Jump to content

Talk:Palestinian suicide attacks

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

Undiscussed move

[edit]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: This page was reverted after a request at WP:RMUM as undiscussed and mover has moved it back again. Ordinarily I would just move it back but since I would not like to be accused of tag teaming or something, I would merely point to Ngram and ask you to do it instead.Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC) Ops, meant to write WP:RM/TR there, silly me. Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was created at this title, moved to Palestinian suicide bombing, then reverted back to this title? As Ngrams aren't the deciding factor in article titles, and it does show the use of Palestinian suicide terrorism, this should probably just go through RM and have a consensus title. Palestinian suicide attacks might also be a better target as there are suicide attacks that are not bombings. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: The discussion on whether to color this topic with the POV language of "terrorism", to which the answer is pretty clearly not, per MOS:TERRORISM, has been had reiteratively and redundantly many times. The edit summary character limit unfortunately cut it off, but the technical request referred to the latest standing RM on the matter of whether this language is appropriate in this topic area at the clear parent topic for the particular subject here. This community consensus was reconfirmed, in effect, in this follow-up category renaming discussion. Sure we can allow POV terms to be reintroduced every time someone creates a racey new article, but it would be much more sensible if we let previous RFCs and community consensus speak to something. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why some might hesitate to label entire organizations—especially those involved in governance, religion, and social issues—as purely terrorist. However, it is unreasonable to ignore that suicide bombings deliberately targeting civilians for political purposes fit every definition of terrorism. Removing the term 'terrorism' in this context would be nothing short of censorship, an attempt to obscure the true nature of these actions, which, in my opinion, contradicts the very aims of this project. UnspokenPassion (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike[reply]
Except not all of the suicide bombings here target civilians, as the usage notes, and suicide bombings against military targets in the context are absolutely not terrorism, so by virtue of this, the title is immediately not only POV, but a clear misnomer. More generally, if you have to write a convoluted sentence like "suicide terrorism refers to the use of suicide bombings" then your actual topic is suicide bombing, which is a real subject, as opposite to suicide terrorism, which is just a POV framing and redirect to suicide attack. There are good reasons for that, not least MOS:TERRORISM, i.e. Nelson Mandela was previously considered a terrorist, yada yada, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any connection between the disputed labeling of figures and the current topic. Suicide bombings, such as the Passover massacre and the Dolphinarium discotheque massacre, that target civilians to achieve political goals, are universally recognized as the epitome of terrorism—except perhaps by the perpetrators themselves. Are you suggesting that these events might one day not be considered terrorism? If this point isn't clear, I am afraid, continuing this discussion may be futile. Terrorism is a fact in our world; not every mention of it is a matter of POV framing. UnspokenPassion (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike[reply]
Phrases like "epitome of terrorism" and "terrorism is a fact" are not encyclopedic. The concept of "terrorism" is highly contingent on framing. Individual examples are not important. The issue here is the POV framing of an entire topic, despite it encompassing non-applicable examples. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't waste time arguing over this, RM opened. Selfstudier (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whole thing reminds me of the persistent efforts to change Palestinian political violence to Palestinian terrorism. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POV title

[edit]

