Jump to content

Talk:Palestinian political violence/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Palestinian political violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A blatantly POV title

This is one of the most blatantly POV/extremist far-right titles I've seen on Wikipedia, especially considering that Palestinian resistance redirects here, and it seems like an attempt to whitewash or glorify the Israeli occupation of Palestine while defaming those who engage in resistance to the occupation, in a way that runs contrary to mainstream world opinion, international law, UN resolutions etc. It is comparable to naming the article on the French Resistance "French political violence" instead. It should be moved to the neutral Palestinian resistance (or possibly Palestinian resistance movement or Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation), like other comparable articles, including, but not limited to:

IF POLITICAL VIOLENCE BEEN DECIDED...

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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)
Completly provocative response against the IP adress. He is right, you are selective on your source. But in fact the overwelming majority of the sources in this article use the term "terror". Your arguments are misleading, your accusations are provocative and indeed not colaborative and finaly your caracterisation about what you call "the truth" is in fact your own bias, while trying to have a moral argument on the use of the term "terorrism. --Iudaeorum (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Rename Terrorism, not "political violence"

Please rename acts of terrorism with sources linked to terrorism and not "political violence". Targeting civilians is a terrorist strategy. What about islamic terrorism?? -You cannot just make an exception for Jewish victims, or because of " political motives" ( it's not only political, it is also individual, religious and more reasons ) . In short, it is the same act as islamic terror, or any other kind of terror

Adding to that, you may create two articles, one for "Palestinian nationalist struggle" and one for " palestinian terrorism". This article is about "terror"-Iudaeorum (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

No thank you. nableezy - 15:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Israel and state-sponsored terrorism makes use of the terrorism label based on accusations documented in RS. Here, we have the same scenario, yet it is termed "political violence" rather than what sources consistently use. There is no reason for this distinct treatment. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Terrorism would exclude guerilla warfare per recently gave up years of guerrilla warfare as used by Reuters. Are attacks by insurgents wearing some kind of uniform a form of terrorism, for instance? A Thousand Words (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

section header

Um the "use of children by terrorist groups" contains material that has nothing to do with that. Not entirely sure what the point of the section header changes are either. Well I am, but it would be impolite to say it out loud. nableezy - 20:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The section goes on to discuss recruitment efforts of teenagers and youths into militant movements and the use of child suicide bombers. Is this not relevant to the header? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
You realize the section also includes the subsection "Involvement of women" (for reasons I dont readily understand but thats another matter) right? nableezy - 23:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
"Involvement" is such a weird euphemism. These headers are terrible. I thought it was an improvement. Feel free to have a go. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

lead changes

A. the title of the article is Palestinian political violence. We are not obligated to follow the wording of a source as any particular source is not obliged to follow our NPOV policy. B. Palestinian political violence is not simply any violence committed by a Palestinian, it is violence committed in the name of Palestinian nationalism. Islamist inspired violence against say Fatah is not that. C. An editor has previously removed "stated aim" from Israel's offered motives for say building a wall in occupied territories, but sees no issue with that wording here. D. The Palestinian right of return is indeed a key aim as noted by any number of sources. E. I dont find the new arrangement to flow well. So, reverting. nableezy - 17:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with "A". We must say what the source says. We cannot swap "terrorism"\"political violence" as we please, and as if they were the same thing, especially so when the lede and the source make a distinction between the two. - Daveout(talk) 18:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Which source? The first source I looked at is the one called loc, no "terrorism" in there. If we are to use the word terrorism because it is in a particular source, that's fine, but it needs attribution and a specific context. There seem to be multiple contexts in the relevant paragraph and political violence may be a good summary of all of them taken together.Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn't look into the source, but the editor who made the change said that that term was used. If that's really the case, we should go by the source. - Daveout(talk) 19:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
We look at the balance of sources, not any single one and we do not repeat verbatim what any one source says. We dont import the bias of a particular source into Wikipedia's voice. nableezy - 20:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree in principle but if I read the edit correctly, there are multiple sources and you can't pick the term only out from one say and apply it to multiple contexts. Or it could be split up onto separate contexts. Not sure, I don't want to go looking in all the sources to see what it is exactly, this material is very old anyway. Note the opening sentence of the article refers to acts of "violence or terror".Selfstudier (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Why is the title of the article "political violence" in the first place? Even a cursory view of scholarly sources reveals "Palestinian terrorism" to not only be extensively used, but far more widely used than "Palestinian political violence," yet editors here insist on a sanitized version. Further, Nableezy suggest that my changes were "non-neutral," yet this perception of neutral seems to be based on presenting a description of terrorism that begins by explaining why the terrorism occurs based on cherry-picked, opinionated sources, and saves a sparse description of "what" the terrorism is until the very end. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Consensus mostly. nableezy - 20:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Do wiki article titles contain the word terrorism at all? Idk, I'll see if I can find any. There not being a universal agreed def of terrorism, one man's terror is another man's resistance and all that. But on the narrow point, if a source uses the word for some context, then I think we can also use it but with attribution and preferably a quote.Selfstudier (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Just to reiterate how confusingly this article presents the topic:

1) We start off with largely a discussion of Palestinian nationalism and related goals and vaguely reference "political violence," something that could mean anything. 2) The article names a bunch of different groups and emphasizes that some of them have denounced terrorism and political violence. Again, no idea what this means yet. 3) Third paragraph finally touches on what this "political violence" means in a short sentence. 4) Fourth paragraph discusses the targets of terrorism. 5) A single sentence discusses an underlying motivation for the terrorism/"political violence" that is oddly left out of the first discussion of motivations.

