Talk:Palestinian political violence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you add an image[edit]

File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Posters of Suicide Bombers Hang in Classroom in Tul Karem.jpg shows a classroom in Tul Karem showing "famous" suiciders as martyrs. Can It be added to the article? 192.114.1.66 (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Terminology[edit]

Should the lead of the article mention that some of the political violence has been considered terrorism? Dovidroth (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Yes. Political violence is WP:EUPHEMISM. Censoring the word "terrorism" from the lead, despite being used extensively in reliable sources is a violation of WP:DUE and WP:NOTCENSORED. Many articles such as Terrorism in India, Terrorism in Europe, and Israel and state-sponsored terrorism use "terrorism". Furthermore, Google Trends and other ngrams show the much more common use of "terrorism" compared with "Palestinian political violence" and it's widespread usage in academic literature. Dovidroth (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I was going to bring up too that Israel clearly commits state terrorism but if sources in general bring up both sides it'd seem to me that we're being approrpiately neutral. Regardless, even if one doesn't agree with it, the fact is that many sources consider Palestinian political violence to be terrorism, even if it does so with the aim of supporting Israeli actions and condemning Palestinian ones (and contrariwise for Palestine). But that's up to them, we're only here to report what sources say. FelipeFritschF (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This RFC is redundant. The lead already says of acts re: political violence: some of which are considered acts of terror, so this is an RFC to mandate what is already in effect. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing this out. I will reformulate the question. Dovidroth (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revised RFC on Terminology[edit]