POV article/title by 500+ newish editor (who apropos of nothing at all, also opposed move to UNRWA and Israel here and at MR for Gaza genocide here commented "*Overturn (uninvolved). The new title clearly violates WP:NPOV...!!" Horses for courses, I guess. Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks very professional and impressive. The issue of the "newish editor" keeps being raised, but there are rules, and as it stands, it seems that they have not violated them. You haven't raised a substantive argument related to the content. Eladkarmel (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hi, just dropped in to say hello? otherwise, no surprise there. Selfstudier (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. What do you mean by that? Eladkarmel (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "there are rules, and as it stands, it seems that they have not violated them". They have very likely violated the WP:SOCK rule. Does this matter in the topic area? Apparently not. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you name the editor, or are you expectig us to guess his/her identity? Dimadick (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UnspokenPassion, checkuser-blocked as a sock on 2024-09-02. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there's a good redirect target. Palestinian Political Violence.Dan Murphy (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 August 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Palestinian suicide attacks (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans 08:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian suicide terrorism → Palestinian suicide bombings – WP:POVTITLE, all the lead content and pic refer to "bombings" which suggests this material has just been copied from somewhere else and then the title plonked on top, MOS:TERRORISM refers for a value laden label and remove any attacks that are not bombings. Also note What links here, Palestinian suicide bombings, List of Palestinian suicide attacks redirected by article creator to this article. Selfstudier (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This page was unfortunately created with a title that is POV and both lacking in precision and consistency with adjacent topics and itself. As noted by the nom, suicide bombings and suicide attacks are the normal terms for this and adjacent topics, while all of the language on the page refers to bombings. The current title creates the rather hamfisted situation of the first sentence having to clarify that the subject is actually suicide bombing, since the title doesn't elucidate this. The natural, recognisable, precise and usefully descriptive language for the topic is "suicide bombings", as stated in the first sentence. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per NPOV and MOS:TERRORISM as an improvement, but really, shouldn't we be talking merge? Suicide attack and Palestinian political violence are notable topics; are Suicide bombing, Palestinian suicide attack, or Palestinian suicide bombing, notable sub-topics? Does it matter if a suicide attack is a bombing or something else? Does it matter if it's Palestinian or someone else? Is there a size problem or other reason to spin off bombings from other attacks, Palestinians from other attackers, or both sub-categories, Palestinian and bombings? I don't think there are enough RS specifically about Palestinian suicide bombings, or suicide bombings in general, to justify a stand-alone. So I'm at "should this article exist?" Levivich (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A person who was not advancing a political agenda would ask themselves this question before creating this article: "Is there something distinctive about suicide bombings carried out by Palestinians?" There is a clear answer to that question, and it points to what should be done with this article. Of course that won't happen. So it goes, so it goes.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main article is suicide attack and it covers other types of attacks as well. I suggest a rename to Palestinian suicide attacks. Dimadick (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also support this alternative title. It's a bit of a toss-up depending on how the article is subsequently developed – kept specific to bombing or broadened to attacks in general, although I don't know how a non-bomb attack can be a suicide attack unless it's a kamikaze run in a plane. Isn't the key the guarantee of death? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The term terrorism is entirely appropriate, neutral, and encyclopedic when referring to suicide bombings that primarily target civilians, as in this case. I don't see any NPOV issue here. Galamore (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding suicide bombings that primarily target civilians, I searched and found zero Wikipedia articles entitled "suicide terrorism", and in contrast, there is (1) 2014 Yahyakhel suicide bombing, (2) 22 April 2018 Kabul suicide bombing, (3) 2015 Khost suicide bombing, (4) Sehwan suicide bombing, (5) Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing, (6) Maxim restaurant suicide bombing, (7) 2008 Dimona suicide bombing, (8) Iskandariya suicide bombing, (9) Haifa bus 37 suicide bombing, (10) 2015 Jalalabad suicide bombing, (11) February 2009 Dera Ismail Khan suicide bombing, (12) July 2017 Lahore suicide bombing, (13) Mike's Place suicide bombing, (14) Karnei Shomron Mall suicide bombing, (15) December 2005 HaSharon Mall suicide bombing, (16) 28 December 2017 Kabul suicide bombing, (17) Kabul ambulance bombing, (18) 10 August 2015 Kabul suicide bombing, and more examples can be found at the link if you want more. There is even (19) 2014 Wagah border suicide attack, (20) Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus 405 suicide attack. starship.paint (RUN) 14:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle suprise ... It's almost as if most of our article titles consistently prefer accurate, neutral and meaningfully descriptive language that identifies the topic, instead of POV framing. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some here mention MOS:TERRORIST, but if you read it closely, it does not prohibit usage of terrorism if it's "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Looking at this article I can see that this is exactly the case here and the reliable sources presented reflect that. Eladkarmel (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ngram Bombings is more widely used in RS. Selfstudier (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There can be types of attacks that aren't bombings though. Are shootings and stabbings perpetrated for the same cause completely different? No. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attacks is OK, or else remove those that are not bombings, I don't mind either way. Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many of the support votes seem, frankly, to call for whitewashing. Suicide bombings against civilian populations are indeed a form of terrorism, as supported by authoritative scholarly sources. There are hundreds of mentions of "Palestinian suicide terrorism" on Google Scholar (548, to be precise) and 8,280 more that feature "suicide terrorism" alongside Palestine/Palestinians, making the current name both common and appropriate for the topic. ABHammad (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Death/Suicide task force, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Terrorism, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Israel, and WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 08:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I vote rename to "suicide attacks". PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the suggested move for the following reasons. First, according to MOS:TERRORISM, the term 'terrorism' can be used when it is common in literature. The article's first citation, along with the Google Scholar results mentioned above, confirms that this usage in this context is not only supported, but prevalent by reputable academic sources. Second, suicide bombings targeting civilians are widely recognized as acts of terrorism (e.g., the 9/11 attacks, which are described as terrorism). Therefore, there does not appear to be a point-of-view issue here. PeleYoetz (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (creator). I chose the title 'Palestinian suicide terrorism' after reviewing numerous articles and considering several options. I selected this title because, alongside its prominence in academic literature, it best reflects the nature and intent of these acts. In the context of 1990s Israel-Palestine and the Second Intifada (2000–2005), suicide bombings were not merely isolated violent incidents but strategic acts of terror aimed at instilling fear—specifically among the Israeli civilian population—and achieving political objectives, such as undermining the Oslo Accords, damaging the PLO's stature, and later, weakening Israel's economy, creating a balance of fear, and promoting emigration.
