Talk:Palestinian political violence/Archive 2

This are DOBULE STANDARDS! There is an article called Jewish Terrorism, but Palestinian Terrorism does not exist?
Please decide, or call both articles Jewish/Palestinian political violence or both Terrorism. This is anti-Jewish bias! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.144.92 (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For politically motivated violence, there is Zionist political violence and Palestinian political violence. For religious terrorism, there is Jewish Terrorism and Islamic Terrorism. It's also interesting how much special coddling the Israel/Jew/Jewish and the Palestinian/Arab/Islamic "terrorism" articles get. In my opinion, that is where the outrage should be directed. I mean, imagine how these guys feel about not being considered practicing political violence. *shrugs* --65.127.188.10 (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I had to laugh too that "Palestinian militants" (a redirect to this article) aren't terrorists, or even "militants", instead, they perform "politically motivated violence" Stellarkid (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does "discussion" link for "Palestinian Terrorism" redirect here??
Palestinian terrorism is not the same as "palestinian political violence"! Please somebody restore the talk page for "palestinian terrorism". A separate page is needed to discuss groups like Hamas, and beliefs like that all civilian casualties will be blamed on Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the question to ask is whether there is any Palestinian political violence that is NOT terrorism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought they are actually all freedom fighters.... --65.127.188.10 (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the title
There is quite a problem with the title of this article if it is to cover historical events all the way back to the time before the creation of Israel, simply because both Jews and Arabs were referred to as "Palestinians" at the time. Funkynusayri 13:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a major problem, for the same reason that anti-Semitism doesn't cover the Third Punic War. "Palestinian" in this context is understood to refer to the Arabic-speaking nation which emerged from the 19th century through '48. Human language always has this kind of ambiguity. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 20:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I too have a question: when the title says "Palestinian", does it refer to the ethnic group? Or does it refer to "Palestinian nationalists" when it says "Palestinian". Does this article focus on a particular ideology (e.g. "Palestinian nationalism")?Bless sins (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Palestinian Arab terrorism" would be more accurate.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Lack of balance ...
The article needs to mention Hamas, human shields, Kassam rockets, etc.

Given that this article purports to deal with political stretching back to pre-1948, I find it surprising that there is not one mention of Zionist terrorism. Clearly, the role of people like David Ben Gurion and others, who blew up the King David Hotel, should be discussed here. None of the context is provided, either of proto-Israeli violence or of British colonial oppression in Palestine.

AWAyyad (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that would go in an article on Israeli terrorism

Recent edits
I believe it's helpful to put the number of Israeli deaths in context, by comparing it with the number of contemporaneous Palestinian deaths. What do you think?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it's unsourced original research; this article is about Palestinian political violence, nothing else. Also, the country is called "Israel" not "Israeli territory" or other euphemisms, the attacks were on Israeli civilians, the settlements are called Israeli settlements not "Israeli colonies", and the goals of these organizations is the destruction of Israel, not its "abolition", whatever that whitewash word might mean. Jayjg (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To denude it of its context is obscene; one might equally write of the Allied attacks on German interests during the 1940s and insist on omitting all reference to the contemporaneous Nazi aggression. Your vague use of the word "settlement" can refer to any human habitation; the ones in question are young colonies. The goal of those organisations is the destruction or abolition of the Israeli state, not Israel. A subtle difference, but important.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "To denude it of its context is obscene?" What on earth are you talking about? What is "obscene" is inserting into this article POV excuses for blowing up buses and restaurants and nightclubs filled with teenagers. Don't do it again. As for "vague use of the word settlement", your sophistry is absurd; the term Israeli settlement is well known and understood, and since we have an article on the subject, that's what we'll refer to. And finally, your "subtle" difference is meaningless, as "the Israeli state" is just some bizarre euphemism for "Israel". Jayjg (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Inserting POV excuses for murders? Ridiculous. Back it up, or withdraw it. Israel includes its people, its territory, its infrastructure etc. Destroying the state of Israel need not include their destruction.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Folks, I have no opinion on the content that is being discussed here, but civility is policy. Please try to adopt a more professional tone here, thanks. --Elonka 17:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And putting the edit back in when you know there are dissenting views without gaining a consensus is just a bad idea. Certainly the unsourced mitigation is not good. Narson (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As a reminder, this article is under the scope of Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. As an uninvolved administrator, I have wide latitude in restrictions that I can place on the article, as well as discretionary sanctions on the involved editors. So please, stop with the edit-warring, and discuss differences at the talkpage. Thanks, --Elonka 16:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Israeli deaths
The source cited for the number of Israeli deaths at 1634 is Haaretz, but the UN gives a figure of 1024. The first paragraph just says Israelis (which would include IDF dead), but the Haaretz article specifies Israeli civilians. Anyone able to shed any light?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone at all?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks to me like Haaretz is from 1948 and the UN document concentrates on the second intifada (From 2000) Narson (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Do you reckon the Haaretz figure is definitely civilians only?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would imagine so, that is what they say. 610 deaths (Haaretz number minus UN number) sounds about right for 52 years (1948 to 2000, when the UN numbers start). Just shows how bloody the latest round has been, with more deaths in 8 years than in the previous 50 odd. Narson (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The UN doesn't specify civilians, either on the Israeli or Palestinian side. Either way, there's been 4228 Palestinians killed since 2000. Any way you want to look at it, the Israeli number is a fraction of that, about a quarter. Do you reckon that the death tolls were closer between 1948 and 2000, which would preclude the use of the word fraction when comparing them?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What I think or you think is not important. The question is A) Whether it is relevent to an article on palestinian political violence that they have killed fewer Israelis than Israel has killed palestinians and B) What reputable sources say about it. Narson (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer A: definitely, context is vital. To write about Jews killing Nazis during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, without putting it in the context of the wholesale slaughter by Nazis of Jews across Europe, would be similarly obscene. B is easily ascertainable.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to find sources that say what you want, avoid obscure terms that are more perjurative and reducing the clarity by just putting 'israeli' and cutting out civilian in place is also not great (As one of the most common questions will then be 'Does that include troops?'). Narson (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What terms do you find obscure or pejorative? I removed the term "civilians" because of our discussion above.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Violence by ideology
What do people think of splitting the article by ideology, for example Islamist Palestinian political violence?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO it could be served with sections within the article, if there is a real difference between the acts and goals of palestinian factions (I am assuming the two main groups are the islamist groups like Hamas and the secular groups like Fatah?). Are there more than two groups? Are there significant impacts from any Christian Palestinian political activists? Narson (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sections could work. The primary differentiation I was thinking about was Islamist and secular. There have been some important Christian activists.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Blanking
Narson, you blanked all mention of the disparity in the number of deaths. Look again.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, blanked to me means I removed masses of text. That bit on the end is unsourced and reads as an attempt to mittigate. Narson (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression we were no longer in dispute over the disparity.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll respond to the points here in one place if its ok? Stops discussion wondering over three sub-titles. The UN does not specify civilians (having just re-read it), the papers do seem quite specific however. The disparity can be mentioned but I think that we would have to word it in a way as to present it neutrally. The problem with that would be making it relevent to the article subject and cause and effect. Palestinian political violence and Israeli responses have also resulted in the deaths of X Palestinians [ref] might be a way to do it that is acceptable. The current way just looks like it is a 'but he slaped me first!' thing. Narson (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Perspective is what I'm after. Your formula looks good.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for the Palestinian deaths BTW? I suspect they won't differentiate between 'combatant' and 'civilan' deaths with palestinian numbers (Difficult to work out) so we may have to find a 'like for like' israeli number for that paragraph too. Re-inserting that edit really is not helpful. As for the obscure terms, Israeli Colonies is not the term normally used, they are commonly called Israeli Settlements. Narson (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Narson, my sources are the sites already linked. There's been more Palestinians killed since 2000 than Israelis since 1948. I acknowlege the common name for the colonies; I can't see any good reason it need be slavishly adhered to at all times.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any footnotes or such being added in.....nor any pointing to which external links are for it? 'Colonies' has POV overtones for many, hence using an obscure POV term is worse than a common name that lacks manyof the issues (Israeli Settlements, at least in the UK, seems to avoid conferring legitimacy) Narson (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