Should the lead begin Palestinian political violence including Palestinian terrorism? Dovidroth (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Yes. Political violence is WP:EUPHEMISM. Censoring the term "Palestinian terrorism" from the lead, despite being used extensively in reliable sources is a violation of WP:DUE and WP:NOTCENSORED. Many articles such as Terrorism in India, Terrorism in Europe, and Israel and state-sponsored terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism and Islamic Terrorism use "terrorism". Furthermore, ngrams and Google Scholar (Palestinian terrorism (4,540 results) vs. Palestinian Political violence (124 results)) show the much more common use of "terrorism" compared with "Palestinian political violence" and it's widespread usage in academic literature. Dovidroth (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No The usual POV push in line with request to change the title to Palestinian terrorism, see see April 2023 discussion here, unanimously opposed. Use the redirect Palestinian terrorism for a new article if desired, a likely fail due to MOS:TERRORISM. Jewish political violence redirects to Zionist political violence for which there is a plethora of sourcing sufficient to override the manual of style. Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: Not all acts of political violence are terrorism; and there are no sources for this claim. This move will paint everything -including stone throwing, even blocking a road- as terrorism. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Any examples in the current article of such case? TaBaZzz (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Points well raised, indeed we should not censore information, and due to weight of issue it is indeed very normal to consider and in fact it ought to be in the opening sentence of the article so as to make clear that numerous such activities have indeed been classified as terrorism by various countries and organizations. Furthermore, these groups and organizations have performed actions defined by numerous countries and entities as terrorism. Furthermore, it appears that the word Palestinian terrorism according to data as presented above is widely used and therefore should be mentioned prominently in the Lead. Furthermore, there is a great amount of scholarly information regarding groups defined as Palestinian terror groups and therefore if article wishes to deal with said organisations (example; Hamas, PIJ etc.) then it should make it clear to the readers that the following content is being presemted. Therefore as presented above, I think that WP:NOTCENSORED applies here well, as well as WP:DUE and we must attempt to be as precise as possible in order to ensure we do not accidentally misinform or confuse the reader. homerethegreat (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No that makes no sense. We bold alternate names, what is happening here is people are unable to impose a POV title on this article so they are trying to present it as though it were an alternate name. Terrorism is a subset of the political violence, and the article, and the lead, discuss it at great depth. The first sentence ends with some of which are considered acts of terror, the second paragraph has Several of these groups are considered terrorist organizations. But the political violence includes both terrorism and attacks on government and military targets. Terrorism is a subset, not the equivalent, of political violence, and the proposed changes attempts to equate the two. We also shouldnt say Palestinian political violence including violent resistance either. And as far as scholar, "Palestinian resistance" 14k. nableezy - 16:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • NoGood reasons for this are given above.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - The page Zionist political violence very appropriately begins with, "Zionist political violence refers to politically motivated violence or terrorism." It is surprising that the page Palestinian political violence does not include the word 'terrorism' anywhere in the lead, with or without attribution, despite the term being used extensively in reliable sources. This omission might give the impression that Palestinians have never committed an act of terror. Anyone invoking the policy MOS:TERRORIST in this context likely hasn't read the policy thoroughly, or might be under the impression that Wikipedia is censored. Marokwitz (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, have you read the lead? nableezy - 18:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, I assumed this RFC referred to this version [1] as opposed to this version [2]. I was confused by the amount of reverts. Everyone - please stop edit warring while this RFC is going on !
    To correct my statement, I suggest some common ground: It is undisputed among mainstream reliable sources that terrorist attacks have been carried out by both Jews against Palestinians and Palestinians against Jews.
    Therefore, I retract my answer and suggest a New proposal: that both Palestinian political violence and Zionist political violence articles start with identical wording: "Zionist political violence refers to politically motivated violence or terrorism." and "Palestinian political violence refers to politically motivated violence or terrorism." Marokwitz (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a compromise this appears reasonable. I support this particular phrasing in this case as proposed by @Marokwitz. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to amend this article. Selfstudier (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a relatively minor change compared to the existing text. I urge all participants to embrace constructive consensus-building. Marokwitz (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am ok with this compromise. Dovidroth (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - I agree with Makeandtoss. If you want an article about terrorism in Palestine, create that article, but not every act of political violence committed by a person who has brown skin is terrorism. --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, FWIW, I just read the lead and did not find it to be at all euphemistic. Even if I read it with my "is this otherist enough" lenses, you have the boogeyman right there in the first photo to the right of the first paragraph, complete with ski masks, red kuffiyehs, and headbands with Arabic letters. The phrase "acts of terror" is in the first sentence, destruction of Israel is in the third sentence, Liberation of Palestine is in scare quotes. The end of the second paragraph lists terrorist designations. I'm struggling to see the argument that we are censoring the subject matter or failing to give sufficient weight to the POV some are advocating we emphasize here. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And the most iconic images of Palestinian political violence, eg File:Faris odeh03a.jpg, arent used. nableezy - 02:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously a terrorist. --Orgullomoore (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Should make it an acceptable image then? nableezy - 22:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarcasm aside and assuming copyright is not an impediment, I would support including it somewhere. It demonstrates the spectrum of political violence, beginning with kids throwing rocks at tanks and ending with suicide attacks on civilians and October 7-style massacres. --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes. Terrorism it is. The attempt to paint it as "Political", and hint that some leaders, some coalition could have solved it or prevented it - contradicts the truth. Killing of Jews by local Arabs in Jerusalem and in the Holy Land in general is documented well into the 19th century (I didn't check earlier), when no politics was involved. Only Terrorism was the act. TaBaZzz (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get it. It was terrorism every time a "local Arab" killed a Jew? What about just regular murder? What is the defining characteristic? --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    yes. Terrorism. TaBaZzz (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. What an extremist opinion. --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTAFORUM. TaBaZzz (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a poorly framed RfC. The lead already mention terrorism. Should it necessarily say "Palestinian terrorism"? This depends on context. One must suggest a specific change in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article's first sentence is slightly more neutral than that of Zionist political violence. Senorangel (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do have a page Jewish terrorism, and such title seems to be rather problematic, potentially antisemitic. It should be renamed to something like Zionist terrorism and possibly merged with page Zionist political violence. My very best wishes (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As we do Islamic terrorism. The idea that it is antisemitic to refer to Jewish terrorism is one of the many personal opinions that we would all be better off not needing to read. WP:NOTFORUM and all that. nableezy - 00:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And quite a few others, including Christian, Sikh, and Hindu: Category:Religious terrorism --Orgullomoore (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly: Islamic and Christian are related to religion, not ethnicity. Usually, the terrorism is related to specific ideology or a cause. Category:Terrorism by country is fine. But Category:Terrorism by ethnic group would not be OK. Sikh terrorism is a redirect page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Judaism is a religion? nableezy - 02:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes? Zionism and Judaism are not the same though they do overlap. Senorangel (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming without conceding you are correct that "[ethnic group] terrorism" is inherently anti-[ethnic group], "Palestinian terrorism" is inherently anti-Palestinian, no? Palestinian is not a religion. --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, per MOS:TERRORIST and WP:NPOV. The mention of "terror" is sufficient. For anyone attempting a Tu quoque, I would support the same change at Zionist political violence, which I think is a POV violation at present. Yr Enw (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, This RFC seems to be the spillover of a previous unsuccessful attempt to use "terrorism" somewhere in the article title. The current proposal likewise aims to include it in the first line to pretend it is an alternate title. Not only does not the proposal aligns with MOS:BOLDALTNAMES but also it is trying to add redundency to the first line. --Mhhossein talk 21:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no case is really made for why this is necessary or beneficial, and whilst I think the NPOV arguments above are somewhat overstated, this does appear to be an attempt at 'back-door' renaming/eqivalence. The opening sentence is already over-loaded with sub-clauses and this is unnec as the topic is adequately covered. Terrorism is a subset, not the equivalent, of political violence per nableezy. Pincrete (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The RM specifically decided that terrorism isn't the primary subject of this article and therefore shouldn't be included as an alternate title (which is the way this proposal to bold it would functionally structure the lead); neither are the two terms identical. We already mention that it includes acts of terror in the first sentence, and of course it is already and should continue to be discussed further down the lead and in the article body, but there isn't a valid reason to bold it as if it were an alternate title, and the current wording conveys the necessary meaning in a more neutral tone anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per MOS:TERRORIST. Graham (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per MOS:TERRORIST and WP:NPOV. JDiala (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seek the destruction of israel[edit]