A sensible order would be 1) introduce what we are talking about, i.e. what this violence consists of, who's doing it, and who it targets, 2) the motivations for it and broader context, and 3) perhaps a bit more background and history. This is a difficult topic, but it is not effectively addressed by presenting things in a jumbled and confusing manner. The article, and principles of neutrality, are best served by straightforward, concise, and well-organized summaries, not this tap-dancing around what the actual subject matter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
And Selfstuder, yes they do. Jewish religious terrorism is an example. (A fascinating contrast as well in this context, and perhaps signaling broader NPOV problems in the PIA area.) "Jewish terrorism" is certainly a term in the press, but not one as widely used. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Islamic terrorism is likewise an example of an article that uses terrorism. Most violence committed in the name of some nationalism however uses political violence. Eg Zionist political violence. Maybe try comparing apples to apples? nableezy - 20:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, you already know what I think about this, you do the article body with proper sources (recent ones would be better) and the lead should follow semi-automatically. Jewish religious terrorism is very specific, isn't it? I will go take a look at that, see what the foundation sources are about. Don't forget there are already articles about Palestine nationalism, the PLO and so on, it can get a bit confusing, this article seems very broad brush, almost the reverse of specific.Selfstudier (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Why the distinction here? The sources say terrorism. The article also opens with "nationalism" as the motivation for political violence, but that is way too narrow. There are myriad motivations for "Palestinian political violence," the subject of this article. I think the defining factor for "Palestinian political violence" is not the why but the who, which would seem to be Palestinian militants, no? Would an American who decided to commit political violence in the name of Palestinian nationalism fall under the subject of this article? I feel the answer is probably no. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Some sources use terrorism. Others use political violence. Political violence is also wider than "terrorism". And yes to your last question. What you think the defining factor is isn't exactly relevant, what is relevant is what the sources say it is. nableezy - 23:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
This is a bit simplistic, the why is quite important, ask the IRA.Selfstudier (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
How many sources use "terrorism" versus "political violence?" The overwhelming majority seem to refer to terrorism. Is political violence just the wiki-preferred term or the source-preferred term? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, if you are talking about Israeli sources and the NYT probably 100%. Seriously, I have no idea but I expect there would be resistance to labeling all of the violence in that manner. If Gazans march up to the fence and throw stones at IDF that's not terrorism, is it? Political violence, sure. Let's look at some current sources and see what they say. These days, apart from the rockets, there isn't that much going on that could be called terrorism as such, is there? Israel is killing more Palestinians than the other way around, rockets notwithstanding.Selfstudier (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
https://books.google.es/books/about/Violence_Nonviolence_and_the_Palestinian.html?id=5Rn3CgDAymEC&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y seems quite good.Selfstudier (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

In what world is it acceptable to simply redefine the topic of an article when there is very clearly opposition on the talk page and no reliable sources offered backing up this new definition? nableezy - 16:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, repeatedly blind reverting attempts to improve the article based on assertions of "no consensus" is disruptive and unhelpful. Second, the article is fundamentally flawed by limiting Palestinian political violence to only Israel-related grievances. I suggest you check some of the sources provided in the article since you've been gone, like this academic text published by Routledge. The first chapter covers extensively how "Palestinian terrorism," not just "political violence," is used both against Israel and within Palestine to further political/religious conflict. So 1) you are simply at this point doing WP:BLINDREVERTs of any attempted changes to the article with no substantive grounding, and 2) the article contains misleading information which requires correction - doing so does not constitute "redefining" the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Who said I reverted on the basis of no consensus? You may find it "fundamentally flawed" but you are not the arbiter of anything here. Since I've been gone? And instead of just pointing me to a chapter why dont you tell me where exactly in that source it backs up any of your changes? And how do you not get that "political violence" is a wider net than "terrorism"? What misleading information? You just assert these things, wave at an entire book as justification, and then continue on making wild assertions. Quotes from the source. And why would you remove the percentage of attacks that were suicide attacks but include the percentage of casualties? Why is one statistic meaningful and the other not? Wouldnt have anything to do with POV now would it? nableezy - 17:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
You are practically screaming through the screen. 1) There is no "Palestinian terrorism" article, there is a "political violence" article. And this book that I'm "waving" (i.e. providing on the talk page") covers precisely how political violence/terrorism is used within Palestine in pages 1-30 (it's a short read). So to on the one hand claim that "political violence" is a "broader net" than terrorism but then only present the most narrowly defined variation of political violence, as motivated by "Palestinian nationalism," is completely illogical. Second, "percentage of attacks" is a virtually meaningless statistic. What constitutes an "attack?" Is it .5% of attacks out of all the "rock throwings," etc? Are those all also attacks? It groups together apples and oranges. WP:YOUCANSEARCHTOO, so I suggest you read the portion of the book I cited -- available for free -- it will be much more helpful than me quoting it here on the talk page. And finally, the POV accusations are getting tiresome. Do your homework before claiming I didn't provide a source, and stop claiming that I'm "not the arbiter" of the page for making a few changes to the lead, even as you declare unilaterally what the topic should be.
Also, I noticed you, once again, reverted back to the ridiculous formatting where we have two single-sentence paragraphs, totally non-compliant with MOSLEAD. They are also out of order. Even on this black-and-white issue, you create trouble. Serially reverting attempts to improve a poorly written lead is not productive. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Lol, if you are unable to quote what from that source backs up your change I am not going to search through it for you. And if you want to redefine this article youll need to discuss it here, not simply try to force your view in to the article. This article deals with violence committed in the name of Palestinian nationalism. You want to change that? Well you can try, but it will need to be discussed and get a consensus for it. Do my homework? Sure buddy, just pointing to a chapter is not going to fly. What specifically in that source supports your position. Youve repeatedly made things up about other sources, so forgive me for taking with a very small grain of salt any further oh go look at that chapter comments. nableezy - 17:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nableezy: You are thoroughly suffering from WP:OWN syndrome if you think you define was Palestinian terrorism/Palestinian political violence is rather than academic sources on the subject. Yet from mid-1982 until mid-1985 there were no distinctive shifts in terrorist activity outside of Israel. Most of the Palestinian terrorist incidents in 1983-1984 were directed against Arab, rather than Israeli-Jewish targets. If you find the time to get around to it, then read the source. I don't care what you take with a grain of salt -- don't serially revert articles and claim a source doesn't support something if you're unwilling to read the source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
No, the article has a long stable definition of its scope. I didnt make that. You dont like that? Cool, establish a new one. And I am perfectly willing to read a source. I am not willing to go hunting through one to justify your edits. You need to justify those edits, and a vague wave to a chapter does not do that. Can you quote what from that source backs up your redefinition here? If not then Im going to go with nothing does absent you providing evidence to the contrary. What in the world does that quote have to do with changing the opening line to Palestinian political violence refers to acts of violence or terror carried out by Palestinian militants.? Do you notice the lead already says that violence is committed against more than Israelis? Because you seem to be arguing something wholly unrelated to the changes you are making in the lead. Which I suppose is par for the course but completely pointless. nableezy - 17:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
You now acknowledge that I'm not "redefining" the scope of the article, I'm just rewriting the aspects of the lead that are inconsistent. It's not a matter of "hunting" through edits -- if you want to claim I didn't provide a source, then you should actually read my edit to see whether a source was provided. Which clearly, you are not doing, because WP:BLINDREVERTS are generally pretty obvious. There is an international aspect to "Palestinian political violence/Palestinian terrorism," which is clearly referring to the same thing, and it is not limited to grievances against Israel. The opening of the article presents a false premise based on the available scholarship, and so suggesting that it's me who is somehow altering the topic is ridiculous. The first sentence is not consonant with available sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
If you think I acknowledged that you have issues understanding what I wrote. And if you think the lead doesnt already discuss attacks outside of Israel or directed against non-Israelis you have trouble understanding what is written in the lead already. The scope of this article is violence committed in the name of Palestinian nationalism. The scope that you sought to change it to is any violence committed by Palestinians regardless of motivation. nableezy - 17:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The scope of the article is defined by the available subject material on the topic, not what you think it should be. Sources describe violence under other motivations as "Palestinian political violence" and "Palestinian terorrism." You want to turn this into a narrow WP:POVFORK that exclusively covers I-P terrorism and related grievances. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Genius, it isnt what I said it should be. You dont get to just change a series of core articles in an entire topic area cus you feel like it. This article has a scope. Its scope has been stable for years and years and years. You want to change the scope? Ok, discuss that. And try to read WP:POVFORK before you cite it. Yes, there are all sorts of violence committed by Palestinians. There are stabbings and shootings because well human beings are known to stab and shoot for a variety of reasons. However, this article deals with violence committed in furtherance of the political aspirations of Palestinian nationalists. That is a topic that is treated as a discrete topic by reliable sources. And so we have an article on that discrete topic. If youd like to argue that this is not a notable topic deserving of its own article then I guess you can nominate it for deletion. If you think it should be merged in to some other wider topic I guess you can start that discussion too. But right now, as it stands, this article has a scope, a scope that reliable sources treat as a discrete topic. nableezy - 18:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
"Terrorism" and "political violence" are the subject of the article, and you are claiming it is limited to violence motivated by "nationalism," whereas the sources use the same terms "terrorism" and "political violence," yet attribute a far broader range of motivations. They even say that Palestinian terrorism and the underlying motivations are so broad it is difficult to encapsulate a single driving force. So everything you are saying to attempt to keep out sourced information directly relevant to the article has absolutely nothing to do with "scope" or policy. Again, the "scope" of the article is "Palestinian political violence and terrorism." You or I as editors do not define what that is, the sources do, and you are repeatedly making an assertion that is contradicted by the sources -- that those terms describe only a limited motivation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Jesus christ. No, I am not claiming anything. The article has had this scope (violence with the aim of furthering the Palestinian cause, Palestinian nationalism or some equivalent) for years and years and years. That is not my claiming anything. If you want to change that scope you can certainly bring it up for discussion. Just demanding that you are right and the consensus that has shaped this article for the decade before you even joined this site is not one of the options though. Or you can, but I can likewise revert those changes. nableezy - 19:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