While the term 'Palestinian suicide bombings' is also prevalent in sources, it describes only the action itself, which is just one part of what this article covers. The article delves into broader aspects of terrorism in this context, including the religious and nationalistic justifications among Palestinian groups (initially Islamist, later also secular), the recruitment process, influences, planning, and the glorification of perpetrators—topics that extend beyond the bombings alone. I urge serious editors to engage with the matter intellectually, prioritizing the sources over personal opinions. UnspokenPassion (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike[reply]
Naming the article "bombings" or "attacks" (more prevalent in reliable sources as I have proven above in my reply to ABHammad) does not prevent us from discussing either the nature and intent of these acts or the religious and nationalistic justifications among Palestinian groups (initially Islamist, later also secular), the recruitment process, influences, planning, and the glorification of perpetrators. It seems that all of these are a red herring with regard to the article title. starship.paint (RUN) 14:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - it would be a POVTITLE if there's a controversy about whether the characterization as terrorism is accurate. Is that the case? I'm not aware of any dissenting view. (In any case though, I hesitate to oppose because I think Palestinian suicide bombings is also a suitable name. An argument that one name is accurate isn't an argument for preferring it over another accurate name. I'd only oppose "attacks" as it's vague, conveying the least information.) — xDanielx T/C\R 14:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using the example brought up by PeleYoetz, is there a serious controversy on whether it is accurate to characterise the September 11 attacks as terrorism? I think not in reliable sources. Why isn’t it September 11 terrorism then? Or September 11 suicide terrorism? starship.paint (RUN) 16:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I'd lean toward renaming to Palestinian suicide bombings, as long as it doesn't create a prejudice against using "terrorism" in the body of the article (as September 11 attacks does). — xDanielx T/C\R 17:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint, @XDanielx, I think we might be mixing up an event—which should be described as an 'attack' or 'bombing'—with a broader phenomenon, where the term 'terrorism' is entirely appropriate (for instance, see examples like Islamic terrorism, Jewish extremist terrorism, etc.). UnspokenPassion (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike[reply]
Oh, is this what it is then? An attempt to create Palestinian terrorism, which is a subset of the article Palestinian political violence? Frankly, is it really worthwhile to distinguish Palestinian suicide terrorism from Palestinian non-suicide terrorism? I think not. Content on Palestinian terrorism simply can go under Palestinian political violence. starship.paint (RUN) 13:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XDanielx, whether Palestinian attacks are justified in a jus ad bellum sense is controversial: Israel says all Palestinian attacks are terrorism, while some scholars argue for Palestinian right of armed resistance. (Of course, everyone agrees that attacks against civilians are always wrong, regardless of which side perpetrates it). VR (Please ping on reply) 21:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but this article seems to be largely about attacks on civilian targets, which I think everyone agrees is terrorism. As that article says Scholars who support a Palestinian right to resist Israeli occupation, nevertheless agree that this does not in any way justify killing or wounding civilians. If there are a few bits of content about attacks on military targets, those bits could be removed as an alternative to renaming. (I'm also 100% fine with renaming though, I just think it comes down to other considerations.) — xDanielx T/C\R 03:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XDanielx:, from what I understand the designation of terrorism does not change based on whether military citizens are killed or not. Can you cite the legal definition of terrorism in either Israel or the US? You will find it has little do with whether the target is civilian or military. Israel, for example, regards Palestinian attacks on its soldiers as terrorism.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Suicide terrorism is such a weird phrasing. Did they sit down in a town square and kill themselves in a ritual suicide to subject onlookers to terror? The only justification is getting the buzzword of "terrorism" into the title, which is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORISM.
Suicide bombings is concise, accurate, and a WP:COMMONNAME phrasing. Suicide attack can refer to attacks that don't involve bombs which is why I think suicide bombings is the best title. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you, but hey, you totally cracked me up! UnspokenPassion (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike[reply]
Comment When it comes to articles where Israel is the perpetrator all these RFC/RM aim to paint Israel in the worst possible light - Gaza Genocide, Gaza Strip Famine, change Palestinian genocide accusation to Palestinian genocide and then for the inverse, they try to tone it down as much as possible ie try change Israel-Hamas war to Israel Gaza War, change this from Palestinian suicide terrorism to Palestinian suicide bombings, remove every mention of terrorism against Israel that's possible to remove. I can't be the only person who sees this. It's a flagrant disregard of WP:NPOV. The intent of MOS:TERRORIST has been manipulated to the nth degree in order to accommodate this. The way it's being used vis a vis Israel is to prevent anything being labeled as an act of terrorism. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the point of MOS:TERRORISM. And it cuts both ways. Despite Israel being an almost perpetual perpetrator of state terrorism, for example, with many of its actions collectively amounting to terrorism, we don't label subsections of its actions as "terrorism". Iskandar323 (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't operate on a tit-for-tat policy. Every article needs to adhere to the principles of Wikipedia. There are a number of comments here detailing why the current title is violating WP:NPOV and MOS:TERRORIST.
Can you list why you think the spirit of WP:NPOV and MOS:TERRORIST is being violated? This is the page to have such discussions. No one is immune to bias and only by engaging in dialogue and thinking critically can we be sure to be unbiased. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CoolAndUniqueUsername I wasn't saying it's tit for tat, I was saying there's a wholesale rewriting of Wikipedia where just about every article here where Israel/Israelis is the victim is downplayed and every article where Israel/Israelis are the perpetrators is amped up.