How about we refer to the UN site, and maybe the Haaretz? How does "colonies" have POV overtones? There's nothing obscure about the word, it's well known. A "settlement" can refer to any place of human habitation, including those thousands of years old. These are relatively young colonies we're talking about. I'm not concerned about the colonies' legitimacy or lack thereof, I'm bemused by the insistence on the use of vague language.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The term Israeli settlement has a specific and distinct meaning, and is the common and Wikipedia phrase for, well, Israeli settlements. It is extremely specific, and this has been explained to you many times. If I see any further edits of yours which inserts the POV term "Israeli colony" or any similar euphemism for Israeli settlement I will simply used rollback to revert your edits, as they are clearly vandalistic disruptive at this point Jayjg (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, please see WP:VANDAL. There is definitely a content dispute here, but I would not go so far as to call Lapsed Pacifist's edits vandalism. Also, if there is a consensus for the term "Israeli settlement", please provide a link to that discussion.  Thanks, --Elonka 00:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See the article Israeli settlement - that's the Wikipedia term for them. Note how he changes the linked term Israeli settlements to "Israeli colonies", while bizarrely claiming he is fixing "vague language". Jayjg (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As Jayjg says, it is a widely used term to the point that it is our 'common name'. Colonies does imply a negative POV because in the modern world we have come to view colonies as a 'bad thing' when attached to a state (which is also incorrect in this sense, they are settlements of Israelis, not some kind of extra-terratorial enclave of Israel). The term 'Israeli Colonies' is not the common name, needlessly POV, needlessly 'vague'. Narson (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jay, Elonka asked you for a link to a discussion. Wikipedia terms are hardly set in stone, with absolutely no alternatives allowed. If I broke the link to the Israeli settlement article with my edit, my apologies. Like I said before, "settlement" can refer to any place of human habitation. "Colony", on the other hand, indicates exactly what kind of settlement is being discussed. But if you believe I wish to change all references from settlements to colonies, let me put your minds at ease. That is not my intention at all. Jay and Narson, if you look at the definition of a colony, I don't see how you can say that it's a POV term for what's under discussion. For the life of me, Jay, I don't understand why you think "Israeli colony" is a euphemism for "Israeli settlement". Can you explain? Narson, I'm not describing them as Israel's colonies, but Israeli colonies. That's an important difference.Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A difference that is so slight as to make no nevermind when reading, Lapsed. If we take the BBC, who I will admit are a news organisation who has received some flak for bieng pro-palestinian, they use Israeli settlement exclusivly, Israeli colony yields no results on their search function. Israeli Colony is a term that, looking at search results on the wider web, is used primarily with palestinian advocacy groups and Arab news networks. Narson (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You made the point that "...they are settlements of Israelis, not some kind of extra-terratorial enclave of Israel)." Now you write that this is "A difference that is so slight as to make no nevermind when reading..." Which is it? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? I was saying that Israeli Colony seems like it is an extra-terratorial enclave of Israel. I was then saying that Israeli Colonies and Israel's Colonies is an unclear distinction that without comparison has the potential to confuse editors, it is so similar as to make no nevermind when reading. You are arguing that Israeli Colonies has clarity over Israeli Settlements. I am saying it doesn't, it isn't the dominant use in English usage and would create an unnecessary piped link, not to mention the POV aspect. Narson (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not argued that "Israeli colony" is used more often than "Israeli settlement" in English, nor, despite what you seem to believe, is it my intention that it be used more often here. What I am arguing against is a total ban on the phrase's use, as you seem to seek. If you believe that "colony" is POV because of certain negative associations with the word, one could argue with equal justification that "settlement" is just as if not more POV, on the grounds that it is a euphemism. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * i understand your point. the reason "settlement" is not POV is because almost everyone uses that term. the reason "colony" is POV is that it is barely used at all in general usage, so coming up with that term carries definite political connotations which are highly POV. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly is it a euphamism for? Israeli settlements are a euphamism for...Israeli settlements? Thats not a euphamism, it is just what they are called in English. In my mind this is similar to using Malvinas War for the Falklands War. Yes, it is used by small groups with POVs to push. No it is not the widely used name and so its use is not appropiate. Israeli Settlements nets me 387,000 hits. Israeli Settlement with Israeli Settlements removed gives me annother 52,500 (for a total of 439,500). This includes groups like MSNBC, BBC, some palestinian sites, CNN etc. Compared to Israeli Colonies and Israeli Colony (with Israeli Colonies removed) which gives 5,660 hits and 3,190 (for a total of 8,850). Some of the hits for Israeli Colony are discussing if the US is an Israeli Colony most of the rest come from Palestinian advocacy sites (Just glancing at the first 10). Narson (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Israeli settlements" could be a euphemism for "Israeli colonies", no? Your Malvinas analogy is way off the mark. I can't understand why you repeat that "Israeli colonies" is not a more widely used term than "Israeli settlements", as you have had no argument from me on that score. That's no argument for a total ban on the term, unless one had a POV to push. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, "Israeli settlements" is not a eupemism for anything. it is the correct term, according to all credible sources, including the UN, and including notable anti-Israel groups, who consistently use this term. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see euphemism. I'm not disputing that it's a correct term. I would definitely dispute that that means no other can be used. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of reliable sources that use the phrase "Israeli settlement". Which reliable sources use the phrase "Israeli colonies"? Please stop violating WP:UNDUE. Jayjg (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The community consensus is to use the term "settlement". The term "colony" may also be used in certain situations, if it is a term that is the appropriate one to use in that context, and is backed up by a reliable source.  It may also be used as a general descriptive term by an editor who is working to expand an article. But if the term is challenged, then the consensus term "settlement" should be used instead, unless the sources say otherwise. --Elonka 05:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Euphemisms and pleonasms for Israel
Lapsed Pacifist, can you explain your extreme reluctance to use the simple term "Israel", and instead introduce euphemisms and pleonasms like "Israeli territory", "Israeli policies", "the state of Israel"? This isn't the first article you've done this to, and you've already conceded the point elsewhere. See Talk:2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun Jayjg (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Not "extreme reluctance", Jay, but simple carelessness. I always try to avoid extremism.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, could I suggest that the phrase "state of Israel'" is not unduly biased or politicaly loaded, and is simply a means of clarity? The term "Israel" can have many meanings. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * State of Israel isn't bad, IMO. Israeli territory is possibly useful to refer to the unannexed portions of the west bank and such. Thoug, probably clearer to use 'west bank' if we mean west bank. Narson (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Disparity in kill rates
The figure of Israeli deaths is still given without showing the huge disparity in the kill rates of both sides.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Original Research?
B'Tselem does not provide the statistics quoted, at the references given.
 * According to B'Tselem, as of 10 July 2005, over 400 members of the Israeli Security forces, and 821 Israeli civilians have been killed by Palestinians since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, 553 of whom were killed within the 1949 Armistice lines, mainly by suicide bombers. Targets of attacks included buses, restaurants, discotheques, shopping malls, a university, and civilian homes in Israeli settlements within the West Bank and Gaza Strip. [10],[11]. During the Second Intifada alone 1,137 Israelis were killed by Palestinians, according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (counted since 29 September 2000, retrieved at26 December 2007 [12]).93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian Terrorism in the lead
Is this justified? Does it reflect the world wide view accurately, or is it biased?93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is biased. See wp:words to avoid. Ceedjee (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed it to a seperate section.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It reappeared, without discussion, so I deleted it.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

terrorism -> violence denunciation
I suggest replacing the sections on "terrorism" by "violence denunciation", which refers to the way the violence was reported (denounced) by the different authorities.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you oppose to this somewhere and do you suggest this here ?
 * Note there is *no* terrorism section in this article.
 * wikipedia is not a wp:BATTLEGROUND. Ceedjee (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews
What is the objection to saying Palestinian Arabs to distingush them from Palestinian Jews?93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Have changed to Palestinian Christians and Muslims, to avoid confusion with Arab Jews.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Role of Immigration in Causing Violence
Should the alleged causal effect of mass Jewish immigration to Palestine be mentioned here?93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The causes of an event/phenomenon should always be explained and given.
 * BUT, should be mentionned : 'all'' the causes per wp:npov and wp:undue and only with relevant sources per wp:rs.
 * nb: note you never answer comments or questions and I assume you will soon be blocked from editing if you go on with your crusade. Ceedjee (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added the following, i hope neutral, sentence to the lead - " Palestinian political violence has developed in tandem with a wave of Jewish immigration into the area." I find Ceedjee's personal attack on me hard to understand. I would like to point out that I possess a barn star.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please find a reliable source for that statement, or it will be removed from the article in short order. NoCal100 (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I am unclear why you insist on a reliable source for a simple statement of fact. I hope you are satisfied with this version.

Palestinian political violence developed in reaction and opposition to Jewish immigration to Palestine in the early C20.http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp490.htm

"In the early 1900s, with the Jewish return to the area, Palestinian Christians began to band with the Muslims to oppose Jewish immigration," Jerusalem centre for public affairs.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The source just says "oppose", it doesn't mention violence. Jayjg (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to ban a biased editor from this article
Ceedjee who has made a large number of destructive edits, and the personal attack on me above is openly biased. His home page states - Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Judaism

My potential biases about this subject are :

* a higher empathy for Jewish culture and history than for Arab or Islamic culture. * a higher empathy for Zionism than for Arab and Palestinian nationalisms. * a categorical rejection of antisemitism; a rejection of any form of racism as a rule and rejection of racism towards Arabs and/or Muslims ie Islamophobia.

I have a range of opinions on these topics but I do not think it proper to expatiate on one's personal opinions in wikipedia, even on a user page.

Is it possible to stop Ceedjee editing this article, or force him to take a more neutral approach?93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ceedjee should be lauded for disclosing potential biases. To answer your question in one word: No. NoCal100 (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am concerned not about the potential biases, but by the large number of destructive edits he has made to this article, and his personal attack on me.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't describe edits whose POV you disagree with as "destructive"; that's a knife that cuts both ways. Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The Need for Context in the Lead
I have added a brief description of the stated aim of Palestinian political violence. I think it should be expanded to include such things as the struggle for land, equal rights, etc. Please do not remove it, as political violence without some description of the political aims is pointless.