You keep claiming this word "scope." No, the article offers a definition of Palestinian political violence/terrorism. And it is one that is flatly contradicted by reliable sources. It does not matter if an article said that the world is flat for the preceding 12 months or 12 years. Information that fails WP:V cannot remain in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

You also removed the statement that Palestinian political violence/terrorism was historically used against Arabs to further political/religious conflicts. This is a statement directly supported and drawn from the Routledge source. What is the basis for that? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Um the lead already says that Palestinian political violence is used against other Arabs. Not all Palestinian violence is relevant though, and no the terms Palestinian terrorism and Palestinian political violence are not synonymous and your attempt to make them so arent all that important. Any terrorist act committed by a Palestinian isnt part of this article. Ahmed Ajaj and Mohammed A. Salameh are Palestinian. The WTC bombing isnt a part of this topic though. Other violence not related to Palestinian political aspirations is not the subject of this article. And nothing in the lead fails WP:V. nableezy - 20:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
How about what sources describe as "Palestinian terrorism" and "Palestinian political violence?" This isn't a school essay where we define the "scope" of a term by the editors preferences. "Palestinian political violence/terrorism" is a subject of academic and popular interest, so it is notable enough for an article. Information published by reliable sources, like Routledge, is WP:DUE and all relevant information as defined by what is in those reliable sources should be included. The book I provided wasn't generic "Palestinian violence" like violent crime in Palestine. It specifically referenced political violence/terrorism in the context of attacks on other Arabs related to political and religious conflict. You say that "it's already covered," but it isn't, and you removed a sourced reference to it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure, bring those sources. However, not all Palestinian terrorism is Palestinian political violence, and if you are trying to reframe this article to cover all acts of terrorism committed by Palestinians then youll need a consensus to change this articles scope. The two things are not equivalent. Some "terror" acts are certainly relevant, some are not. nableezy - 20:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
And before you put more words in my mouth, the Routelege source is an obviously reliable source and is obviously relevant to this article. Palestinian terror outside of Palestine related to Palestinian political aspirations is obviously relevant. It is not the defining feature of the topic, it is just one part of it. nableezy - 20:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
And you think violence directed against non-Palestinians isnt covered? Have you even read the lead? It says Palestinian political violence has targeted Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians,[13] Egyptians,[14] Americans[15] and citizens of other countries.[16] The attacks have taken place within and outside Israel and have been directed at both military and civilian targets. Whether or not I removed a source from the lead isnt relevant, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. Thats a summary of acts of violence have been directed at these targets and in these places. You keep trying to advance your personal position in the lead of articles and make them mirror your views. Im sorry but I dont have to accept that. nableezy - 20:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
And we are back in the same place we started. Your fundamental assumption about what this article covers or what "consensus" means is flawed. Palestinian political violence and terrorism are the "scope" of this article and those contours are defined by which reliable sources make use of those terms and discuss what it consists of. Your pronouncements of what it consists of are not relevant here, even as you nobly try to reframe this argument as relevant to the "scope" of the article. The lead mentions that this "Palestinian political violence and terrorism" targets non-Israelis, but it does not mention why? And these attacks are not necessarily motivated by "Palestinian nationalism," according to the sources. The articles opening definition of "Palestinian political violence" in such a narrow sense is flatly wrong -- it's not a matter of "this is what we're deciding we want to write about." That approach to writing articles is perfectly suitable if you wanted to write a blog, opinion piece, or academic paper on the subject, but it is a completely backward interpretation of policy and not consonant with how reliable sources broadly define the term. The Routledge book specifically states that such narrow definitions should be avoided because the motivations are so myriad. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I just showed you that this article has had as its scope for over a decade violence in furtherance of Palestinian national aspirations. You want to call that my fundamental assumption you can but you just look silly when you do so. Yes, what has been stable for the decade before you found out what Wikipedia is is in fact consensus. I give 0 care to what you think is flatly wrong. This article covers violence committed in furtherance of Palestinian national aspirations. If you want to change the scope of the article you can seek to do that. But it will indeed take a consensus to change, not one editor demanding that his view is the only one that matters. And for the last time, it is not my assumption. This is what the article covers, and any person with an 80 IQ and the ability to read English can see that. nableezy - 21:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This "scope of the article" is completely imagined. The first line is sourced to an article that does not even cover Palestinian political violence or terrorism. This is a POVFORK masquerading as an article about Palestinian "political violence," i.e. terrorism, and you are rejecting relevant source material on no other premise other than it doesn't fit with your agenda for the article, or what you believe the agenda for the article should be, as opposed to what reliable sources have actually written on the subject. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Just as a demonstration of how silly this is, see if you can answer this question. What is this article a POVFORK from? I have not rejected any relevant sourced material, that is another in a long line of things that is pulled from where the sun dont shine and then waved around as though it doesnt still have a certain stench of bs. I have rejected your attempt to reframe this article to cover any act of violence committed by any Palestinian anywhere. Palestinian political violence is not any violence committed by any Palestinian militant, and that rather silly definition would exclude any violence committed by non-Palestinians (including rather famous attacks such as the Lod Airport massacre) that are in fact part of the scope. I get that you feel very strongly about this. You are of course welcome to seek wider input. nableezy - 22:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
POVFORK is an apt analogy because you are claiming an extraordinarily narrow definition of "Palestinian political violence" (or terrorism) that is not consonant with the body of sources, and you are using that "scope" seemingly as an excuse to include other perspectives. No one said that this article should cover any violence committed by a Palestinian. Nor is any violence committed by Palestinian militants "political violence" (i.e. if a "Palestinian militant" beats up someone over a parking space). However, Palestinian political violence/terrorism is unquestionably better defined by the who and not the why. Would an American who carried out terrorism in the name of Palestinian nationalism be covered by the sources we use for this article? Probably not. This article is focused on the behavior of Palestinian militants and Palestinian militant groups. The first sentence, describing the driving motivation as "nationalism," is sourced to an article that does not even really address political violence. The Routledge source I provided is laser-focused on the subject at hand and explicitly rejects such a narrow characterization. Wider input may be necessary, but I also expect reasonable input. The claim that we should limit the article to "violence in the name of nationalism" is not reasonably supported by the sources, and the first line uses a source that does not even support that claim. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Jesus, what about this is my claiming anything. The freaking article has said for over a decade that what it covers is violence in the name of Palestinian nationalism. The Routelege source is not "laser focused" on the topic at hand, it is focused on a sub-topic, Palestinian terrorism outside of historic Palestine. It doesnt reject anything, you are quite literally making that up. Nowhere does it say that Palestinian political violence is not violence in furtherance of Palestinian national aspirations. It discusses a subset of that violence. Would an American who carried out terrorism in the name of Palestinian nationalism be covered by the sources we use for this article? Yes it would. Just like the Japanese perpetrators of the Lod Airport attack are covered here. "Political violence" is violence in furtherance of political goals. Violence related to national movements (Zionism, Palestinian nationalism, Basque or Catalan nationalism/separatism, Irish Republican violence) is a discrete topic. It is not the who that makes those topics, it is the why. This is the dumbest thing Ive seen on this page. You are quite literally rejecting a tautology as being untrue. It is unreal. nableezy - 23:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
And as evidence of how little of your own sources you read, here is how it defines "international Palestinian terrorism":

