Talk:Zionist political violence/Archive 3

message: As the one who most recently put in the POV dispute notice (see above), I am now of the opinion that the article is significantly more balanced and neutral on the topic than it was when the notice went up, and would be willing to support removal of the notice. Thoughts? LeFlyman 20:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV review 

message: The current article reads something like "the Haganah, LEHI, etc. committed several violent acts ..." I think this is very weak, and I'd like to replace it with something more like, "a campaign of violence." They were, after all, trying to force the Brits out.
Comments?
Marsden 23:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking that it can't be characterized as a campaign, because it wasn't particularly coordinated, and attacks were suspended by a number of groups for years.  Also, driving the British out wasn't their only goal.  Did you see, I made my latest edits probably right as you were posting your comment.  I don't know if you think it's improved, but the wording did get changed slightly from "several violent acts".  I understand wanting to make the violence sound more violent though.  I'll ponder on whether there's a nonsubjective way to make it sound less weak. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find that it actually was pretty well coordinated, albeit the Haganah, the Irgun, and sometimes LEHI operated separately. Check the Irgun site. The words "several violent acts" (not sure how those ended up in your latest edit) gave me the impression of a mafia that just occasionally saw that "terrible accidents" would occur if they didn't get protection money (which I guess was actually the case with the Stern Gang for a while, but that would be outside of "Zionist terrorism" activities). Marsden 16:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Campaign of Violence?" 

message: Hi Leflyman, I'm not sure what "some" adds to the sentence  in "some acts of political violence committed by the Zionist underground".  Were there acts of political violence committed by the Zionist underground that weren't considered terrorism? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes thank you, you've clarified the reason for it, and I think the rephrasing by Unbehagen better presents what you seem to mean, that it was then-contemporaries (the British) who used this term, and some historians today.  Are you satisfied with the current wording? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 15:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- his edit is an improvement. Thank you, Unbehagen for your contribution. (Bet you thought you'd never hear that from me!) I would wish some clarification, however, to "used by the British during the 1940s" as it brings up the question of whether the term was used exclusively by the British and only by them during the 1940s (as in, was it not used by anyone in the 1930s?) That seems something for which we should find historical sources: who did use the term historically? — LeFlyman 18:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The two sources I have seen the term used in (Time of London - read in hard copy and Pathe News Film Archive) are both British - but both had a widespread international circulation throughout the English speaking world. I think it's reasonable to say that the term was used worldwide - but certainly the main use would seem to be British. I have not personally seen a source from the 1930's for the term (and cant access the Times stack without significant effort - sorry). Unbehagen 18:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  I'm not sure what the precise issue is that is being discussed here, but maybe it is relevant to note that the word "terrorism" was widely used in Palestine by mainstream (ie. Mapai-connected) Jewish sources starting in the 1930s to refer to violent acts by the Revisionists.   Many examples can be seen in sources like the Palestine Post.  There were also frequent uses of the word in the US press (check the Wash Post archives for example). --Zero 18:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that information. The point I was getting at, was that we fall into a similar sourcing concern if we state that only a certain group in a certain period used the term "Zionist terrorism." Was the phrase used at the time "Zionist terrorism" or "Jewish terrorism," for instance? In the historical context, was there a difference (i.e. were they interchangeable?), as opposed to what one might say today? I just came across a 1998 article at Israel's Institute for Counter Terrorism which deals with present day concerns of "The Threat of Jewish Terrorism in Israel" -- which would certainly not be the same thing that extremists now call "Zionist terrorism." In fact, the only place one can find the term "Zionist terrorism" on the ICT site is in reference to an analysis of Al-Qa`idah web sites (many of which no longer exist). LeFlyman 19:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The most common phrase was "Jewish terrorism", by quite a margin if my reading is representative.  This was true of the British, US, and mainstream Zionist press of the period (at least of those sources that used the word "terrorism" at all).  In the case of the mainstream Jewish groups in Palestine, they considered themselves the true, if not only, representatives of Zionism and were hardly going to apply the word Zionist to the murderers of the Etzel who were their political opponents as well as being opposed in strategy.  They used "Jewish" in distinction to "Arab".  I recall phrases like "Fascist terrorists" as well from these sources. --Zero 12:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The modifier "some" 