 * Since 1947 the political aim of the violence has been the creation of an independent Palestinian State, either in accordance with Resolution 181 of the United Nations of 29 November 1947, or including all of historic Palestine. A Palestinian State was declared on November 15, 1988. It has achieved Diplomatic recognition by 96 countries.[2][3], exactly half the members of the United Nations.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It was removed without comment here. I have replaced it. I hope removal will be discussed, as it is hard to build consensus without conversation.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This lengthy apologia for terrorist actions is a violation of WP:NPOV. In addition, none of the sources used refer to "Palestinian political violence" or "Palestinian terrorism"; as such, it violates WP:NOR. Finally, none of the material is actually found in the body of the article; as such, its insertion violates WP:LEDE. Please don't re-add this policy-violating material again. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain the meaning of "apologia for terrorist actions" in terms of WP:NPOV, with reference to WP:MORALIZE and WP:LTRD. While I understand that the lead should reflect the article, I do not understand why you have removed the context from the lede. Surely an article on political violence should describe the political causes and aims of the violence both in the lead, and in the body.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to actions like the Passover massacre, Matza restaurant suicide bombing, Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing? Do they not fall under the definition of terrorist actions? Jayjg (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I am unclear how the text you refer to above, constitutes a "lengthy apologia". My understanding was that terrorism was a politically loaded term, to be used as sparingly as possible.04:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk)
 * The material you added to the lede included the following:
 * "Palestinian groups that have supported and carried out politically-motivated violent acts have included Hamas, which aims to end Israeli occupation in Palestine and establish an Islamic state, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) regarded by the Arab League since October 1974 as the 'sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Palestinians have fought for full sovereignty over the land in which they have lived since the begining of the C20. Palestine was administered by the Ottoman Empire until World War I, and then by the British Mandatory authorities. Israel was established in parts of the British Mandate of Palestine in 1948, and in the wake of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the West Bank and East Jerusalem were occupied by Jordan, and the Gaza Strip by Egypt, with both countries continuing to administer these areas until Israel occupied them during the 1967 war. Avi Shlaim explains that the argument that 'you never had sovereignty over this land, and therefore you have no rights,' has been used by Israelis to deny Palestinian rights and attachment to the land. The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination is generally recognized, having been affirmed by the Security Council, the General Assembly, the International Court of Justice and even by Israel itself."
 * In other words, what I accurately described as a "lengthy apologia". Jayjg (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, why discuss it here? Am I to take it that you do not object to the short description above?93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do object, since the "short description above" is one-sided original research. Jayjg (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "The description of Hamas's aims as" to end Israeli occupation in Palestine and establish an Islamic state" was taken from the British government website.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, that's the opinion of the anonymous person who wrote the content of that particular web-page of that particular British government office. I can provide two dozen reliable sources that describe its aims as the "destruction of the State of Israel". However, neither description is required, since this is not the Hamas article. That's what we have wiki-links for. Jayjg (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that "Palestinian political violence" should not concern itself with the political aims of the violence? Neutrality means balance, NOT censorship. As I said above, I have no objection to the inclusion of "destruction of the State of Israel" as well as establishment of a Palestinian state.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Hamas article is where the aims of Hamas should be described, not here. Continued use of the term "censorship" will tend to make the eyes skip all words that follow. Jayjg (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

At the moment no mention is made of the political aims of the violence. Please suggest words you are happy with.93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested additions of new section "Aims of Palestinian political violence"
It is ridiculous to have an article on political violence which does not cover the aims of the violence. I suggest that inclusion be made of the establishment of a state, right of return for refugees, recovery of confiscated property, etc.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You left out "destruction of Israel", "establishment of an Islamist state under Sharia law", etc. Anyway, is that was what other similar articles do? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I find your grammar confusing, as I find your comments above. Please try to be neutral.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that what other similar articles do? Also, please try to be neutral. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

While it is obvious that Israel must be destroyed in her current form if a Palestinian State is to occupy all of the British Mandate of Palestine's territory, which some groups advocate, I have no objection to including a statement of that. My understanding is that all Palestinian political violence claims to be directed towards the establishment of a Palestinian state. While some groups favour the establishment of an Islamist state under Sharia law, others propose different modes of government.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. So the additional objectives I mentioned were, in fact, accurate. Now, have you had a chance to look at articles similar to this? Do they include lengthy sections in the lead justifying the acts described as "political violence" or "terrorism"? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "so the additional objectives I mentioned were, in fact, accurate." What do you object to? How does saying " Palestinian political violence claims to be directed towards the establishment of a Palestinian state" deviate from reality, or neutrality. What is the point of this article?93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To begin with, you never proposed that language. And as soon as you inserted it, it would be modified, because it has the word "claims" in it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither do I understand your argument that this article should be as bad as similar articles. Irish Terrorism, for example, does not exist. ANC lists their aims in the lede, as does Viet Cong.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of those articles are "articles similar to this". This is the "Palestinian political violence" article, not the Hamas or Fatah articles. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which are the similar articles you refer to?93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really aware of any, actually, aside from Zionist political violence. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed numbers
I corrected the lead casualty stats. Original cited a single Haaretz numbers - 1,634. But that seemed inaccurate so I double-checked with the Israeli government site and corrected the math: About 1815 Israelis were killed between 1948 and 1999. And between 2001- Jan 2009, 1117 were killed. 1117+1815=2932. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we trust the Israeli gov't? They are, perhaps, biased. Is there not a neutral source of figures, and where are the figures for Palestinian fighters, and civilians, killed by the Israelis?93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This list does not ju8st describe victims of Palestinian political violence - "This list also includes 18 Israelis killed abroad in terror attacks directed specifically against Israeli targets, and 3 American diplomatic personnel killed in Gaza." I have, therefore deleted it from the lead.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edit for the following reasons. The statistic is supported by 2 reliable main stream sources. Americans killed are still victims of Palestinian Political Violence, which this article focuses on. Instead of deleting this info, provide reliable sources which state something different, and change the number. This info is pertinent to this article and is supported by reliable sources. --159.53.110.141 (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 18 Israelis killed abroad in terror attacks directed specifically against Israeli targets - please provide a source attributing these deaths to Palestinians.93.96.148.42 (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