Political terrorism is "the systematic use of violence by individuals or a group in the pursuit of political aims, with the violence directed at a wider target population than that of the immediate victims

International terrorism is "terrorism involving, in some way, more than one state" ...

Palestinian terrorism outside of Israel is defined as terrorism perpetrated outside of the territory of Israel by Palestinian organizations, ...

You see where it says in the pursuit of political aims. Gee, wonder what those political aims are? nableezy - 23:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
This arbitrary distinction between "Palestinian terrorism outside of historic Palestine" and just Palestinian terrorism is completely incoherent, and not what the source says.
The book describes the impact of Palestinian terrorism on international terrorism, it does not draw a made-up line between different types of Palestinian terrorism based on what borders it occurs on. And "political aims" is exactly what defines terrorism -- with that level of specificity, or lack thereof. You have shoehorned in this "Palestinian nationalism" into the article based entirely on a single cite that does not even focus on Palestinian terrorism or "political violence." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
"Political violence" is violence in furtherance of political goals. Violence related to national movements (Zionism, Palestinian nationalism, Basque or Catalan nationalism/separatism, Irish Republican violence) is a discrete topic. It is not the who that makes those topics, it is the why. This is the dumbest thing Ive seen on this page. You are quite literally rejecting a tautology as being untrue. "Politically motivated violence" supplies the why for any definition of terrorism. "Palestinian terrorism" is not defined in any source as being characterized by a single goal like nationalism but by who is carrying it out. This is not "rejecting a tautology as untrue," whatever that means. This is a basic reading of the source material, and again, this ties back to your assumption without a source that "Palestinian nationalism" can be ascribed to all Palestinian political violence/terrorism, or, because that obvious fails WP:V, that this article should be limited to that "scope," or, in other words, a completely inaccurate definition at odds with the sources. Unlike you've done with me, I'll acknowledge that you generally show an aptitude for understanding policy; here, you are 100% completely off. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
A. Palestinian terrorism is partly a subset of this article and partly outside of this article. So definitions of that dont really mean a whole lot here. And this game of putting a / between the two as though they are equivalent is just that, a game. One I dont intend to play. B. I have literally no idea what you are even arguing in the first comment. Maybe google tautology for why rejecting one as being untrue is silly. nableezy - 03:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Palestinian terrorism is the subject of this article, "political violence" is a euphemism, and a poor one at that worthy of a move discussion. The first sentence is literally unsupported by the cited source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Political violence ≠ terrorism. Of course, any editor may essay the creation of a new article devoted solely to Palestinian terrorism, currently a redirect (from non-neutral name) here arising from a name change in 2005.Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
You have an incredibly adaptive reading of POVNAME, but regardless Palestinian terrorism is not the subject of the article, it is a subset of it. For example, Palestinian violence against Israeli soldiers and the Israeli government are covered by political violence but not by terrorism. Religious based attacks like say Tawhid al-Jihad (Gaza) killing Vittorio Arrigoni very much is "Palestinian terrorism" in that it was a terror act by a Palestinian group but it was not Palestinian political violence. Its almost as though the world is not as black and white as you had thought. Shocker. nableezy - 15:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Who's to say an attack against Israeli troops or the government isn't terrorism? Why is that "political violence" and not terrorism? Because you say so? Where's the source to back up any of your theorizing/line-drawing? Because the first line that "Palestinian political violence" is motivated by "nationalism" is simply not supported by the in-line provided, but your only response is another lecture without a source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
And even as you repeatedly claim that there is a distinction between "political violence" and "terrorism," which is one you have drawn and is not drawn by the sources, the entire article is largely focused on the activities of groups designated as terrorist groups or other incidents broadly reported as "terrorism." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I already provided a source making that distinction up above, trivial to locate such sources or you could just consult our article on Political violence. And resistance to occupation is terrorism? News to me, everyone else as well I should think.Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
You really think sources dont draw any distinction between the two? Well theres another topic where it might be useful to crack a book. Here a decent overview of what makes the two different. Heres another. One is a subset of the other, but I dont really think trying to educate somebody on pretty basic concepts on a Wikipedia talk page is a worthy use of my time though. nableezy - 16:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Linking sources like these are a waste of everyone's time. You just provided a blog/essay by a graduate student at Penn State and a theory paper that doesn't address the subject at hand: Palestinian terrorism/political violence. Who are you to apply that to this subject material and decide what is political violence and what is terrorism? Sounds like WP:SYNTH. Does that apply to bus bombings or attacks on civilians, which make up quite a bit of this article and are almost universally described as terrorism in reliable sources? Or are we to listen to Selfstudier's endless POV-pushing like And resistance to occupation is terrorism? News to me, everyone else as well I should think.? (Of course, Nableezy, when someone spouts off a POV like that, you are mum, but you describe even minor wording changes as shit and POV). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Resistance to occupation is not terrorism is virtually bluesky, not POV. Duh.Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
United Nations resolution 37/43, dated 3 December 1982, "reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle." Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Selfstudier, who are you to make claims about what is terrorism and what isn't? If blowing up a bus full of civilians is described as resistance to occupation, does that make it not terrorism? Reliable sources would disagree with you on that, so do everyone a favor and keep your opinions to yourself. WP:FORUM, WP:POVPUSHING. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
If I had made such a claim, you would have something to complain about.Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't complain, because I don't care and it's irrelevant. However, your explicit misuse of this forum to spout your personal opinions is a waste of time and characters on this page, in addition to violating WP:TPG. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Pot, kettle etcetera.Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
You should just keep going, actually, because you're undermining the thin veneer that Nableezy is trying to maintain over this imagined distinction that is not apparent in the sources. It is entirely based on editor POV and has no support in the sources even cited in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Nobody needs to convince you of anything. You dont need to read anything. I dont really care. Ive made my point, you dont have to accept it. But you do need consensus to reframe this article to be about Palestinian terrorism and not Palestinian political violence. nableezy - 17:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

