb proof (can sustain a direct hit from a katusha missle)[2] and must have an option to be connected chemical and biological purifying systems, with an exception for kindergardens and special care education systems that must have a central air purifying system. All medical or treatment facilities must have a shelter that can be gas proof (can be sealed in a form that the only source of Air would be via the purifying ventilation systems) with connection to purifying system[4]. all long term treatments facilities must be built as a bomb shelter [4] and must be built to sustain 4 hours of isolation [5]

Article subject[edit]

Seems to me someone mixed up the internal Palestinian political struggles (violent ones) and the separate Israeli-Palestinian conflict (which already has a very much expanded article). It must be decided what is the exact subject of this article - whether all violent events including Palestinians, or only politically-motivated violent events including Palestinians (mostly internal).Greyshark09 (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This articale covers events from 1920's and up ,this is of The Israeli- Palestnian conflict ) and part of the Israeli - Arab conflicts. the information had moved from palestian terroism (the dref still exists) in order to make the title less POV it got this current name 81.218.101.250 (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Terrorism is not exactly political violence. Political violence is usually embedded in political disagreements, sometimes leading to political warfare, uprisings and civil wars (like in Lebanon, Turkey and Syria etc.); but this is very different than the Israel-Gaza conflict for example, where both sides don't even recognize each other. There is nothing political about it, it is strictly a nationalist-religious conflict there. While we can relate to 1920s, 1930s and 1940s events in Mandatory Palestine as political violence between Palestinian Jews and Arabs, this is not relevant to 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s; the only "political conflicts" back then where among Palestinian Arabs - the Jordanian-Palestinian civil war; the Lebanese Civil War and the international terrorism to some degree; certainly not the Palestinian insurgency in South Lebanon or the First Intifada, which were nationalist conflicts.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Greyshark09 that the name "political violence" is bad and the article (now) mainly talks about the process of clashes between several entities (you can't use the word Terrorism here due to policies of wikipedia) (I don't know about the religions conflict but I agree with you about the nationalist conflict) but there have been a militarized (?) conflict between several definitive groups for the last ~100 years with Nationalist sources (From fedayeen in 50's till the PLO after the creation of Israel) some of the groups sources (what I got from wikipedia at least) goes upto 1919 (Faisal–Weizmann_Agreement).
The question would be Is the fedayeen isn't connected to the Palestinian fight for independence and what about the Munich massacre , I guess the reason many of the clashes point to this page as it is the main article for the subject 109XXX (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC) (109XXX offline)

Involvement by governments[edit]

This After Israel agreed to hand over the bodies of dead Palestinian suicide bombers and other militants as part of a goodwill gesture to PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas to help the peace process, the Palestinian Authority planned a national rally to honour them and to provide full military funerals. The bodies included the suicide bombers that perpetrated the bus bombing in Jerusalem’s Shmuel Hanavi neighborhood which killed twenty-three people, many of them children, and the attacker in the Cafe Hillel bombing. Israel will also return the remains of the bombers that committed the bombings on two buses in Beersheba in 2004 killing 16 people, the Stage night club bombing, the attack on the open-air Hadera market as well as the attackers of the Savoy Hotel in Tel Aviv who killed eight hostages. The Palestinian Authority and Hamas both planned official ceremonies and PA president Abbas attended a ceremony at his Muqataa compound. Prisoners Affairs Minister Qaraqi called on Palestinians for a day of celebration. The rally in honor of the dead will be attended by PA President Mahmoud Abbas, PLO leaders, and families of the dead militants. The dead are considered martyrs by Palestinians, but viewed as terrorists by Israelis.[63][64][65] Is irrelevant. It is WP:UNDUE, and a good example of WP:RECENTISM This is an article about a long term issue and should only have historically significant developments. I propose to remove it. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Why to remove it? It is the subject of the article - politically motivated violence, used by a government (in this case PA). The only question is whether this article is about internal Palestinian violence or alltogether the violence against Israelis, Lebanese, Jordanians and international incidents (mainly in the 1970s and 1980s).Greyshark09 (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
the text is about the return of bodies. The acceptance of the bodies is not a reason for listing the violent political acts commited. The acts commited were not commited by government, and they should be listed elsewhere. Also much of the article is tendentious, who says it has anything to do with any peace process? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Let's begin with the issue that this entire article is vague. It needs to be decided what is its main issue (it can;t dublicate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article to such degree as now). In any case, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process doesn't really belong here, we have the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for that matter. So what is the issue of this article i ask?Greyshark09 (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that this article would concentrate on the internal Palestinian violence (which is political, not ethnically or religiously motivated at most). The Paleastinian attacks on Israelis should move to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article (mostly already covered there). Please vote support or oppose.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yuvn altering text so that it no longer reflects the cited source. Don't do that again.[edit]

Please revert this edit of yours. It is obligatory because in it you distort and therefore misrepresent the source. '13,000 Arabs' is not what Laurens says, and you clearly haven't even consulted the source. Citing data in one wikipedia article is not grounds for challenging an RS of Laurens's quality in another. Vol 3. p.194 regular Arab army deaths are given as 3,700.