message: I'll try to be unemotional here. An item for POV police: Palestinian terrorism redirects 
to Palestinian political violence but we have Zionist terrorism and Israeli terrorism (redirecting to State terrorism#Israel). Comments? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair comment.  Can we agree that "political violence" is a better title?  It isn't perfect, but "terrorism" is even less so.  I'll move this page now. --Zero 09:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both pages need to state terrorism. If the actions of Irgun and Lehi aren't the definition of terrorism, what is? I agree that no double standard should exist: both need to be titled terrorism. Avengerx 02:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever is the title, the latest renaming cannot stand. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency please 

message: I definitely do not agree with the change of the title of the article from Zionist Terrorism to Zionist political violence. The acts of Irgun and Lehi are textbook terrorism. I vote that the article get changed back to Terrorism. Avengerx 01:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that many of the acts described on this page were terrorism.   It is also true that many of the acts described at Palestinian political violence were terrorism. However, from that it does not logically follow that the word terrorism must appear in the titles of these pages.  My opinion on the use of language in WP is that scary words like "terrorism" should only be used in limited contexts such as in direct quotation.  Even though there could be many reasonable uses of such words, all too often they are used to sneak in an opinion in the guise of being objective.  They are also the subject of regular content wars that overall have been very damaging.  In any case, Humus is justified in asking for consistent naming.  An alternative (less preferred, in my opinion) is to rename both pages back to "...terrorism".  We can't have one of each name.  --Zero 02:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I guess it would be idealist for me to assume that either group would be first to accept that both Palestinians AND Israelis have committed acts of terrorism in the past. I think it is sad that both articles deny the fact that they cover acts of terrorism. Sadly, I am probably in the minority when it comes to abhoring the politically correct misnomers, so I will not change anything unless more people come forward in support. Thanks for discussing this with me. Avengerx 03:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Sorry I misspelled the title while attemting to rename it back to Zionist political violence. Would an admin step in please. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Change?! 

message: I've removed the commented-out extraneous/left-over "post-statehood" sections, which no longer have a place in the article. Here is the start of the sections, formated for readability. Those who wish to review the full material can check article history:
Both Arab and Zionist events: should probably just copy the Zionist ones into this article
Post-Statehood militant incidents
Since the establishment of Israel, there have been isolated incidents of killings of Israelis and Palestinians by Israelis for political reasons. These actions are not connected to the organized activities of the Jewish underground in the pre-state period. These acts of lone wolf terrorism are conducted without the assistance of an organised group or ideology.
All these incidents have been strongly condemned by the government of Israel and the Israeli public. It is widely believed by the Israeli public that perpetrators of many of these incidents, (e.g. Baruch Goldstein, Eden Natan-Zada, and Asher Weisgan), were  mentally unstable. 
—LeflymanTalk 19:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excised commented-out sections 

message: Zionism is a political and religious movement.  It is therefore redundant to have the word political (or religious, for that matter) in the title.  Anyone disagree?--Urthogie 15:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about Zionist terrorism. Why is the article not named as what it is about? Where is the consencus for the rename? Im undoing the rename that was made without consencus. --Striver 13:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  redundant article name 