on the heading
the heading implies that most of the terrorism is simply about the occupation of the territories, when if one looks at the history, and said statements by the groups, their charters, and members, most of the terrorism is more about ending the state of Israel. The heading is inherently POV. I think it should be "Palestinian political violence" refers to acts of violence committed by Palestinians for reasons that include destroying the State of Israel ending the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and advancing the Palestinian right of return" The terrorism, or acts which can be said to be political violence began long before 1967, and obviously continued after Israel left Gaza, and occupy it in no real sense.Tallicfan20 (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's not like the fact some of them want to destroy Israel is some kind of secret. You should add the PLO Charter to your list of sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Israel does continue to occupy Gaza according to those who actually know what they are talking about (read not random WP editors) and putting "for the purpose of destroying the state of Israel" is what is the POV problem. Can you name a single action that had as its purpose to destroy the state of Israel? It already says that some groups have called for the destruction of the state. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If Gaza is occupied or not is not relevant to this. If several Palestinian groups (for example Hamas and the PLO) say their purpose is to end Israel and their means is violence, that should be reflected in the lead of this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is irrelevant to the article, but it is not irrelevant to the argument which specifically brought that up. Also, it already is in the lead. It said several groups have called for the destruction of the state of Israel. But this edit just repeats the same thing twice and for some bizarre reason puts this as the first "reason" for the actions of these groups. Which is simply POV-pushing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The duplication is unnecessary. I do think it should be among the reasons for the actions of these groups. Can't say I really care if it's the first reason or the third one, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, Nableezy is trying to hide and deny the obvious. All we have to do is look into the history of Palestinian terrorism, it began before 1967, it continued after Gaza, Hamas and Fatah haven't renounced the destruction, nor has Hezbollah, which claims to speak for Palestine and whose members are in a good part Palestinian. I think the newest edit I have done, with "stated reasons" is fair. We can debate the "root causes," but stated reasons are a must.Tallicfan20 (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No actually you are. The main component is not destroying Israel as you seem to think, it is advancing the rights of Palestine and Palestinians. Your continued insistence on having this first shows is what is POV-pushing. Please stop. Not everything in the world is about Israel. And "hide and deny"? How do I answer something as retarded as that? The very next sentence of the lead included the phrase "some groups have called for the outright destruction of Israel". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And heads up, Hezbollah is a Lebanese Shia group. Not a Palestinian group. Stop putting Hezbollah into the lead of a Palestinian political violence page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, heads up, the PLO has long removed the destruction of Israel from its charter. And the are more than these 3 groups. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * sure, the groups are failing, but their purpose, stated, and began before any Israeli occupation, is to destroy Israel. These groups openly state that if there were no occupation, they'd still be trying. Fatah and the PLO were formed BEFORE 1967, and had the same goals, and Fatah hasn't renounced them, tho the PLO has, tho Hamas, PIJ, etc haven't. You're the one pushing the POV, as the argument goes "no occupation, no violence," which is false due to history which is well documented, and true as we've seen in Gaza. Also, Hezbollah fights, as it says, in the Palestinian cause in part, in of course addition to turning Lebanon into an Islamic state. I'm simply pointing out STATED reasons, as I could find you a million quotes in which they advocate to destroy israel, occupation of territories or notTallicfan20 (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)I think what needs to be done is expand the "end the occupation" bit to reflect that some groups want to end the occupation of the OPT while others consider all of Israel occupied Palestinian land, the "liberation" of which would constitute the destruction of Israel. The way Nableezy worded it marginalizes the destruction of Israel part, which existed prior to the "end the occupation of the OPT" idea. That's POV.
 * Also, heads up, the PLO has not amended its charter yet, they only voted to draft a new charter. They didn't do that yet. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the PLC formally did revoke 7 articles that called for dismantling of Israel in 1996. And also, placing this ahead of all other reasons is what is POV pushing. You want to expand on what some groups mean by occupation by all means feel free, but the way Tallicfan put this together is bullshit. That change is pure steaming excrement that only reflects his warped views on how everything must revolve around Israel. Whatever, I am off to prepare an arbitration enforcement request rather than continue to deal with him and his efforts to represent his views as factual. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How is putting "ending the occupation/right of return" first NOT also pushing POV? Why is it wrong to point out stated reasons, which do include very prominently the destruction of Israel? Also, I never said everything revolves around Israel. Tho the fact you continue to police this article, and obviously try to put the issue of destroying Israel on the backburner as if no one should notice shows thats how you see it: your POV, projection. The way you wanna put "some groups" and put it at the end shows your whitewashing: almost all of them openly state to destroy Israel. As if Palestinian terrorism from the days of the Mufti up to 1967 wasn't about destroying a Jewish state or the attempt to create one, all before the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza(which is over). You also said earlier that terrorism is to "it is advancing the rights of Palestine and Palestinians." HOW IS THAT NOT POV??? You're guilty of what you're accusing me of.Tallicfan20 (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IT WAS IN THE NEXT SENTENCE. What dont you get about that? I also did not use the word terrorism because I dont call it terrorism. And the occupation of Gaza is not "over" as you keep saying. The ICRC, the UN, AI, HRW all say that Gaza is occuppied, so forgive me for not listening to a wikipedia editor who apparently has no idea of what he is talking about and is only able to parrot the talking points of the Israeli-right. And it is not POV to say that the cause of these resistance groups is to protect the rights of Palestine and Palestinians because that is what they say is the primary cause. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Nableezy, but when the destruction of Israel is a foremost, even chronologically in the Charter, theme in the charters and out of the mouths of their members, it deserves a prominent spot. Also, this is the cause which motivated them in the first place. Also, the US, Israel, the EU, and Japan calls near all of these groups terrorist groups. But I know some cannot admit that, so I haven't used that word in the edits, now have I. And in terms of Gaza, there wasn't a blockade until 2007, and all the Israeli troops and people/settlements were GONE. We can get into the UN, which as we know is anything but impartial on the Middle East, AI and HRW(which takes money from Saudi Arabia on human rights while bashing Israel, ironically), but the fact is Israel removed the things that typify the occupation, and terror continued. And again, you cannot deny that Fatah and the PLO carried their acts out with the purpose they most prominently displayed, of destroying Israel, before the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. That is history, not the "Israeli-right." The Israeli-left doesn't see it much differently, only the Israel-farleft does.Tallicfan20 (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was frustrated and said some things I shouldnt have, I apologize. But I am not going to talk about your or my feelings on the real world issues. Do you have a problem with how the lead now reads? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If they amended the charter in 1996, why did they say they will Complete the process of revising the Palestinian             National Charter in 1997? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I usually dont depend on the JVL, but here, or here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if the PLO did, its original purpose was to destroy Israel, and this is what they openly said was their motivation, until unclear events of the late '90s. But that doesn't change the fact not one other group, including Fatah, has renounced destroying Israel. Hamas, PIJ, DFLP, and so on have not renounced the goal, all of whom took part in both intifadas. Plus, there is dispute over whether it was actually amended and ratified, as a June 1999 report by the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Information on the status of the Charter made no mention of the 1998 events and leading Palestinians continue to state that the Charter has not yet been amended.Tallicfan20 (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The JVL link is just the text of the agreement. It's a note to the 1997 Hebron Protocol. You can look it up for yourself if you don't trust JVL. Anyway, thanks for another example of the media getting something wrong. It's obvious the charter was not revised in 1996 if they said they'll complete the revision in 1997. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That actually is not obvious. There may have been other changes that were to be made, but these changes were made in 1996. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There may have been other changes? Such as? Are you saying they revised it in 1996 and were supposed to revise it again in 1997? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying that they did revise it in 1996 (and I can get many, many more sources on that). And what does this have to do with the article? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What does the amendment of the PLO charter have to do with an article about Palestinian political violence? Are you serious? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, what do your questions to me have to with the article. There are countless sources that are unequivocal in saying that the PLO removed the parts of the charter calling for the destruction of Israel in 1996. What else is there to discuss on that specific point? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The "destruction of Israel" may be described as a goal of Palestinian political violence; however, they would phrase it in other terms: The PLO charter says it acts "to restore Palestine and liberate it through armed struggle." It uses the word "liberate" many more times than "destroy". The byproduct of restoring Palestine may be the destruction of Israel. But its very POV to assert destruction is the goal of a group that sees itself as a national liberation movement. And its not their POV being represented, but that of third-party commentators with a bit of axe to grind.  T i a m u t talk 21:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiamut, why should we give the POV you're pushing? There are enough pages on the terminology. "Liberating Palestine" is POV. the destruction of Israel is an objective term, as no one disputes that what "liberating Palestine" means when they refer to more than The Territories.Tallicfan20 (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhh, read that aloud. Liberating Palestine is a POV phrasing but destroying Israel is not. Try again. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well tell me what "liberating Palestine" entails? Given that the terrorism used entails murder of civilians and military alike and deleting the existence of a UN member state, "liberating Palestine" means the destruction of Israel, if it refers to more than just The Territories. how is the term "liberate" not POV, when the terrorist groups themselves admit to using such methods and promote them?Tallicfan20 (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have they NOT said "destruction of Israel?" They have indeed said just those words in addition to "liberate Palestine." No one denies it. Tallicfan20 (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See my comment here. The language should reflect what the groups say and the obvious consequence.
 * And the terror groups don't actually deny calling to destroy Israel. They say it out in the open, be it Israel or "Zionist entity," etc.Tallicfan20 (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edit says the destruction of Israel is a stated goal of these groups, but that's not true of all groups and not true of many of them today. For most, its not a stated goal, so much as it is the interpretation of the stated goal of the liberation of Palestine. What "liberating Palestine" entails means different things to different people. Your conclusion that it necessary entails the destruction of Israel, is an interpretation shared by some commentators. The point is that all people enaged in Palestinian political violence state that their goal is the liberation of Palestine (groups tend to state their aims in positive, not negative terms). Per NPOV, we should reflect what is a key stated aim before providing other people's interpretation of what those aims translate into. Capisce?  T i a m u t talk 21:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I guess people can say "its not an occupation," people can dispute that there is even an article on a "palestinian people," Tiamut, when you start giving the green light to push POVs, it can go both ways, you know. lets see: Hamas-"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it," Fatah-"...eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence," PIJ from CFR page-"The PIJ advocates the destruction of Israel through violent means" and yes, while they say "liberation of Palestine," that meaning is disputed. But what is NOT disputed, and therefore not POV necessarily, is that as the groups themselves say, destroy Israel.Tallicfan20 (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you have it backwards. You can cherry-pick quotes all you like, but the even the names of the organization involved in these activities indicate what their priority is: Palestine Liberation Organization, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, etc, etc. Its clear what their common and primary aim is. That the aim may necessarily entail the destruction of Israel is sometimes discussed by some of them, but it is indisputable what their primary aim is and how they choose to phrase it most of the time. We can include mention of how this is interpreted by some as necessary entailing the destruction of Israel and that this is an idea relished by some. But I find it odd that our current lead doesn't even mention the "liberation of Palestine" as a goal when it is such an obvious one.  T i a m u t talk 22:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its clear what Hamas and Islamic Jihad want, and they don't have the word "liberation" in them, nor does Fatah, nor did Black September, I could go on. Also, a name is simply a name. What they say in their charters and public statements matter too, you know. And stop playing dumb with me, you know full well that when they mean "liberating Palestine" other than The Territories, they mean "destroying Israel" and they even say it themselves! Its not an "interpretation," its simply fact and what the groups themselves say. Come on, Tiamut, what else could "liberating 'Palestine'" mean if it applies to more than just Gaza and the West Bank? Honestly. Tallicfan20 (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It should say that the stated goal is the "liberation of Palestine", which when "Palestine" refers to "British mandate Palestine" means the destruction of Israel. Or "widely believed to mean" if you want some weasel words in there. When Liberating something, you necessarily liberate it from something else which no longer controls it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