Want some examples where its downplayed?
Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing - no mention of terrorism
Passover massacre - no mention of terrorism even though it's tagged to be part of Wiki Project Terrorism
Go to Manchester Arena bombing and it says Islamic terrorist suicide bombing in the first sentence.
There's a detailed article here about Islamic terrorism in Europe with many examples but all the acts of terrorism against Israel aren't defined here as such so if you want to look up about terrorism in Israel there's next to nothing compared to what it should be....
It's impossible to answer your question about the spirit being violated without being punished for making aspersions, etc
And what's happening here is a microcosm of what's happening elsewhere. I'm not rah-rah Israel - Israel can't do no wrong, Israel is blameless, Israel didn't commit any atrocities, etc
But that's not what's going on here. Since October 7, the independence and neutrality of Wikipedia has been eroded away. RFCS and RMS have been pushed though, Wikipedia rules for these articles are applied differently here than they are elsewhere.
Sure, all this isn't good for Israel's rep, but the real loser is Wikipedia.
If it loses credibility and is regarded as partisan as opposed to encyclopedic, that's a problem. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinian nationalist political violence isn't the same thing as jihadist terrorism, so naturally the two don't use the same language, in sources or reflected here. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there's no instance at all when Palestinian nationalist political violence is an act of terrorism? MaskedSinger (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some Palestinian nationalist political violence is terrorism, and some Palestinian political violence is not terrorism. This is not a “A = B” situation. starship.paint (RUN) 14:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this but this isn't what's happening at Wikipedia.
What's happening at Wikipedia is that no acts of terrorism against Israel are defined as such. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iskandar succinctly communicated in a sentence what would have taken me paragraphs to get across.
Specific to the question of this article's title, you'll note that none of the examples you provided have terrorism in the title. That's exactly the point of MOS:TERRORIST and why some editors here are saying that the current title is in violation. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would terrorism be in the title of the article when the word terrorism has been stripped from them? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Manchester Arena Bombing wasn't done by Palestinians. It doesn't have the word terrorist in the title. Same for September 11 attacks, it doesn't have the word terrorist in the title.
Why should MOS:TERRORIST not apply to an article on Palestinian suicide bombings but should be applied everywhere else? CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MaskedSinger, In addition to the previous response, it's worth noting that the "Cave of the Patriarchs massacre" also does not include the term "terrorist" in its title, despite that many would consider it an act of terrorism. StarkReport (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StarkReport Absolutely. 100% it was an act of terrorism. I consider it as such. No argument from me. But this is my point - Wikipedia should be balanced and neutral and independent. It shouldn't take sides - it should reflect both sides in a factual way. This isn't whats happening here. I will call out Israel when it does something wrong, but the wrong that Israel does has been completely blown out of proportion and exaggerated here, while at the same time downplaying what Hamas did. And there's many reasons for this such as more anti Israel editors than pro and more anti israel sources than pro. But this doesn't make it right. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
more anti israel sources than pro and Wikipedia follows the sources, so... Levivich (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if someone was interested about a neutral balanced independent encyclopedia this would be a concern. QED. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect WP:NPOV is not what you think it is, MaskedSinger. NPOV means reporting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias, what reliable sources say. We are not balanced. We do not report that there is a 50% chance that life arose from evolution, 50% chance that it was creationism. We do not report that there is a 50% chance that the Holocaust was genocide, and 50% chance that it was not genocide. We follow, proportionately, what reliable sources say. If they are 99% with one viewpoint, that is what we will follow. starship.paint (RUN) 10:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what if the sources don't reflect reality? What if the deck is stacked as to what is and isn't a reliable source? You say NPOV means as far as possible without editorial bias, I content that editorial bias exists. The NPOV policy also says that the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. I contend that it's been flouted by editor consensus. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are just aspersions and it would be better if you didn't make them. Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CoolAndUniqueUsername We're talking about 2 different things here. I didn't vote support or oppose. I just commented and my comment was that there's a trend to downplay acts against Israel and amp up what Israel does. ie that everything Israel does is a massacre and next to no terrorist acts can be committed against it. That's all. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this article covers things that are defitionally not terrorism. It says so itself, it includes attacks on military targets. The title here is inaccurate and non-neutral, and none of the opposers has addressed that at all. nableezy - 18:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposal and support @Dimadick:'s alternative proposal of suicide attack, per the parent. Domeditrix (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming but I prefer the "Palestinian suicide attacks" option. The term "suicide attacks" is broader than "suicide bombings" so that's the logical choice. Current title fails WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORISM and it's not the WP:COMMONNAME, as other editors have already mentioned. Renaming it to "suicide bombings" would also be an improvement, but that's my second choice. - Ïvana (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming, but to the "attacks" alternative. The conceptual difficulty is that the current state of the article includes suicide attacks that are terrorism and suicide attacks that are not terrorism. The best way to address from an organizational standpoint is to rename the article with the broader title of "Palestinian suicide attacks". The alternative would be to split the pages, which is not wise from an organizational standpoint. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Well, simply put, 'suicide terrorism' in this particular article inaccurately frames the subject. As noted above, "suicide bombings" or "suicide attacks" are more precise and better reflect the content of the article, making them more relevant titles. StarkReport (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on arguments from StarkReport, starship.paint, and Selfstudier. Looking at articles of terrorist attacks done by Islamists as well as Zionists, it's clear that the title uses the word "bombing", "massacre" (for specific cases), or "attacks". This title is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:TERRORISM. So I support both "Suicide attacks" and "Suicide bombings." Lf8u2 (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support suicide attacks or suicide bombings as more common names. Vacosea (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sock