message: I happen to agree with renaming this to Zionist terrorism.  However, I think the content needs to change to reflect this.  For example, killing british army sergeants is violence, but not terrorism(which is against civillians).  Disagree, agree?--Urthogie 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't oppose that in principle, but it seems to be pretty much all the page is about. Would it be useful to keep both pages, redirecting neither one? Tom Harrison Talk 14:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: How about we call one Zionist terrorism and the other Zionist violence against the British army?--Urthogie 15:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay by me. We could start out by sectioning Zionist political violence into violence against the British army and Zionist terrorism; If the later grows big enough, it could be spun off to Zionist terrorism. Or if it's more convenient, stubify for Zionist terrorism and begin populating it. I guess I have no preference; Maybe someone else will speak up. Either way, I imagine popluating the article with examles of "Zionist terrorism" will be contentious. Tom Harrison Talk 15:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Terrorism" is a word fraught with ambiguity and disagreement, which is why the previous agreed to change was made.  I think that any name changes will have to be carried out with full consensus, and in concert with a name change on Palestinian political violence.  The reality is that these actions cannot be taken in a vacuum. Jayjg (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus above is that Terrorism should be replaced with political violence, if a change is desired it will need to be with consensus and then changed in related articles like Palestinian political violence for example, my personal opinion is that as per what is discussed above in the talk page back when this was being discussed is that given the naming of other wikipedia articles like Palestinian political violence for example, Zionist political violence is the proper name for this article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently so; see Palestinian political violence. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  page rename 

message: To everyone in general, please do not make any cut-and-paste moves. There has been a lot of page renaming and shuffling of redirects lately. At some point it might look uesful to cut and paste content from one page to another. Do not do that. If a move is not absolutely simple and straight forward, ask for help, or request that the page be moved for you. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 15:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  On top of that, Striver's unilateral changes broke a whole bunch of re-directs. Jayjg (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about someone move protects this until we once again reach consensus?--Urthogie 16:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have protected it against moves. I could not find which template to put if there is any. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caution 

message: How about we set it up so there's a section for violence against the british, and another for violence against nazis, and another for violence against arabs?--Urthogie 17:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea Faz90 00:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  idea for content organization 

message: The current introduction was reached through a long period of negotiation and neutralizing.  Additions such as "killing unarmed civilians to push their political cause" are decidedly not neutral, and the introduction of the term "terrorism" without attribution contravenes Wikipedia's reliable source and neutral point of view policies. Jayjg (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears as though its only the mainstream press of countries that have fought Israel that even use the phrase "Zionist terrorism".--21:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it's not erroneous, and was the result of significant discussion and compromise a few months ago. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be ok with it if it were verified.--Urthogie 08:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been already; please read the rest of the Talk: page, for example the section #First sentence above. Jayjg (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to verify the fact that the phrase is used.  But wheres the verification for mainstream historians using it?--Urthogie 17:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just verification that the phrase is used, but that it is not used today by credible sources or historians.  As for mainstream historians using, they don't today; see, for example, this other section on the page: #Present-day_useage_continued. Jayjg (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That section says that its only anti-israel groups who say it.  So why does the page say "While the latter term is still used in this way today by some mainstream historians"?--Urthogie 18:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, actually.  Are there any mainstream historians who use it that way today? If not, the opening section of that sentence can be removed. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, Faz, "Zionist terrorism" isn't used by the mainstream press or mainstream historians, while "Palestinian terrorism" is.  That answer your question?--Urthogie 20:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But why does that sentence have to be there? Regardless of what terms the media likes to use, Wikipedia should be neutral on who it labels "terrorists". It should not endorse calling Palestinian militants "terrorists", while criticizing the label of Israeli killers as "terrorists" --Faz90 21:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've misunderstood Wikipedia's neutrality policy.  It says that the views of mainstream sources are represented in the article; in this case, there are many mainstream sources which refer to "Palestinian terrorism", but none which refer to "Zionist terrorism". Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it says there should be no bias. It is a bias to refer to Palestinian violence as terrorism, while condemning Israeli violence being labeled as terrorism. --Faz90 23:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "Jewish terrorist" is not an anti-Semitic epitet to insult Israel. What did Sharon call Natan Zaada? --Faz90 21:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about "Zionist political violence", not "Jewish terrorism". Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the difference between "Zionist political violence" and "Jewish terrorism"? Usually they are the same thing, unless the Jewish terrorism has nothing to do with Israel, or the Zionist violence is not Jewish. --Faz90 23:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to whom are they the same thing? Jayjg (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: According to typing "Jewish Terrorism" in the Wikipedia search! Faz90 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give me a source which says they are the same thing? I typed the phrase in, and found a lot of neo-Nazi sources which claimed that Jews were beating up or intimidating Holocaust deniers, and that this was "Jewish terrorism". If a Jew beats up a Holocaust denier, is that "Zionist political violence"? Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "Many consider" is just weasel words; simple facts should be stated as simple facts. Jayjg (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is called the NPOV!! And it's not a simple fact. A simple fact has NO CONTROVERSY. This opinion is controversial. And "weasel words" are not as biased.--Faz90 00:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't a random collection of facts-- it represents the knowledge of our day accessible through authoritative sources.  NPOV doesn't mean making editors feel better by adding "many say otherwise" to every authoritatively sourced sentance.--Urthogie 09:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey Urthogie, why did you revert that edit? I think it was a perfectly neutral statement which should not offend anyone. If you think it was biased, tell me if the last sentance of the introductory paragraph in this article is biased. Faz90 21:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You made it say "many Jews and Zionists consider this term to be a political epithet".  Number 1)Its not just Jews and zionists and 2)This asserts that its a matter of opinion, when it actually is a political epithet.--Urthogie 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, you didn't answer the second part of my question. And it is just Jews and Zionists. A non-Jew who is not pro-Israel(Zionist) would not find it offensive to use the term "Zionist terrorism" if there really are Israelis/Zionists that kill civilians. It is common sense. Faz90 05:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is not an epithet when used to refer to stuff before the state of Israel existed.  However, Jews and non-Jews alike consider the term to be an epithet in reference to modern day events.  And by the way, I stopped editing Islamofascism a while ago, as it was too stressful.--Urthogie 09:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral language in intoduction 