But just for fun:

  • Primoratz, I (2006), "Terrorism in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Case Study in Applied Ethics", Iyyun: The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly, 55 (January 2006): 27–48, The definition I propose has several advantages. It makes it possible to distinguish between terrorism, on the one hand, and war and political violence proper, on the other. To be sure, political violence and acts of war proper, too, can intimidate and coerce; but their intended victims are not innocent people. On the other hand, the military can employ terrorism in war; that, indeed, is one of the main types of state terrorism.

If you actually think that sources dont have a distinction between the two then that is a result of a refusal to read. One I cannot help with. nableezy - 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue is not whether there is a distinction between "political violence" and "terrorism." The former connotes some sense of legitimacy while the latter has negative connotations, obviously. The issue is what is the appropriate term in this context. You claim the "scope" of this article is "political violence," yet almost all of the sources actually cited and used throughout discuss terrorism. Your response? To make no changes but that a new article for Palestinian terrorism should be created, which I presume is sarcastic. This is illogical. Clearly a move discussion is one aspect of how to fix the POV problems in this article, but the others involve how language in the article actually reflects the sources cited. And you still have not shown how the first sentence is even supported by the cited source. I read through and could not find any direct support for the proposition that "Palestinian political violence is motivated by Palestinian nationalism." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's see, Israeli terrorism redirects to Israel and state-sponsored terrorism so if we keep things in a line then Palestinian terrorism should redirect to Palestine and state-sponsored terrorism instead of this article, what do you think? Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The 2005 discussion that resulted in the current naming.Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
the former connotes some sense of legitimacy while the latter has negative connotations. No it does not. "Freedom fighter" and "resistance" might have the positive spin that "terrorist" has as a negative spin. Political violence however does not. And you assertion that it does is just that, an assertion made without any evidence. As far as first sentence and the source, leads dont need sources. Just remove it. nableezy - 18:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
And how exactly do you go from arguing POVNAME disallows using a "POV" commonly used phrasing as an alternate name to demanding that this article be titled terrorism. One wonders what the difference is? Because the commonality is an obvious POV push in a certain direction. nableezy - 18:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:POVNAME is a higher standard to be met, not a prohibition on potentially loaded terms in a title. That standard is met by the sources cited in this very article, which consistently use "terrorism" and not "political violence." This is the universal understanding of POVNAME, not "POV-pushing." POV pushing would be "I think the Palestinians committed terrorism, so the article should be named for terrorism" or "I think the Israelis are the real terrorists, so we should only call the political violence or freedom fighting." Notice the distinction between statements like those and policy objections based on POVNAME and sourcing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, bit like the difference between a bantustan and an enclave, right?Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
lol, that was an interesting bit of hand waving. Have you actually looked at all the sources in this article to see what they use? For some reason I doubt that. But because you happen to have repeatedly made claims about sources that have been completely untrue I find it hard to believe you when you make more claims about what the sources say. nableezy - 19:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
the thin veneer that Nableezy is trying to maintain over this imagined distinction that is not apparent in the sources. Then when a source is brought directly stating said distinction, The issue is not whether there is a distinction between "political violence" and "terrorism." It is utterly pointless trying to argue with somebody who so easily moves the goalposts. nableezy - 21:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
What I said is exactly correct. There is nothing to argue about because the sources draw no such distinction in this context. Where is the distinction between Palestinian political violence and Palestinian terrorism as identified in the sources? And more importantly, where is the source stating that "Palestinian nationalism" is the primary motivator for political violence/terrorism? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Except for the source I quoted drawing that distinction in this context. Odd that one would see a source titled Terrorism in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Case Study in Applied Ethics and drawing a distinction between terrorism and political violence and then say no source draws a distinction in this context. Well odd if one actually were paying attention to the sources brought instead of just arguing based on feeling. nableezy - 01:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
You mean the single proposed definition of the term in an article from a non-peer reviewed journal? I thought you got very hung up on that stuff. Regardless, this is a waste of time. We already have the Routledge book indicating that "political violence" or "Palestinian terrorism" is not a narrowly or easily defined subject as far as motivations; second, the first sentence fails WP:V. That'd be a good place to begin. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I supplied a further ref for the opening sentence.Selfstudier (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Who ever said only peer reviewed journals are reliable? And no, the Routlege source does not say what you claim (shocking development), and since the subject of this article is not, as you continue to say without paying even the slightest attention to the article, about "Palestinian terrorism" (ie any terrorism committed by a Palestinian) I dont really see the need to engage further on this with you. Playing the WP:IDHT game is not required of me, but if youd like further views you as always are of course welcome to seek them out. But I dont plan on engaging in this latest bludgeoning act any more. nableezy - 15:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for ease of editing