Palestinian deaths (Les pertes palestiniennes)are then given

  • Palestinians nominally identified as being dead on the occasion of a battle = 1,953
  • Names of people unknown but the place, date and number of whose deaths are known =4,004
  • Names and dates not known but places of death known =7 043

Total 13,000 (the figures are from 'Arif al-'Arif, the scholar who established, against all conjecture and boasting, the true number of killed at Deir Yassin,not 250, but 100-120.Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The source says Palestinian as opposed to 'Arabs'. The scholar is one of the foremost world authorities on Palestine's modern history, with 4 highly detailed volumes to his credit. Got that? So revert, and don't automatically alter 'Palestinian' to Arab when the source makes that distinction, or you will be reported for POV pushing and mendacious misrepresentation of texts (which you don't even read before altering).Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Woah, please calm down. The book/source is in French, that's the reason why I didn't read it; and if it's based on the estimates of Aref al-Aref, then maybe there are other sources to use here, because others give different numbers (for example, he also estimated Jordan 362 casualties while other sources give Jordan around 1,000 casualties, and 3,000 Palestinian Arab casualties compared to his 13,000. Some of these sources are actually in pro-Palestinian websites so it's not a pro-Israeli POV or anything). Yuvn86 (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not angry. I'm very annoyed that thoughtlessness has forced me to waste a fucking half hour on the obvious. My time's precious. You changed the content cited from a source, without reading the source. The source, written by one of the foremost scholars of Palestine of our times, cites the most meticulous Arab scholar on the Palestinian casualities of that period. That is the only datum I cite, nothing about Arabs. By writing Arabs you are not only changing the source, you are falsifying it. Laurens's figures would mean 16,700 Arabs died, if you add up Palestinians and Arabs, not 13,000, and this is about 'Palestine political violence' not Arabs. So you made a double error. If in doubt about a source, you ask. You do not go and alter the data or nomenclature employed in, and cited from, that source. That is falsification of a source. You admit you did that, so revert. If you have reliable academic sources that contest Laurens's figures, supply them. He gives the figures not for conjectured combatants, but for the numbers known to have died during the war, divided into three categories. I know of no other source that does that.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Again, your source (which is hard to find and doesn't seem to have English translation) is based on Aref al-Arefs estimates(13,000 Palestinian deaths of overall 17,000 Arab deaths), where others, sometimes newer sources, give different numbers (3,000 of overall 10,000, for example). It is one estimates of many, and maybe it's a better idea to write "between number A-number B Palestinian casualties". It is not a minor issue if there are such conflicting numbers, they should be mentioned. Yuvn86 (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
It is never a better idea to write without sources at one's elbow.As far as I am aware, Aref was the only historian who performed the detailed groundwork, interviews, demographic analysis, and statistical breakdowns, to sort the figures out, when it was still possible to do so. Secondly, esp. after his Deir Yassin downscaling of the touted figure at Deir Yassin, I have never seen anyone doubting his integrity in this sort of study. Laurens, secondly, accepts that figure. You get a lot of weird stuff in Israeli sources, minute details of the breakdown of their casualties, and generalizations about 'Arabs', as often as not. 42,000 people of Mandatory Palestine are missing if you subtract the number of Arabs who remained in Israel and those who managed to return, from the number who fled as refugees, according pre-war census numbers (Gelber 274 from memory) I will use the Arif's figure (1958) with attribution. If you have a specific source that makes a thorough analysis of Palestinian casualties, (not just meme reproduction), from a specialist on that period, notify the page. One doesn't make edits, esp. on an unwiki-like attack page conjured up against NPOV to smear Palestinians as intrinsically violent against the whole world, as this one is (it, and any similar page, for either side shouldn't exist, since it is nearly all WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani, "I'm very annoyed that thoughtlessness has forced me to waste a fucking half hour on the obvious. My time's precious." If your time is so precious, you are not obligated to spend it on Wikipedia. Especially since editing here seems to cause you severe annoyance and loss of temper. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yuvn86 changed the text without checking or replacing the source. It was very naughty and Yuvn86 shouldn't do it again. The rest of this section is just noise. Zerotalk 05:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

IF POLITICAL VIOLENCE BEEN DECIDED...[edit]

Change the "9/11 Attacks" to "9\11 Political Violence". Political violence because of invasion and occupation of arab countries.

And it hadn't been done by 'terrorists', but by "organization with an associated military wing".

Otherwise you make no sense...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.143.24 (talkcontribs) 16:19, March 27, 2014‎

"9/11 attacks" (a.k.a. "September 11 attacks" is the WP:COMMONNAME for that event. There doesn't seem to be a commonly used name to describe the topic here, so we go for a descriptive title. Earlier discussion (see above) tried to suss out the bias in other alternatives and nothing seems to come of it.
Unless there is a massive shift in sources (unlikely), "9/11 attacks" will remain the title of that article. The title here might change, if a WP:CONSENSUS finds a better one. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

~it's a matter of logic. I don't see why attacks in Israel is "political violence", but attacks in the US is 'Terror'. (btw, what is so political with bombing children's birthday parties?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.143.24 (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Interjecting your POV into the discussion suggests you are not here to build a balanced encyclopedia. Rather, it seems you are more interested in promoting "The Truth" as you see it. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, if the only problem with changing 9\11 title to "9\11 political violence" is just resources, you can find tons of resources in arab media...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.143.24 (talkcontribs) 01:14, April 7, 2014‎

When you are having a discussion on Wikipedia and someone refers you to a guideline, it is bad form to respond in a way that makes it clear you did not bother to read the guideline. "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)..." - SummerPhD (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).