message: Faz, you are intentionally trying to avoid 3rr by reverting at the right time.  If you keep doing this, you will still be blocked for WP:POINT.  Please stop reverting, and actually discuss.  You've refused to continue the discussion after I replied.--Urthogie 08:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  faz is disrupting to prove a point 

message: Why were these incidents removed? Israeli Terrorism still redirects here, and both of these acts were identified as terrorism. I mean, if former General and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is not qualified to describe an act as terrorism, then who is? --Uncle Bungle 20:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add the information in a neutral voice.--Urthogie 20:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *No; we've already developed explicit consensus that the material is inappropriate here. See the extensive discussions above as to why this article is about historical context, not present day events. If you wish to re-hash the same arguments about terrorism v. political violence and the usage of the phrases "Zionist terrorism" and "Israeli Terrorism" (which is not what this article is about, obviously) then fully expect that the results will be contentious. —LeflymanTalk 08:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Zionist terrorism and Israeli terrorism redirect here. The fact is these events took place, and Prime Minister, General Ariel Sharon himself described Zadas' actions as terrorist. Oh well, down the old memory hole. --Uncle Bungle 18:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to Zada and Weisgan? 

message: In reference to present day events outside that historical context, however, this term is used as a political epithet to deprecate Israel or Jews.
What we have here is an axiomatic statement that links the present use of "Jewish" or "Zionist terrorism" with an automatic deprecation of Jews or Israel. So according to the above, anyone who uses the term is an anti-semite. Here are two sources from Israeli newspapers that prove quite the contrary, unless they mean to "deprecate Israel":
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1130954357003
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=619138
What I tried to do is remove the axiomatic statement with something more accurate and realistic:
In the present day, however, some supporters of Israel regard the term as a political epithet to deprecate Israel or Jews, citing the historical context of the events.
Unfortunately, I have had a bunch of revert warriors pounce on me, threatening me into submission. Anybody care to voice their opinion in a civilized manner? Ulritz 21:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing in the passage that you have such a problem with which states that anyone who uses the epithet is automatically an anti-semite, seems like you are the one using axiomatic arguments.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Perhaps there's some confusion in that the article still mentions "Zionist terrorism"-- which was its former title-- but it's not clear this particular term is the one used as an epithet. No one is denying that "Jewish terrorism" has been used by Israeli media and scholarship to describe attacks by Jewish extremists, but this does not have the same meaning as when "Zionist terrorism" is used by anti-Israeli activists/media. This has been covered above, but for those unfamiliar with the prior discussions, coming to the article to the first time, it might not be explicit. --LeflymanTalk 02:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then let's make the distinction. Ulritz 10:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Now that the distinction has been made, will you please cease edit warring? This issue has been discussed ad nauseum above, and the repeated re-insertion of "" is unhelpful, and may be construed as antagonistic.--LeflymanTalk 23:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amusing you find enforcement of Wikipedia:Verifiability policy "edit warring". Please provide sources which explicitly state that the term is "used" as opposed to "regarded" (by some) as an attempt to deprecate Jews. Shouldnt be that hard, so why accuse me of antagonism? Ulritz 11:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have reverted for the fourth time 24 hours and 3 minutes after your first revert. This is 3RR gaming. Pecher Talk 11:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you asking for civil discourse from the people you just described as revert warriors? Tom Harrison Talk 23:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning: Revert Warriors 