<- Folks, I added the link to the discretionary sanctions that cover this article and all articles related to the I-P conflict because I was slightly disturbed by how things are going here. Tallicfan20, can you tone down your POV statements please because apart from being annoying they're hopelessly inconsistent with what we are trying to do here which is "to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict". Remember to read the discretionary sanctions and remember WP:BATTLEFIELD. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to make it more neutral, but putting stated reasons for political violence, but others are deliberately trying to hide it or pretend it doesn't exist. How can they also be neutral, when their politics are on their profiles and visible by their posts? Why isn't is NPOV to put stated reasons with sources, seeing as if we do what others have tried, then it becomes projecting reasons, which is inherently POV. Is it not a fact these groups have been trying to destroy Israel? How is that POV? Charters and members use such wording themselves. Also, I've added that can also be referred to as what Tiamut talks about. I just find it POV when people try to pretend this isn't a major reason, when it indisputably is, and trying to hide it simply is pushing an agenda.Tallicfan20 (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think CJCurrie's edit which I just restored is very well phrased, sourced and provides more clarity and more in the way of NPOV than your edit. I've explained my reasons above. You are ignoring that all groups agree on the liberation of Palestine, while only some agree that Israel should also be destroyed. Your edit does not convey this fairly.  T i a m u t talk 14:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it NPOV to just project what the terror is "generally intended" to do? WHy is not POV to simply point out something the groups don't deny, and they actively promote with such wording? I also did, put in the "liberating Palestine" wording you wanted in, which unlike the other term which is harder to dispute the meaning. And don't play with dumb with me, you know any "liberating Palestine" other than Gaza and the West Bank destroys Israel. It is POV to try to project what terror, or political violence is "generally intended" to do in the lead, or try to say what "cause of 'Palestinian liberation'" is.Tallicfan20 (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The cause of Palestinian liberation groups is the liberation of Palestine. What that means to different groups at different times has varied. Some define it as the whole of Mandate Palestine, some now concentrate solely on the occupied territories. That you see the former position as necessarily entailing the destruction of Israel is one way to interpret it. Some Palestinian groups do interpret it that way and are happy about that. Some don't.
 * In other words, the liberation of Palestine can be characterized as a universal aim among the groups, while the destruction of Israel (its corrollary in some cases, depending on how Palestine is defined) is not as universal an aim. It is arguably a consequence of the liberation of Palestine when Palestine is maximally defined, but is not necessary when it is minimally defined.
 * I find your edit to be lacking in NPOV because it privileges "Destruction" over "liberation" and for the reasons I have explained above, that privileging is unwarranted and unfair.  T i a m u t talk 15:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I made a compromise. The term "Palestinian cause" will be there, the term "destruction" won't be there, citations will be added about Israel as it would be wrong to deny it. We won't debate what "Palestinian liberation" means, it is too POV and open to interpretation Tallicfan20 (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You still removed "liberation of Palestine". That is the primary goal of all these groups. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are you to claim you know what the goal of all these groups are? I compromised. You can see it on the page.Tallicfan20 (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I built upon your edit Tallicfan20 here. I hope it meets with all around approval.  T i a m u t talk 16:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiamut, all I have to do is look at your user page and see you overt and obvious agenda. But if this is how you wanna go, given that the term "liberation of Palestine" and its vague meanings, I think the recent edit is a good one.Tallicfan20 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "We see things not as they are, but as we are," my dear Tallicfan20. Whatever you want to do, do it. Just be prepared to defend it if others challenge it on the grounds of WP:NPOV. If I may make a suggestion ... When you are preparing your defense, try to see if the text you are trying to add does in fact accord with WP:NPOV. That would save all of us a lot time better spent elsewhere.  T i a m u t talk 16:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you edited your comment, removing what you said about adding a bunch of citations, and adding that you think its a good edit. Well thanks I guess.  T i a m u t talk 16:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Sometimes directed toward" doesn't read all that well. Maybe occasionally directed, or variously directed, or I don't know. Overall the lead is excellent and thanks to all for your efforts. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to "Periodically direct toward", in the hope that's seen as better prose. Thanks for your encouragement.  T i a m u t talk 21:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it, thanks! --65.127.188.10 (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"proclaimed" struggle
I am open to a word other than "struggle" but inserting weasel words into the first sentence of the article is not the way to provide "balance". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This statement is POV. It's what these groups claim they're doing, which is not necessarily the real reason, presented in a neutral voice. The sentence should reflect that this is what they proclaim. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but the Palestinian struggle for self-determination is not just proclaimed. Its recognized in multiple United Nations resolutions as an "inalienable right". The sentence reads just fine without proclaimed. These groups don't do this stuff just for fun.  T i a m u t talk 23:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, you're presenting these groups' POV in the encyclopedia's neutral voice. If you prefer, we could put quotations marks around "struggle for self-determination". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that the vast majority of the world recognizes that there is a Palestinian struggle for self-determination and that it is an inalienable right, I don't feel the need to put quotes around it. Neither do UN bodies who adopt resolutions affirming this right, as most recently here.  T i a m u t talk 23:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * UN General Assembly resolutions don't represent "the majority of the world", at best, they represent the view of the majority of governments. Most of which are not democratic. Also, UN bodies are not an encyclopedia and rarely bother with NPOV.
 * Anyway, the statement as it is now is POV and you know it. It's what these groups claim. You can't present the groups views as fact, even if you agree with them. Do you want some language in the lead about opinions that dispute this is why they're doing it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Who says that General Assembly resolutions do not represent the majority of the world? Every UN member has a vote (i.e. most countries in the world. Its actually one of hte only bodies where this is true.) If you insist on using "proclaimed" however, we can mention how it it a rcognized inalienable right by most of the world too.  T i a m u t talk 23:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if the right were recognized by the majority of the world that doesn't mean that when they claim do be doing something because of that right, it's necessarily true. For example you have a right to self-defense. If you walk up to someone in the street and punch them in the face while invoking your inalienable right to self-defense, it's still only what you claim. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It currently reads: Palestinian political violence refers to acts of violence committed by Palestinians aimed at achieving political objectives in their struggle for self-determination. I don't see how this can be interpreted as referring to anything other than their own aim. The "aimed at" functions like "proclaimed" here. It doesn't say, for example, something more direct like Palestinian political violence refers to acts of violence committed by Palestinians to achieve political objectives in their struggle for self-determination.  T i a m u t talk 00:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Separation Barrier's construction is aimed at stopping Palestinian terrorism". POV or not? The Israeli government claims it is, but is it really? The aimed at implies that the stated reason is a fact. Unless you say "aimed at" according to who. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would have to read The Separation barrier's construction by Israel is aimed at... In any case, not a good comparison given that the ICJ has ruled the barrier illegal, while the world has recognized the Palestinian right to self-determination and the right of all occupied peoples to resist their occupiers.  T i a m u t talk 00:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, it doesn't matter what you think the world has recognized. This article is about political violence. Saying this violence is "aimed at" something is presenting that something as fact. Not that they have a right, but that they're commiting acts in their "struggle" for that right. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, when it reads "by Palestinians aimed at achieving," its like saying "proclaimed". The difference is that instead of placing "proclaimed" before "their struggle", its equivalent is before "political objectives". This is more appropriate since their struggle is a widely recognized one, and is not simply "proclaimed".  T i a m u t talk 00:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not like saying "proclaimed" because it states as fact that this is what their aim is. Do I need to do the self-defense example again? Having a right doesn't mean a specific act is necessarily aimed at furthering that right. You may proclaim it is, and that's what should be stated in the neutral voice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not putting "proclaimed" before "struggle for self-determination". The struggle for self-determination is self-evident, widely recognized, and a fundamental human right recognized by the whole world.
 * Do you have any other suggestions on how to accomodate your concerns, while also accomodating mine? I'm thinking about it and will get back to you.  T i a m u t talk 01:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, I have one:
 * ... refers to acts of violence undertaken by Palestinians that are explicitly aimed at achieving political objectives in their struggle for self-determination.  T i a m u t talk 01:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest that the first sentence should remain untouched.  Jim Fitzgerald   post  06:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What about acts of violence that are not explicitly aimed at that? If there's no press release it's not political violence? What about acts of violence that are explicitly aimed at other things? The video tapes and press releases don't always mention the "struggle for self determination". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have another suggestion? Or are you hell-bent on rejecting all alternatives and inserting "proclaimed" despite other editors finding it to be both unnecessary and weaselly?  T i a m u t talk 13:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quotes around "struggle for self-determination" like the ones around "liberation of Palestine"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you mentioned that above, but the idea of placing scare quotes around a universally recognized right does not really appeal to me, just as "explicitly" does not appeal to you. Do you have another suggestion?  T i a m u t talk 13:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor does it appeal to me. The ones around liberation of Palestine should also be removed. Unless you would like to start putting quotes around "democratic" in the Israel article. The same argument applies, it is not universally accepted that it is democratic so we should make sure to point out that it just a proclaimed democracy. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to do something in the Israel article, go do it there and stop trying to bully me with it here.
 * I don't have any more specific suggestions regarding the wording. RFC? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody is bullying you with anything. I am just showing how nonsensical your argument is. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsensical is trying to make the issue about whether someone has a recognized right to do something when the issue is whether a certain act is necessarily furthering that right. This of course has nothing to do with the Israel article or if Israel is democratic or not, but you brought that up why exactly?
 * Anyway, this is pointless. You're the wikilawyer. What dispute resolution method should we use here? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Whose the wikilawyer? Above you state that the word "explicitly" should not be used becasue it does not cover acts of violence that are not explicitly aimed at self-determination. At the same time, you are arguing that we should add "proclaimed" before "struggle for self-determination" because .... why again exactly?
 * I suggest to truly address your concern (which I believe is valid; there are some acts of violence that are not explicitly proclaimed to be undertaken to further the goal of self-determination), we consider the following: Palestinian political violence refers to acts of violence undertaken by Palestinians aimed at achieving political objectives, generally as part of their struggle for self-determination.  T i a m u t talk 15:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This wording again presents as fact the claim that they're doing it as part of their struggle for self-determination. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify what I'm saying, I'm not arguing that the Palestinians don't have a right to self-determination. As it happens I think they do. I'm arguing that when saying that Palestinian groups carry out acts of political violence, it should be clear that they say they're doing it as part of their "struggle for self determination". Some people think that's the reason. Some don't. Sometimes the groups themselves say this is the reason for a specific act. Sometimes they don't. We should not present as fact that it is the reason. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I understand. "Proclaimed" isn't the magic bullet that will solve the problem though. So here's another suggestion:
 * Palestinian political violence refers to acts of violence committed by Palestinians to achieve political objectives. Generally-speaking, the acts are intended to further the Palestinian struggle for self-determination. A primary objective of this struggle is the "liberation of Palestine," ...  T i a m u t talk 16:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This still presents their intent as fact. Here's a new example, what was the intent behind the war in Iraq? To find WMD?
 * How about the acts are stated to be part of the Palestinian struggle for sefl-determination? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What about acts of violence that are not explicitly aimed at that? If there's no press release it's not political violence? What about acts of violence that are explicitly aimed at other things? The video tapes and press releases don't always mention the "struggle for self determination".
 * I've offered you a formulation that addresses that concern, as well as your other one. Using "stated", "proclaimed", etc., fails to deal with this concern of yours above and my concerns (re: it's not just them stating that). "Intended" implies it is their view, but avoids the problem of whether or not the position was explicated. I urge you to reconsider the text. I think its a good one.  T i a m u t talk 17:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My main concern is stating as fact what their intent is. That sometimes even the Palestinians who commit the acts don't claim this specific intent just strengthens that point. It's not the main issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)So we should state their intent as fiction? Let me break down the fist two sentences again:
 * ''Palestinian political violence refers to acts of violence committed by Palestinians to achieve political objectives.
 * Totally non-controversial, doesn't impart much in the way of information, but hey, on this basic statement of fact, I think we can all agree.
 * Generally-speaking, the acts are intended to further the Palestinian struggle for self-determination.
 * "Generally-speaking" accounts for the fact that there are fringe minority perspectives that claim that Palestinian political violence is actually not intended to further the struggle for self-determination. Most people acknowledge that these acts of violence are said by Palestinians to be directed towards this end. Most people believe that this stated intention is a real intention. Whether or not these acts actually do serve that end is a separate issue, and a position not precluded by the wording proposed. Those who don't believe that these acts are a function of the Palestinian struggle for self-determination tend to be those who think Palestinians are liars who hate Jews. I like to think these represent a fringe minority myself, but correct me if I'm wrong.  T i a m u t talk 18:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add that "intended to further" implies "intended [by Palestinians] to further", so the struggle and the intention behind it, is in fact attributed to its agent.  T i a m u t talk 18:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)We should not state their intent as fiction. We should state that this is what they claim their intent is. Just like the US claimed their intent was to find WMD.
 * Thinking about this further, I'm not even sure it's correct to say that Hamas for example commits acts "to further the struggle for self-determination". First of all, "self-determination" isn't even mentioned in their charter. That terminology is used mainly by secular Palestinian groups. Hamas uses the terminology of the Muslim Brotherhood, such as that the land is "Muslim waqf" and "our struggle against the Jews" (who wrote that book, Qutb or al-Banna? I forget).
 * Maybe we should put "liberation of Palestine" first, as that is something I think most groups state specifically. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Self-determination is a big thing for Hamas too. From YNET: "Hamas and other Palestinian groups are ready to cooperate with any American, international or regional effort to find a just solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to end the Israeli occupation and to grant the Palestinian people their right of self-determination," Mashaal said in the interview. Same same. Surprising how little things change over time.  T i a m u t talk 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "declared struggle" since it makes it clear that this is something the groups have chosen to do, but takes away any innuendo that they are lying. According to Ironduke there is some grammatical error with "proclaimed struggle" but he chose not to fully explain it. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That works for me.
 * (side question: was that the first time Mashaal used that kind of language or is it usual in his speeches? I was under the impression Hamas deliberately wasn't using the secular groups' terminology) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesnt work for me, in fact I think IronDuke's edit is an example of how this should read. "To advance the struggle for self-determination and achieve full statehood for Palestine." <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That wording is fine for me.  T i a m u t talk 20:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So do we have consensus? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to review, is this what we are talking about?