Besides being a talking point, why is this in the lead? And why is Dovidroth edit-warring over it? nableezy - 19:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not lead worthy? Do Hamas, PIJ and other groups not seek the destruction of the Zionist entity and its replacement with a Palestinian state? It appears very reasonable and lead worthy to mention. Indeed what is the aim of Palestinian political violence according to research? Homerethegreat (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the phrase has appeared for some time. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a partisan way of framing the issue. Should it say "support the restoration of the rights of the indigenous Palestinian Arabs in their homeland"? No, because that is also a partisan way of framing it. It can say something like "supports the replacement of Israel with a Palestinian Arab state". But right now it is just pushing Israeli talking points as though that were a neutral way of presenting it. nableezy - 20:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "Some perpetrators of these acts support the replacement of Israel with a Palestinian Arab state" carries an amusingly peaceful tone. This seems inappropriate for a page discussing political violence. Marokwitz (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The dismantling of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Arab state. I cannot seriously believe that anybody believes "seeks the destruction of Israel" is anything besides a pro-Israel PR talking point. nableezy - 21:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely think that it needs to be noted in the lead that many of those who perpetrate Palestinian political violence have the goal to destroy Israel. I am open to discussing the exact terminology. Dovidroth (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just did that? The dismantling of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Arab state. says the same without the partisan framing. nableezy - 22:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds ok to me. Dovidroth (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented. Dovidroth (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed modifying " support the dismantling of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Arab state"[edit]

The intro mentions "... support the dismantling of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Arab state"

I suggest we change this to:

"...support the dismantling of the State of Israel, while others also support its replacement with a Palestinian Arab state."

which is a more relevant wikilink and more precise phrasing. DMH43 (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beware edit warring and recent edits.[edit]

1. WP:BRD aside, recent edits are clear warring…please move the discussion to the talk page so civil consensus may be achieved.

2. As the article outlines, Palestinian political violence well precedes any form of occupation, so please let’s reasonably work back toward a more appropriate leading line.

IMO, as the following line outlines the various motives for political violence, and the occupation line is already in there, that answers the question pretty clearly. Mistamystery (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current lead already mentions “and achieve political objectives” and that some of them have objective is the “complete liberation of Palestine”. But undoubtedly the goal of ending of israeli occupation has to be clearly mentioned which all Palestinian resistance factions have a consensus upon and is the central objective of all. It certainly can’t be ignored and has to be mentioned clearly. I believe the current lead is covering all perfectly. Stephan rostie (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another recently created seemingly single issue account enforced the same major change to this page without talking about it here: [3] David A (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
90% of the accounts editing in ARBPIA are essentially "single issue" - if there's a clear violation with this editor please report it in the appropriate forum. Mistamystery (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 editors that have never before edited this page show up and start pov editing, starting with this edit and it's false edit summary "Continuing the last revert.", as well as getting BRD completely backwards, is a big red flag. Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or possibly a big red windsock. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussion at AN Selfstudier (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OliveTree39 and ElLuzDelSur both sock blocked. Selfstudier (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the content that editors want to add actually in the body? Should not be going straight to the lede. starship.paint (RUN) 01:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_political_violence&oldid=1221041503"