Nableezy, feel free to bow out, because you are saying absolutely nothing that's remotely responsive. At least Selfstudier provided a new source -- however, Selfstudier, this describes Palestinian nationalism as a motivating factor in violent conflict, but where does it specifically support the proposition that Palestinian "political violence" or terrorism is defined by nationalism? Again, the Routledge source I provided indicates a much broader range of motives, and I'm not sure why that wouldn't be the default here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Im not bowing out lol, Im just not going to engage in this bludgeoning. The Routledge source does not say any such thing, it couldnt because it is discussing a related but not equivalent topic. But absent a consensus to change the lead it isnt changing. nableezy - 23:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The lead says "violence or terror motivated by Palestinian nationalism" which equates with the ref I supplied. The lead does not say "political violence" or terrorism is defined by nationalism? but you can of course add in a source stating that Palestine nationalism is not the only motivation, but I don't think the Routledge source covers that, does it?Selfstudier (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
It doesnt. nableezy - 00:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Does so. See "The Palestinian Ideological Debate." This article is suffering from an identity crisis and needs to figure out what it is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Youre linking to an entire book (a 32 year old book at that). If youre going to claim it backs something up say what page and quote what it says. nableezy - 04:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Meaning of international and "everywhere" (some helpful context)

international: Of or having to do with more than one nation.

everywhere: In or to all locations under discussion.

Hopefully this will assist with any confusion over whether or not these two are synonyms. As for this article, this book clearly indicates an international component of Palestinian terrorism/political violence dating back to the 1980s. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Uh, it isnt that international means everywhere. It is that "within Israel, Palestine and internationally" means everywhere. I swear, its like youre trying to make the silliest argument you can just to waste my time. And hello, the lead already said that acts of violence have happened outside of Israel and the occupied territories. And now I added the word internationally to satisfy that incredibly silly objection. Happy? You done now? nableezy - 21:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't mean "everywhere," it means across the borders of multiple countries. Internationally does not mean in every nation. Wow. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
jfc. The phrase committed either within Israel, Palestine, or internationally means committed anywhere on earth. If you cannot understand that I again think that WP:COMPETENCE is an issue. nableezy - 21:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

::::Really? Does that include at the bottom of the ocean or Antarctica? I don't think so. Internationally has a very clear meaning in this context. It means in more than one country across the globe. I suggest reviewing the dictionary links above again/the provided source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC) This makes me very proud. Good job. Many kudos. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You realize that happened before you even opened this section right? nableezy - 23:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I just now saw you made the change. I have no idea why you were still arguing with me about it, but it seems like we've resolved it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

ok so everywhere

within Israel, Palestine, or internationally literally means everywhere. What could possibly be the point of that? nableezy - 04:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The point of doing it or mentioning it? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
There was no territorial restriction to start with? Seems like extra words to no purpose. I am interested now in the article wide tag, can we remove it now? If not, you need to specify what parts of the article it refers to.Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
The addition adds nothing besides poor writing. I will remove it. nableezy - 15:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
The fact that there is an international element of this particular brand of terror/violence is absolutely noteworthy in the lead, and it is not something that's clearly intuitive. That's why it warrants mentioning, and you removing it detracts from the quality of the article, as have most of your efforts to undo common-sense changes. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Notice how absurd this last change is. Nableezy complains that source directly supported by the provided cite (a Routledge-published book) is "bad writing" because it is direct and to the point, and yet insists on maintaining this nonsense about "Palestinian nationalism, which is entirely unsupported by the source provided and any other source in the article. Absolutely no to removing the NPOV tag, nor should the "unsupported by the source" tag have been removed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
within Israel, Palestine, or internationally is a completely meaningless phrase. It means everywhere. How do you not get that? nableezy - 17:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
You didn't answer the question, what areas of the article does your article wide tag apply to?Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you review the definition of "meaningless." It conveys that "Palestinian terrorism/political violence" is something that occurs internationally and is not limited to the area of immediate conflict, not something intuitive, especially when the article begins with an unverified statement about "Palestinian nationalism" being the single defining factor of related terror/political violence.
Selfstudier The "undue" tag refers to the article-wide emphasis on the concept of "political violence," even as the sources directly state "terrorism." This is a more fundamental problem than cannot be fixed with an inevitable and necessary move request and will require line-by-line review to ensure the language matches the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you review common sense. Saying something happens here there and everywhere else is just dumb. nableezy - 17:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
There's a reason we have the word internationally and it doesn't mean everywhere. It is worth noting that Palestinian "political violence"/terrorism occurs outside of the Israel-Palestine area, regardless of how it's worded. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