message: Surprised to find here no details about Haganah and Palmach operatiosn against the British, including   the famous "Night of the Bridges." - Mikedelsol 09:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need some discussion of Haganah and Palmach 

message: The problem is that this is currently the redirect from israeli terrorism. As such it either needs to adress isrseli terrorism or that needs to be adressed elsewhere. It cant stand as wikipedias entry on israeli terrorism and simulatanuously claim as jayg does that thats outside the scope.
There is way more to Israeli terrorism than this...there is kidnapping, rape, assasination, car bombs, threats, state survillance, torture. It should all be mentioned and it is all state sponsored terrorism from the Israeli state. 69.196.164.190
:If any evidence exists from reliable sources to support and corroborate this feel free to edit it in, making sure to maintain a neutral point of view Snellios 21:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This article is not about "Israeli terrorism" -- it's about the use of political violence by Zionist organizations prior to the creation of Israel. If one wishes to assert some so-called "Israeli terrorism" it can be done at State sponsored terrorism, but not here. As to whether the terminology is appropriate, see Palestinian political violence. --LeflymanTalk 22:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear All, if you are good enough to include Terrorism tag/list thingy in the Palestinian political violence article then be good enough to keep it here also. Thanks --Yas121 00:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Yas121, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not "tit for tat". What Zionists did in the 1930s and 40s may or may not have anything to do with what Palestinians did in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s. Jayjg (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me? are you implying "Terrorism" is simply reserved for the Palestinians?? I was simply commenting that both Zionist Political Violence and Palestinian involve "Terrorist" activities so BOTH should get this "Terrorism" tag or NONE Yas121 02:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zionists and Palestinians are not identical, nor is everything they have done identical. Please edit this article appropriately for this article, not to make some sort of political point. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and George Galloway is a politician, and a particularly anti-Israeli one at that; he's not a historian. Please find reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, You may be trying to chamption the Zionists cause here in wikipedia and thus to you "Zionists and Palestinians are not identical" that is your POV (unless you can provide reliable sources) Well here's another...They are identical both want/ed a homeland, both think they own the land, both use/ed terror tactics to get it (have you actually read this article?). Both think their terrorists are/were "Freedom fighters"! Don't forget Irgun was a terrorist group and its leaders later became Prime minsters of israel and were hailed as "freedom fighters". still think not identical? 
*As for sources here is another for you "Hope" it's reliable enough for you , doesn't take a genius to calculate that if out of 91 people killed there were 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 other and neither the Arabs nor the Jews formed part of the Army that it's fair to assume they were civilians!
PS. Stop edit warring you are in serious breach of WP:3RR Yas121 11:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Three reverts in two days is a "serious breach of WP:3RR"? I'm not sure whether that's the most amusing part of your comment or the fact that you tell other people to stop edit-warring even as you edit-war them, or the fact that you insist Zionists and Palestinians are identical.  In any event, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source; I have no idea what militias the Arabs and Jews who were killed might have been in, nor do I care to speculate. Jayjg (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it was the Jewish "militias" who were responsible for the attck I dont' think they would "hang-around" the hotel while the bombs went off. Neither do I think many Arab militias spent much time socialising with the British Army at that hotel. Anyway point is it was a terrorist act, as were the others, whether you like it or not carried out by terrorist organizations hence the terrorism tag! oh and 2+2=4 Yas121 19:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yas121, you seem to misunderstand WP:NPOV and equate something that is not equal. Terrorism was limited only to a extremist fringe of Zionism and only for a short time and was widely rejected by the maintream. OTOH, terrorism was/is widely popular within the Palestinian society (proof per request). The Palestitians have never had their Altalena Affair. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is funny to see when Israelis commit terrorist acts it is called Political violance or self defence 