[edit]

@Levivich: @HJ Mitchell: Just noticed that this article had been created almost entirely by the now-banned sockpuppet UnspokenPassion. Would that raise concerns regarding the accuracy and neutrality of this article? It would be a lengthy task to check if each claim is properly cited so I am not sure what to do here. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss I'm not sure either. If the G5 is declined, maybe tske it to AE and let a consensus of uninvolved admins decide what to do with it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: Sorry, what's G5? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss: WP:G5 Levivich (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I assume G5 will probably be declined: "A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." I will take a quick closer look tomorrow, @Levivich: a second pair of eyes would be useful if you don't mind. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the problem -- this page was created after the ban or block was imposed (on the sock master, not the puppet). The issue here will probably be the "no substantial edits by others" requirement, and whether reviewing admin will see the edits made by others to this article as "substantial" or not. We'll see, as it's already been tagged G5 by CFA. Levivich (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G5 wouldn't be declined because of that, because Icewhiz has been banned for years and this page creation was done in violation of that ban (blocks/bans apply to people, not accounts). It might be declined because of "substanstial edits by others", but I looked through the history and likely the only possibly "substantial" edit by a non-sock is this, 2 sentences of text. The other substantial edits were by User:FourPi, who is also a (unrelated) block-evading sockpuppet. We'll see what an admin says. C F A 💬 23:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the article does have neutrality issues. I took a look at the references and it appears to draw substantially and primarily from Israeli/Western sources. I think the article would benefit from adding some Arab or Palestinian sources Rainsage (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the sources are good, but the article does not accurately reflect what its cited sources say. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example? Rainsage (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldnt it be best to just delete the entire article?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I translated this article into Hebrew. I don't know what the rules are regarding who created it, but I can testify that the sources are of high quality. And in general, this is one of the best quality articles I've seen.Eladkarmel (talk) 05:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The dilemma of blocking socks. The repeat offenders are often experienced, good, hard working, albeit often highly biased editors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be no evidence supporting this user's ban, and I plan to call for its reversal. ABHammad (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you will. Did you used to edit as Tundrabuggy/Stellarkid by the way? The information would help be out with some technical work. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