If it doesn't mean everywhere, then you would be adding an unjustified territorial restriction where there isn't one. Political violence includes terrorism and specifically it says in the opening sentence "acts of violence or terror" so I am afraid I do not understand your objection. Go ahead and do your line by line review, I will observe with interest.Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue is not an explicit "territorial restriction. It's an implied one, nor would I call it a "restriction." Anyone reading the first two lines would not know that this form of violence extends across international borders, if I can use such a term. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Even if they only read the lead, that is enough to let them know that.Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Lol, you have marked your own source as failing verification.Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Verification failed applies to the statement in the article. The source I provided was for another segment of the sentence that Nableezy removed based on incoherent reasoning. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, this is beginning to look remarkably like disruptive editing. Tell you what, remove your source that no longer refers to anything and I might forgive you.Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
The source Selfstudier added directly supports the sentence. As far as anyone reading the first two lines, well the article is a bit longer than two lines. So is the lead. Like where it says The attacks have taken place within and outside Israel and have been directed at both military and civilian targets. nableezy - 19:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Nowhere does the source provided say that Palestinian terrorism/political violence is defined by Palestinian nationalism. Provide such a quote. And "outside Israel" has a very different meaning than "international." Do I need to draw a venn diagram or provide a dictionary definition for why these two have different connotations? You are directly challenging language provided in a Routledge-published book as "not making sense," as if we should trust your writing and interpretation over the meaning of words instead of a published academic source. And stop with this crap about changing the subheader. Subheaders on a talk page are not meant to reflect whatever you felt like blurting out in the moment -- they are meant to indicate what the discussion centers on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
this section was opened because somebody put in the first sentence of the article a meaningless phrase that equates to this happens everywhere. So I made a section title reflecting that. Stop being childish, somebody challenges your section title change stop doing it. TPG very specifically says when a title change is controversial to discuss it. Not edit war to maintain ownership over the discussion. As far as a quote, its quoted in the ref already. But since you want to play this game, That violence and mass mobilization are intrinsically linked to nationalism is frequently, and rightly, asserted in the literature.....It is precisely these dynamics and patterns that are revealed in the case of the Palestinians, no less so because they are stateless....It goes without saying that violence has been the chosen means of most postcolonial and national liberation movements, but the fact that it was directly linked to self-image and identity was specifically clear to the founders of Fateh.. And since this article is about political violence and not terrorism I dont see the need to respond to that bit. nableezy - 21:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
You are under a misunderstanding that policy allows you to misuse the talk page to create nonsensical headers that don't reflect either the ensuing conversation or the position of other editors. You are mistaken. The source directly states that there is an international element to Palestinian terrorism. The definition of international is existing, occurring, or carried on between two or more nations. And you claim that the article is about "political violence," yet many and perhaps most of the sources discuss terrorism. Either one is a euphemism for the other or they are two distinct topics entirely; you cannot have it both ways. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
No policy allows for you to repeatedly change a header that is on point and does not attack anybody or anything. Stop. I have no problem reverting that as vandalism as many times as it takes for you to get that point. nableezy - 21:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as terrorism or political violence, asked and answered over and over and over and over. Terrorism is partly a subset of political violence and partly outside of it. Sources have been provided to you over and over and over that show that distinction. WP:IDHT is disruptive editing. Kindly stop. As far as international, the lead says this occurs both in Israel/Palestine and outside. nableezy - 21:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Changing a subheader to ok so everywhere, as if this is something that anyone claimed, is explicitly vandalism. And the cited section does not once use the term "political violence" or terror. It discusses the armed conflicts of the 1960s and 1970s involving Palestinian militants. That was when there was ongoing warfare. This in no way relates to the subject of the article which is contemporary political violence/terror from the 1980s and onward. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
within Israel, Palestine, or internationally literally means everywhere. Addressing the problem of a silly line that says Palestinian political violence happens everywhere was the purpose of this section. nableezy - 21:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Was, before you once again decided to trash another talk page by babbling about unrelated things. nableezy - 21:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"Everywhere?" Does that mean outer space, too? No, it means in 1) Palestine, 2) Israel, and 3) other countries. Using the exact language from the Routledge book. That make come out through your filter as "everywhere," but that's not the meaning of those words. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Jesus christ. The 35 year old book you keep bringing up does not once use the incredibly stupid formulation of "within Israel, Palestine or internationally". It talks about how Palestinian terrorism has taken place internationally. Where does it include the incredibly dumb phrasing of "Israel, Palestine, and internationally"? And hello, the lead already says attacks take place within Israel/Palestinian and outside of Israel/Palestine. Are you paying even the slightest bit of attention, or have you only read the first two lines of this article? Is it the word internationally that has you in such a fit? Because that can be included in a way that isnt quite as stupid as "within Israel, Palestine or internationally". Here, ill do it for you. nableezy - 21:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
So the source says international, hello, and you think that is incredibly dumb phrasing, and you point to "outside Israel" as sufficiently explanatory? So we can say "outside of Israel or Palestine" but for some reason "internationally" is stupid? Right. What I added was a summary and it is 100% correct, unlike this still as-yet unverified statement that Palestinian political violence/terror is defined by Palestinian nationalism (and no, the source you provided makes mention of neither). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
You are either purposely not getting the point or are unable to get the point. "Internationally" was not the problem. "Internationally" is not what makes that phrasing unbefitting anything beyond an eighth-grade book report. nableezy - 21:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I am not seeing a genuine attempt to improve this article. Not sure how to describe it but it definitely isn't that. The source referring to nothing at all is still in the article marked as failed verification.Selfstudier (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Selfstudier, I suggest WP:AGF (and spare me all the reasons why you're not inclined to). I added the source with additional text, which it directly supported, and that text has since been removed (not by me). I still think the Routledge book has a place in the lead, ideally next to the international language Nableezy reinserted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, so why not do it instead of just talking about doing it?Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Selfstudier:, I'm not the one complaining about the citation. The issue is the fact that the first sentence isn't supported by any of the citations, not that there's an extra cite now. If you see another issue, you are free to have at it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Definitely disruptive, my collection of diffs grows again.Selfstudier (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: I'm not clear on what you're referring to or even asking for. However, you are free to present any urgent issues at ANI. Then you can show everyone your impressive diff collection. In the meantime, WP:FOCUS would be an excellent idea. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not going to explain it again.Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

The correct Tilte is « Palestinian Resistance » not « Palestinian Political Violence »! 45.102.190.99 (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

First intifada

There is a discrepancy across Wikipedia articles concerning the violence or non-violence of the first intifada.

This article states that "The First Intifada was characterized more by grassroots and non-violent political actions" ,

But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#1987%E2%80%931991:_First_Intifada states that: "The First Intifada began with violence, riots, general strikes, and civil disobedience campaigns by Palestinians", so - violence.

Also the main article [[4]] states that it "...was a sustained series of Palestinian protests and violent riots[8]" following with - "The Palestinian response was characterized by protests, civil disobedience, and violence.[15][16] There was graffiti, barricading,[17][18] and widespread throwing of stones and Molotov cocktails at the IDF and its infrastructure within the West Bank and Gaza Strip."

I wonder how were the widespread throwing of stones and Molotov cocktails overlooked, or why are those actions classified as non-violence? I also wonder how are the continuous stabbings classified, those that predate the intifada and those that occurred during the intifada period? How violent does violence need to be?