''Palestinian political violence refers to acts of violence undertaken by Palestinians to achieve political objectives. Generally-speaking, these acts are intended to advance the struggle for self-determination and achieve full statehood for Palestine.''  T i a m u t talk 14:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I was agreeing to what the anon suggested, not Nableezy. I thought that was pretty obvious.
 * The "full statehood for Palestine" is implied both in "struggle for self-determination" and "liberation of Palestine". There's no need to repeat it so many times in the first two sentences of the lead.
 * We are still stating as fact what the intent is. This needs to be corrected. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is exactly the same as Zionist political violence. There is no reason one should be structured one way and the other a different way. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only are they not exactly the same, they're not too similar. The other page doesn't go on to break down every specific objective in the lead. The other page also mentions specifically what the targets of this violence was, as well as pointing out that groups and individuals carry them out. So all in all, not exactly the same.
 * Also, since you're the expert on wiki rules, isn't there one that says that the fact some other article says something doesn't mean this article has to be changed to be "exactly the same"?
 * Anyway, to make them "exactly the same", the lead here should read
 * Palestinian political violence refers to acts of violence committed by Palestinians for political reasons, most famously to thwart the creation and existence of a Jewish state in Palestine. Actions have been carried out since the British Mandate of Palestine and up until today by individuals and Palestinian paramilitary groups such as [...] as part of a conflict between Arabs and Jews, about land and national aspirations.
 * The next paragraph should mention who this was aimed at, with emphasis on Israeli civilians.
 * What do you think? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, that is the most famous reason? You arent even arguing in good faith so I dont see the point of trying to deal with the nonsense you are trying to pull here. You alone objected to my proposal above so I am putting it back into the article unless somebody else rises up to show a problem. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey all, Nab asked me to pop by and confuse things, so here I am. First off, I have to object to "Palestinian political violence refers to acts of violence committed by Palestinians..." I mean, you might as well just write X = X and be done with it. It's just sort of legalese boilerplatey meaningless. I'm also not wild about "struggle" in general tonally, as it feels a little POV. I mean, you root for people who are struggling. Not to say the Palestinians aren't worth rooting for, but... you know what I mean. Here's my suggestion. "Palestinian political violence refers to violent acts in furtherance of the goal of Palestinian self-determination." Note I'm also (and some of you may disagree) allowing for the idea that it doesn't have to be a Palestinian doing the violence for it to be Palestinian political violence, for example, Revolutionary Cells (RZ). IronDuke 15:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A lil late with the struggle, already took that out. I think the "political objectives" bit should be in there as well, but if somebody removes it I wont revert. But as to the rest I put in something that should be close enough to what you wrote. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like IronDuke's version better, although I still think it's presenting as fact in the encyclopedia's neutral voice what the goal of the attacks is. Was the Palestinian political violence in 1929 really in furtherance of their goal of self-determination? Did they even say it was at the time?
 * Also, I don't think you "achieve" a right. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Now they're "gaining" a right? Didn't we agree they already had that right? I understand you really really want the word "right" in there, but you're just forcing it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Guy here... AFAIK, Palestinians don't give a toss about gaining the "right" so much as they want the actual state itself. Also, "refers to acts of violence committed aimed at achieving" you don't need "committed" there. It's redundant, really. I will disagree with Guy in re pre '48 violence: I think the denizens of Palestine had a pretty good sense that the significant Jewish immigration that had been going on for decades would have meaningful repercussions for a future Arab state, repercussions which they did not at all care for, though it may also be fair to say the idea of a Palestine qua Palestine wasn't as much on their minds as, say, a Greater Syria might have been. And to quibble and muddy the waters yet further, it would not have been called "Palestinian violence" but "Arab violence." Maybe there's just no way around this, as terms have shifted, but... IronDuke  16:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also POV again I fear - self detirmination is cited by both sides with different interpretations. International law is like that. Palestinian political violence refers to acts of violence committed by palestinians in their campaign for an indepedent Palestine, surely? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Including "full statehood" was rejected by No More Mr Nice Guy and I think gaining the ability to exercise the right to self-determination should be included as well. If somebody want to come up with a way of saying that so it doesnt sound like a 3 year old playing with words by all means please do so. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 06:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Another key aim
My only interest in combining them was to make it flow a little better. Is the release of prisoners a significant enough goal to be listed in the lead? Could it just be dropped? --65.127.188.10 (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good question. I was thinking of either dropping it or expanding it to include other limited political goals, like stopping the expansion of settlements, or lifting the blockade on Gaza. Why don't you drop it for now and we can work on identifying others for s short paragraph, probably in the main body, on those issues.  T i a m u t talk 16:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. You could probably drop the "Mandate palestine" thing from the lead then. I mean, the idea is for stated aims, not stated possible implementations: thats what the body is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.188.10 (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. But there is one editor who insisted on adding what the "liberation of Palestine" might mean. I will try to expand the discussion on that in the body and then tackle moving out any unnecessary detail in the intro. Give me just a bit of time to put it together. Its quite a challenging subject to write up in an NPOV fashion.  T i a m u t talk 05:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Request
Re: your request for an explanation. In the edit summary I wrote: "agree with CJCurrie - and he's right, its just the beginning of the problem. Using such a broad-based survey on the basis of religion to conclude things about Palestinian political attitudes in general is OR)" CJCurrie's text changes which you reverted here just a couple of hours ago addressed some of those problems by presenting the study factually for what it was: A study of Muslim attitudes towards violence to defend Islam. This is an improvement, but my comment about OR (or more specifically SYNTH) is directed at the inclusion of the material to begin with.

The survey question in the study is: ''Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?''

How does this relate to an article on Palestinian political violence? 1) Not all Palestinians are Muslim 2) Palestinian political violence is not about "Defending Islam"; its directed towards the achievement of Palestinian political goals. You need a specific study conducted among Palestinians regarding Palestinian political violence not "violence" "to defend Islam" in order to avoid SYNTH OR. In the meantime, it would be good if you removed the passage.  T i a m u t talk 22:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:SYNTH begins: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. Since my passage only used one source, it is difficult to see how you got the idea that I violated WP:SYNTH. Could you please clarify your accusation that I violated WP:SYNTH, and while doing so specify which statement(s) in the passage was a "conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"? If you do not do so, I will ask for an apology for your accusation, which I believe to be a false one. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That survey might have a place in Islamic Terrorism but this is Palestinian political violence. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Per the IP Jalapenos. And I'm sorry that you view my misapplication of SYNTH to be an "Accusation".  T i a m u t talk 04:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've stricken SYNTH above and replaced it with my original concern OR: "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."  T i a m u t talk 04:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So we're back to OR. To argue that anything I've written is OR, you would would have to show that it includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Can you please specify what statement(s) in what I've written constitutes one of those things? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What does a survey of muslims have to do with Palestinians? --65.127.188.10 (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Further, what does a survey of Muslims, even if Palestinian Muslims, about their attitudes towards acts of violence carried out to defend Islam have to do with an article about acts of violence carried out by Palestinians to further their political objectives, including the right to self-determination?
 * Jalapenos, I highlighted the relevant section of WP:OR above and the bolded words are from the original. But I don't see why you are finding the objection so hard to understand. Its clear that this survey is not about this subject.  T i a m u t talk 10:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The section in question
A 2009 survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project asked the following question of an undisclosed number of Muslim respondents in several countries: ''Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?'' Sixty-eight percent of Palestinian Muslim respondents said such acts are often or sometimes justified. This was the highest percentage of any population, the second highest being Nigeria with 43 percent. In a similar Pew poll in 2007, 70 percent of Palestinian Muslim respondents supported such acts, Nigeria coming in second with 42 percent.