To me it's pretty clear the editor banned is NOT a sockpuppet. The blocking admin themselves wrote that "I'm reluctant to draw definitive conclusions here ... Input from more experienced CUs would not be unwelcome." ABHammad (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found the SPI case to be convincing so how is it "pretty clear" to you they are not a sockpuppet; do you know the (two) editor(s) in person by any chance? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SPI is clear and as this article has not many substantial edits by non-socks it should go. TarnishedPathtalk 11:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Clear' is the last thing we can say about this SPI, as even the closer himself acknowledged. Even if the block remains despite the very weak evidence for sockpuppetry, this article is extremely well written and includes contributions from other authors. It clearly should remain. ABHammad (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because It is written professionally, according to the rules and suitable for Wikipedia. I translated it into Hebrew - if there is such a thing, I would be happy to take ownership of it in English as well --Eladkarmel (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one owns content on Wikipedia, there is no such thing. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion tag

[edit]

@Gitz6666: If we do not consider the additions made after the deletion tag was rejected, according to data from the page's statistics, the sock would have contributed to exactly 96.5% of the article's characters. 3.5% is quite insignificant, so can you please elaborate? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I did not understand your question or request. What would you like me to elbatorate? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gitz6666: 3.5% are not significant contributions, so my question is why was the requested rejected? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a question for User:Explicit [2], not me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, @Explicit:. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Explicit: I redirect my question to you. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The contribution percentage depends a bit on what happens to the tokens after tokenization of a page, on how the wikiwho api is used by a particular tool. For the article's current revision, if tokens are at the word scale or thereabouts, the sock contributed 59.2%. If you do character counts of the tokens, excluding spaces, you get 61.7% Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about in early September when the tag was added? Also consider sock FourPi's contributions? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For rev_id 1243625864 2024-09-02T14:56:33 just before the tagging, for UnspokenPassion, it's 96.1% and 96.5% depending on the method. Sock FourPi's contributions were insignificant and reverted by the other sock. I think the page, any page created by a ban evading account employing deception, should always be nominated for deletion, but that is just my view. Policy does not appear to support that view. I think, regardless of the political valence of the sock, not deleting articles they create is the Wiki equivalent of allowing settlers to build an outpost on land that is not theirs, saying "well, what's done is done, it's there now with people, infrastructure and everything, let's authorize it and all move on together as a community" rather than dismantling the outpost because it is illegal. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, seems like the deletion tag at that point did indeed meet the required criteria of having no substantial contributions by other editors. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, based on the statistics
  • this revision by CFA appears to be consistent with policy.
  • this revision by Explicit based on stated reason 'Declined deletion - edits by other contributors are significant enough to not qualify for WP:CSD#G5' - may not be consistent with policy. I don't know how to quantify G5's 'no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions', but it seems reasonable to assume that 3.5% may not qualify as 'substantial'. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UnspokenPassion

[edit]

How can we remove all (or most) of the contributions made to this article by the since banned LTA UnspokenPassion who created the page? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to do that? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very different question. Nobody has to do anything here, but they can per WP:BANREVERT. What is the best way to handle content generated by dishonest people employing deception to subvert Wikipedia policy seems like a difficult issue. Rewarding dishonest people and their use of disposal accounts in the topic area by retaining their content is an obviously suboptimal approach, but it appears to be the norm, or thereabouts. The current approach of retaining content produced by ban evading actors makes evading bans and using disposable accounts a better strategy for partisan actors than complying with WP:SOCK. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_suicide_attacks&oldid=1257944111"