So shouldn't this article be edited to reflect the violence, or should the other 2 articles be edited, and "throwing of stones and Molotov cocktails" be classified as non-violent political actions?ElimelechSchreiber (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree the articles should be consistent and they should reflect sources. For instance "a sustained series of Palestinian protests and violent riots" sourced to history.com is not at all a representation of the source. So maybe you should start with the main article and see if that can be rectified at all (afaik, the First was mainly non violent which does not mean there was no violence just not that much relatively speaking.Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Home front reactions

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]

  1. ^ web based information of defense broushur provided to citizens
  2. ^ a b https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:sANZfis4vbQJ:www.knesset.gov.il/mmm/data/pdf/m01664.pdf+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShLZQ8Dbc8LZWZFj3BjKzIhG4c5j5qS433Pt0IRV3E3v2X_L5YjvYYD1rVmUPrFxkY96q_yHH4ECnNJi3npIFQ3YBJbaUSSHWvLCuuEWS6a4r9v76mAvtv7JhwvWN6Gaf4WuhOF&sig=AHIEtbR5vMrK9ZroCQNK7Bd66HMjauqoNw
  3. ^ Home front command,תקנות למוסדות חינוך[[:Category:|]],2010,[[1]]
  4. ^ a b Home front command,תקנות מוסדות בריאות [[:Category:|]],2010,[[2]]
  5. ^ Home front command,תקנות מוסדות בריאות [[:Category:|]],2010, p4 section 280 subsection ב [[3]]

POV work

I saw many problems in this article.

I will give two problems to review. The first is the lack of precision of what political violence is. While the reference and the literature may refer to an attack as terrorism, this article fail to differentiate specific terrorist attacks from other form of violent attacks. Especially it fails to respect referencing, or cherry pick referencing that do not address directly terrorism but rather violent conflicts, etc.

A second point is the use of largely of the Btslem NGO data, while it isn't an NGO specialized on the subject, and instead is politically oriented for the "end of the IOT".

There is other problems to address later on. --Vanlister (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Can't see any problems myself, nothing serious anyway. Are you sure this wasn't discussed previously? Look back up the page.Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
B'tselem' compilation of incidents is the most detailed publicly available and to say it is outside their specialty is just silly. Zerotalk 01:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Why most detailed?
Quick search on available data : Global Terrorism Database (GTD), National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT), International Terrorism: Attributes of Terrorist Events (ITERATE)+ State of Israel official figures
Academic documents:
What is silly exactly? Is it an ad-hominem attack? I didn't intend such an emotive reaction by my remark. I am being critical, so yes, it may feel unpleasant but please keep your cool. You are administrator you should refrain from mocking remarks on other users, I am sure you know that.
I don't want to engage in that type of discussion, and I rather let other contributors give their gut feelings on this.
Faithfully.

--Vanlister (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC) --Vanlister (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in that type of discussion So why are you doing it then? You don't have to make speeches on WP, you are allowed to edit the article, just make sure you properly source any edits you make. Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Also please don't edit your comments after they have been replied to, I want it to be clear what I have replied to, not your ex post facto version.Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I felt like sharing all those refs was "too nice guy" type of behavior. But the message is still the same, you can undo my change if it is bothering, cheers --Vanlister (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Btselem is routinely cited by other reliable sources, and it itself has a sterling reputation and has repeatedly been affirmed as a reliable source. The rest of the complaint is of the same quality as the criticism of B'tselem, meaning lacking in any basis. nableezy - 14:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The argument was about using the best source of information, which btselem isn't as a politically involved NGO. So, not about it's acceptability on Wikipedia.--Vanlister (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Addressing the first point, about using the phrase "political violence" when sources refer to terrorism, the Manual of Style has a page addressing "Words to Watch", including "Contentious Labels", which are value-laden words or phrases. Generally, Wikipedia articles steer away from using words such as "terrorist" or "terrorism" as their use tends to be highly subjective: depending on whether a person agrees or disagrees with a cause, they will tend to see violent acts as illegitmate terrorism or, for example, a legitimate struggle for independence or political rights. Therefore, less loaded terms are adopted: terms such as militant for terrorist or freedom fighter; underground group or militia for terrorist organisation; political violence for terrorism. Unfortunately, that does introduce an element of euphemism, but the necessity can be seen by examining personal usages for double standards. In the context of the ARBPIA topic area, the pre-state Hagannah (including the Palmach), Irgun and Lehi militias are beneficiaries of the guidelines.     ←   ZScarpia   12:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, your views on the legitimacy of killing someone is very accessory.
Secondly, there is a well known issue with the definition of terrorism, as it can be used in rhetoric and also about its limitation, ok. But can't you say the same when you renamed it political violence. However if you study the subject of terrorism, counter-terrorism or counter-insurgency, you will understand very well that you are wrong, since it's a well studied field of research. In short, groups involved in targeting soft targets, with political/ideological/religious goals are distinctive than other paramilitary groups.
The problem with using the "political violence" euphemism is that :

The first is the lack of precision of what political violence is. While the reference and the literature may refer to an attack as terrorism, this article fail to differentiate specific terrorist attacks from other form of violent attacks. Especially it fails to respect referencing, or cherry pick referencing that do not address directly terrorism but rather violent conflicts, etc.

I don't see any legitimacy in falsifying documents about terrorism, in pretending it is instead a study about 'political violence ', with the sole justification that there may be too much 'emotional connotation' attached to it. The vast literature about terrorism is simply lacking on this article, while in reality the subject is very, very documented in the academic sphere, but instead it is addressed through sources that aren't specific, so not the best to use in this case.
Another issue is that the article almost do not address other forms of political violence, such as the different types of warfare, violent mobs or specifically the Intifada. But at the end, the subject is not even well defined, since writing about violence (that is political) in general, would make your article an original work, because it has no interest in the academic field or at least what you try to study isn't described as such. And also it fails to identify other forms of motivations to commit violence.
Therefore, the introduction about the motivations is also clearly biased, since there is extensive documentation on the motivations ( and the profile) of people engaged in terrorist activities, and it is not as simply as asserted in this article. In conclusion : the premise is wrong and the sources are flawed or corrupted. 7/20 --Vanlister (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Did you read the Manual of Style guidelines?     ←   ZScarpia   23:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
We could all move over to Zionist political violence? Selfstudier (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

In a perfect world, "terrorism" would be a particular genre of violence that refers to the mode of operating and the choice of target. I> the real Israeli-Arab world, the word has been effectively destroyed by Israeli abuse. In common Israeli parlance, every Palestinian child who throws a stone towards heavily armed soldiers is a terrorist and this has been the case for decades. I see it every day. We must not adopt this language even if it forces us to use terms that are sometimes euphemistic. We should rely on accurate description of events rather than categorical labels to convey the facts. Zerotalk 02:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Is children throwing rocks against soldiers systematically used as a tactic and how prevalent is it? If there's a source with statistics for this, this information should go into the article. A Thousand Words (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Palestinian stone-throwing is linked in the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2022

The article is about the Palestinian resistance not political violence. Restrictions on articles and listening to one side only is hypocrisy and unjustified act of not being fair 47.60.40.112 (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. —Sirdog (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_political_violence/Archive_4&oldid=1184040330"