I've removed it from the article. I've pasted it here for further discussion, but I suggest instead exploring whether it would be appropriate for the article on Suicide bombings or Islamic terrorism. In my opinion, it does not belong here as it is not about attitudes towards Palestinian political violence (aka. "Palestinian terrorism" or "Palestinian resistance").  T i a m u t talk 10:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Tiamut. What does a survey of Muslims about the defense of Islam have to do with Palestinians and the defense of Palestine? --65.127.188.10 (talk) 10:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiamut's deletion of this paragraph is weasly in the extreme. Interesting, how groups whose goal is the "liberation" of Palestine call themselves Islamic Jihad, but Tiamut says there is no connection between Islam and Palestine. Right. Like there is no connection between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Sure. We got you pegged, honey. This reliably sourced material belongs in the article. Please don't remove it just because you don't like the conclusions. --Gilabrand (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually have no problem with the conclusions at all. Please don't pretend to know what my intentions are.
 * Can you explain to me how this global survey, which includes questions on all kinds of things in different countries, is relevant to this article? How does the one survey question which Jalapenos has extracted from this primary source about Muslims' attitudes to violent acts carried out in the defense of Islam, relevant to an article on Palestinian political violence? Its completely OR. The survey itself does not make this link.
 * Gilabran, let me try a metaphor you would perhaps understand. There is an article about Zionist political violence, correct? If I included information in that article about Jewish attitudes towards violent acts carried out in the defense of Judaism, would it be appropriate? No. And its not appropriate here either.  T i a m u t talk 11:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Gilabrand, the connection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is not directly related to this article and can only cause confusion if brought up at this point. Tiamut, you still haven't answered my simple question, which was "what in this passage is OR?". From your repeated failure to answer the question, from your statement that the material could be useful for other articles, and from various other things you've said, I suspect that you're now abandoning your position that there is any OR in the passage (after having abandoned your position that there was WP:SYNTH), and instead charging that the passage is not relevant to the article. This seems to be based on the contention that violence against civilians to defend Islam can be excluded from political violence. First, political violence is violence in the political sphere, as opposed to, say, domestic violence, and this clearly includes violence against civilians to defend Islam. Second, I find quite strange this sudden appeal to a strict interpretation of "political" as to automatically exclude anything religious, considering that this article has always dealt with all types of Palestinian violence called "terrorism" by critics, and was retitled Palestinian political violence in order to avoid using the word terrorism. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

comment to reiterate the post by another editor at the top of this talk page: "For politically motivated violence, there is Zionist political violence and Palestinian political violence. For religious terrorism, there is Jewish Terrorism and Islamic Terrorism." The survey in question discusses violence in "defense of Islam," ie religious, and doesn't belong in an article about "political violence." untwirl (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't know I could be to eloquent :) --65.127.188.10 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Untwirl (and our dear IP), thanks for putting it in common sense terms.
 * Jalapenos, I answered your question above: The inclusion of the material, which is not directly relevant to the subject at hand, is where the WP:OR comes in. By including it, you are making a connection between the Palestinian struggle for national liberation and the "defense of Islam", whatever that means. The source doesn't make that connection. You do by placing the material here. That's why its OR. And that's why I used SYNTH to begin with, because though its not two sources, the synthesis is by virtue of placing the information here. Capisce?  T i a m u t talk 15:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you are right Tiamut. A perfectly sensible analysis. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian. Always a pleasure to see you around.  T i a m u t talk 20:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So I was right in my assumption above that, after having successively made and abandoned charges of SYNTH and OR, you're now contending that the passage is simply irrelevant to the article. You seem to be basing the contention on the assertion that his article is about "the Palestinian struggle for national liberation". This article is not about "the Palestinian struggle for national liberation". It is about Palestinian political violence (/Palestinian "terrorism" per its former name), some of which is framed by the agents of the violence as a struggle for national liberation (a framing often disputed by others), and some of which is not framed as such. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jalapenos, this source does not make the link you are seeking to make. Its about Muslim attitudes towards the use of violence to defend Islam. This is an article about Palestinian political violence. Any reliable sources you have discussing violent acts carried out by Palestinians to achieve political goals are relevant for inclusion here. Other things are not.  T i a m u t talk 20:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you're misrepresenting my words. I am not seeking to make any links. I am seeking to include data relating to Muslim Palestinian attitudes toward a major type of political violence in a section devoted to Palestinian attitudes toward political violence. Surely you aren't arguing that Muslim Palestinians are too small a sector among Palestinians to be notable in this section? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The survey specifically asks "the defense of Islam". This article is about Palestine. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is about violence in the political sphere committed by Palestinians. Some (but not all) such violence is defined by its perpetrators or understood by its intended beneficiaries as defending Islam. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And who says that? Or more specifically, does the poll you are citing say that? T i a m u t talk 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For the source to pass NP:NOR it would have to specifically make that connection. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you two mean by "that" and "that connection"? And anon, a source can neither pass nor fail WP:OR. A source is just a source. Statements put into an article can fail WP:OR if they are not cited to a published source or say things that are not in the cited source. As far as I can tell from the somewhat confused opposition to the passage I put in, nobody is (now) arguing that the passage includes any such statements. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What you describe as "confused opposition" is a function of the multiple concerns. WP:OR says clearly, under the heading "Using sources": "Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic." The same policy also cautions against the use of "primary sources" like "census results".
 * Here, we have census results from a poll of Muslims worldwide that covers a number of questions, one of which is attitudes towards the use of violence to defend Islam. In other words, you want to use material mentioned in passing, in a primary source, that is not clearly related to this subject matter, to draw a conclusion that is not evident in the reference being cited. Its clear WP:OR.  T i a m u t talk 00:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is regarding Muslims and the defense of Islam. The survey, on it's own, is irrelevant because it did not interview "Palestinians about Palestine". Any attempt to use other sources to tie "Muslims and Islam" to "Palestinians and Palestine" is WP:OR. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tiamut, this is the fourth time I'm asking this. What conclusion is drawn in the passage "that is not evident in the reference being cited"? The use of primary sources is not problematic in and of itself, but must be done with care so as to avoid precisely the kind of mistake you are referring to. If you think that mistake was made, point it out and I will remove it, but don't delete an entire passage. The data I used in the passage were not mentioned "in passing", they were part of the data presented in the source. Anon, the source indeed includes many data that are not relevant to this article, and which I did not use. I used the data that are relevant, namely the responses in a sample of Muslim Palestinians to questions regarding attitudes toward violence targeting civilians. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The conclusion being drawn that is not evident in the reference is what a survey of "Muslims about the defense of Islam" has to do with Palestine. The conclusion is inferred because of it's inclusion in an article with a clearly stated narrow scope. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "What a survey of 'Muslims in defense of Islam' has to do with Palestine" is a question, not a conclusion. Perhaps you can explain yourself better. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can try understanding what many people are telling you, rather than nitpicking about semantics. Muslim attitudes to violence carried out in the defense of Islam are not related to Palestinian political violence; at least, the source you have provided makes no such explicit link. Your inclusion of this material here rests on the unstated premise that Palestinian political violence is synonymous with the defense of Islam. You have provided no source to support this premise. Frankyl, even if you did, and then combined it with this source to argue for its inclusion, that would be WP:SYNTH.
 * As it is, the inclusion of this material here is WP:OR, given that this information is not related to the subject of this article, but rather to Islamic terrorism in general. If you want to argue that Palestinian political violence is a subset of Islamic terrorism, you can. But your source does not. Therefore, its inclusion here is not appropriate.  T i a m u t talk 18:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am trying very hard to understand what you and anon are telling me. If I weren't, I wouldn't be having this discussion; it's not like this is fun. My inclusion of the material does not rest "on the unstated premise that Palestinian political violence is synonymous with the defense of Islam, and I do not "want to argue that Palestininian political violence is a subset of Islamic terrorism". That premise and that argument contradict each other, and I happen to disagree with both of them. In fact, my inclusion of the material rests on no special premises at all, and I do not want to argue anything. I merely want to include carefully sourced, relevant data into a Wikipedia article. So far you have removed the data multiple times without providing a coherent reason why, while misapplying Wikipedia policies and floating various false speculations about premises and motives in the process. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jalapenos, I've removed the material exactly once. I have not misapplied any Wikipedia policies. I have quoted to you directly from WP:OR and explained its application to this material in detail above. Other editors (CJCurrie, anon IP, Ian Pitchford, untwirl) have expressed their opinion that the material is not relevant here. I do not understand why are having difficulty understanding this. But you are welcome to open an RfC if you strongly feel that we are all wrong and that WP:OR is being misapplied.  T i a m u t talk 22:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'm sorry that you view my misapplication of SYNTH to be an "Accusation"-- Tiamut. But I suppose that's nitpicking. Focusing on the main issue, am I to understand that you have given up attempting to coherently explain your reason for deleting sourced information from Wikipedia, and are now substituting an explanation with the fact that two known partisans and an IP have shown up out of the blue and bobbed their heads on a matter that has ramifications for partisans (while conveniently ignoring that Gilabrand has argued that the material should stay-- and actually explained herself, and at the same time misrepresenting CJCurrie)? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (Deep sigh) None of what you just said has anything to do with the content or this article's improvement. This discussion is going nowhere. I re-recommend opening an RfC if you still want to include this material.  T i a m u t talk 23:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your repeated refusal to answer a simple question regarding your removal of sourced material, capped with a nonsensical mischaracterization of my remarks, seems to be a good sign that you have nothing to say for yourself and have simply been stalling, hoping for me to withdraw my attention from your action. I will restore the material, and you can open an RfC if you wish to remove it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm throughly amazed by your response. But I would be absolutely happy to do what you should do when faced with the disagreement of so many editors over the inclusion of material. I'm not about to be dragged into an edit war over your refusal to hear what others are saying to you. I don't know that additional voices will help, unless they say exactly what you want to hear I suppose. Well, we'll see what happens.  T i a m u t talk 00:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

surveys - including the number of respondents
When including surveys, please include the number of people who responded. If the publisher of the survey did not disclose the number, then that should be clearly stated. Thanks. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC on relevance of poll results
A poll of Muslims worldwide, which included Palestinian Muslims, contained a question on how they feel about the use of violence to defend Islam. Should the question and its results be included in this article in the section on Palestinian attitudes towards political violence?  T i a m u t talk 00:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Palestinian political violence for the text being proposed for addition, and some of the previous discussion, which comes just above and below.  T i a m u t talk 00:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (I expressed this view in the discussion above.) The data on attitudes of Palestinian Muslims toward violence against civilians in the defense of Islam should be included. Palestinian Muslims are obviously a notable subsection of Palestinian society (inasmuch as they are the great majority), and "violence against civilians in the defense of Islam" is political - as opposed to, say, domestic - violence. The data in the poll (polls, actually) concerning attitudes of other Muslim populations should by no means be included, except to the extent that they provide a comparative context for the data on Palestinian Muslims. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is designed as a place for uninvolved editors to comment and there is a link to the discussion above. But since you've opened the RfC with your position, it should be noted that the material being proposed for inclusion is not about violence carried out by "Palestinians" or for the "Palestinian" cause. So even if one accepts the argument that the "defense of Islam" is a form of political violence - a definition many reject, defining it instead as a form of religious violence - the poll does not discuss Palestinian acts at all, but rather Islamic terrorism in general. A topic distinct from Palestinian political violence. Its inclusion is therefore WP:OR because the source itself does not make a link between "the defense of Islam" and "Palestinian political violence." We do, by virtue of including the material.  T i a m u t talk 21:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * no regarding the pew poll in question. The connection "violence against civilians in the defense of Islam" is political is not made in the cited pew report. That poll, which asked specific questions about Islam, not Palestine, belongs in Islamic Religious Terrorism where it is exceptionally relevant and would fit right in unchallenged. Other polls are outside the scope of this RFC. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * no The poll question is vague, what "defending Islam" means? By this standard Americans who support Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings to defend America support terrorism. Dy yol (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No The poll doesn't mention Palestine. It would be like saying, "A recent poll showed most people on Earth are well-fed, which included starving African countries."  It's an extreme example, but it would be just as applicable as your suggested addition. Angryapathy (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I accept that I am the only one advocating the poll's inclusion (other than Gilabrand, who has not been very active in the discussion), so I will accept its removal. But for the record, I would like to note that the only two univolved editors who commented apparently did not understand the text that was under dispute. Dy seemed to think the text implied support of terrorism, which it didn't, and Angryapathy seemed to think that the poll doesn't mention Palestinians specifically, which it does. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is interpreted as support of terrorism. Dy yol (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How? The text as it was said nothing of terrorism. It just gave the results of the polls. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to say the word terrorism. They've asked about what they think is the definition of terrorism. Note: I've changed my username. Sole Soul (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Involvement of children
Tiamut, I realize that this is a sensitive section requiring extra caution, but I don't think that adding "according to X...", when X is obviously an RS, is the way to go. It's not customary, and the whole point of an RS is that the facts have been reliably verified and are not simply the perspective of the source's author. If you suspect that the facts presented by Professor Rosen are only a partial picture of the situation in the 1930s, I suggest you find other reliable sources that may focus on other aspects. On a related note, while this article (like all of Wikipedia) is a work in progress, I think the situation of this section is appalling. Until I added material from Rosen, most of the section dealt with a single incident, and half of that was a description of a spat between Israel and the BBC that resulted from the incident - quite peripheral if you ask me. As I started editing the article only recently, I am hesitant to remove any material, but I think the incident should be cut to 1-2 sentences and the subsequent spat removed altogether. Obviously, more general content dshould be added, and I may do so if I have the time. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that section needs a lot of improvement.
 * About attributing the text to David M. Rosen ... this is standard practice in cases where the information being put forward amounts to an extraordinary claim. I believe how Rosen says what he says does amount to one. If you have other sources saying the same thing, I'd be happy to reconsider my position.  T i a m u t talk 00:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:REDFLAG deals with exceptional claims, and states that exceptional claims must have high-quality sources, which this one is. I don't see anything about requiring two sources or stating the source in the body of the text. But more importantly, how are Rosen's claims exceptional? They certainly don't fit the examples brought in WP:REDFLAG. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the Arafat material is definitely inappropriate. Who needs to know about the games of a 10 year old child in Cairo? The rest of the material is either inaccurate or lacks context. There were, of course, many fascist inspired youth movements at the time in Europe and North America, including the Jewish youth movement, Betar, which had a training facility in fascist Italy. Ian Pitchford (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Yasir Arafat is the most well-known and arguably the most influential Palestinian figure in history, so the fact that he was involved in child political violence, both as a participant and organizer, is relevant to this article in general and to the section on involvement of children in particular. As you can see, his involvement went far beyond "games". 2. Please be careful when making unspecified charges of inaccuracy. The material in question is a direct summary of a chapter devoted to the subject in a high-quality RS. 3. The possible relation between the Jewish youth movement Betar and fascism is fascinating, and should be presented elsewhere, but is quite unrelated to this article. I find the fact that you reflexively brought it up in this discussion disturbing, especially considering that you did so right after you argued that violence in which Yasir Arafat was involved is irrelevant to the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, please respond to my comment above (which you have had a month to read) before reverting again. Thank you. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:REDFLAG uses the plural form "sources" and not "a source". You need more than one source making this claim if you do not want it to be attributed. Why? Because it is exceptional claim. IanPitchford above says he doesn't think it should be included at all. I'm open to including it only if it is attributed to its author. Please self-revert this edit as a gesture of goodwill. Or shall we open an RfC on this too?  T i a m u t talk 16:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:REDFLAG does not say that an exceptional claim must have multiple sources. (It's very hard to see how you got from its use of the word "sources" - in a different context - to this mistaken understanding of the policy.) And again, you haven't explained, despite my asking you to do so, why Rosen's statements amount to an exceptional claim. They certainly don't fit the examples brought in WP:REDFLAG. Despite the fact that until now you haven't said anything that holds water, I am willing to settle on "According to name of book, written by institution-position-author and published by publisher,..." This is not so much a gesture of good will as a result of a disinclination to have to continue this fruitless and repetitive discussion. BTW, Ian was only referring to the Arafat sentences, and he too ignored my arguments against his position. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just lack of time. The Arafat material is inaccurate. I could bring sources but probably won't find the time at present. In any case is any ten year old child really involved involved in political violence? The Betar material does have a bearing as it shows that there was nothing special or unusual about such youth movements at the time. It's not appropriate to ignore the context and it's hard to escape the conclusion that the context is ignored specifically to create the impression that there was something particularly pathological about Palestinian political activities. In fact they were fairly moderate in the face of almost unbelievable provocation, especially from the British. Ian Pitchford (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been two weeks. The Arafat paragraph is taken from a high-quality reliable source; If you find reliable sources that contradict it, please add them alongside. According to the RS, Arafat was involved in political violence as a child, regardless of our preconceived notions of what children are or aren't involved in (and you may find that reading the entire source, each chapter of which deals with child political violence a different part of the world, dispels some of those notions). The Betar material, if it exists, would not in itself show "that there was nothing special or unusual about" violent fascist youth movements in the 1930s, merely that one existed among Palestinian Jews as well; so the speculative conclusion you reach based on that idea is baseless. If you find material providing a broader context - actual context, such as "the youth movements sprouted as a result of British provocation"; not "some other people had similar youth movements" - please add that as well. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Students of the period will have noted that the Jews in Palestine were being trained in Fascism by Mussolini, wearing brown shirts and giving stiff-armed salutes at this time. In such conditions it would be strange if there wasn't some militarisation of Palestinian society. It was still far less prominent and far less effective than it was amongst the Zionists.

<- Not wishing to get involved in this specific discussion I'd just like to mention that I remember reading an academic study by an anthropologist which looked at this issue of violence and Palestinian youth in what I remember was a dispassionate, rigorous way e.g. rites of passage via arrest etc. Unfortunately I don't have a link but the academic anthropological approach might provide another perspective on this issue worth looking at. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)...Another general comment I would make about the involvement of women and children in Palestinian political violence that I would expect this article to cover is their role as victims of violence i.e. the death and injury of women and children is often used to justify political violence by belligerents in conflicts and I don't think this conflict is any different in that respect. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Israel's Existence
The article states that Israel exists, without presenting the opposing view.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there an opposing view that Israel doesn't exist ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that Israel not existing probably comes under WP:FRINGE, in a rather extreme way. Love it or hate it, it is most definitely there. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 10:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So we don't need to add it to the List of fictional countries then. That saves some time. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)