message: I worry that I will simply attract more ideologues to a current debate we are having, but I am desperate.  (Leftist ideologues are sometimes more damaging than right ideologues, because leftist ideologues alienate potential allies.)
I am attempting to change the current title: 
 Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America 
to 
 Political violence by the United States. 
I was inspired by this policy page, Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_which_can_imply_a_view which prominently mentions this page's history. 
The current debate at Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America, which has gone on for a month, is found here:
Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/strawpolls#Current_title
How did you all do it? How did you "herd cats" and get a consensus to change: 
 Zionist terrorism 
to 
 Zionist political violence?  
No matter what I try, those on the left refuse to drop the word, I suspect because they figure it is pandering to the right, and I suspect those on the right want to keep the word, because they can then be more rigid about what stays in the article and what is deleted.
Any suggestion about how to herd these cats?  
I noticed that the very first edit to this talk page is: 
:Talk:Zionist terrorism moved to Talk:Zionist militancy: rv. to 'militancy', as per discussion and Vote for Deletion
Is there anyway to get the title changed without a Vote for Deletion first?
Travb (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I write this comment out of sheer desperation: want to change a terrorism title 

message: there's already an article about attacks in the 30's. either article shows both sides or it's not NPOV like the claimed palestinian political violence. Amoruso 10:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  biased article 

message: So what is the right article? Jewish Terrorism redirects here. --Uncle Bungle 21:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: please don't re-add this section which is POV, un-cited, and out of place. AFAIK such articles exist elsewhere - List of terrorist organisations#Jewish. Amoruso 23:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No POV there, just as cold a fact as possible. Sources in companion articles as linked. Thanks for the link, didn't know where else to put this factual and relevant information because of the redirect. --Uncle Bungle 23:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Leflyman the disambig was fully legitimate when Jewish Terrorism redirected here. Since Amoruso changed the re-direct, there is simply no reason for it. Thank you for reverting back to the last version by Amoruso. --Uncle Bungle 02:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you my friend. You'd notice the redirect is now for an even better elaborate article with also a link to here. Amoruso 02:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Terrorism 

message: I changed Jewish terrorist and jewish extremist terrorism to redirect to Religious terrorism. That article links back here anyway.
Israeli terrorism should probably redirect to List_of_acts_labelled_as_state_terrorism_sorted_by_state considering the narrow scope of this article. If no one objects within a few days, I'll make the change. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 01:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the redirect to List_of_acts_labelled_as_state_terrorism_sorted_by_state which already has some content with regards to Israel. --Uncle Bungle 02:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirects 

message: Well, regarding J. Bowyer Bell (1977). Terror out of Zion: Irgun Zvai Leumi, LEHI, and the Palestine underground, 1929-1949. St. Martin's Press.  —
I've just reserved the book at the main public library in my city (via the Internet), and it should be at my local branch by next Thursday, so I will look through it and see if it actually supports the following sentence: At the time, the British described such political violence as "Jewish" or "Zionist terrorism", although the latter is used as a political epithet in reference to present day events outside that historical context. 
I suggest that others who are interested do the same thing. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 04:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terror out of Zion 

message: I have restored my version (reverted by Moshe without explanation) as I cannot see any reason to separate the fact that the actions were regarded as terrorism other than to try and make out that this was somehow wrong or unjust and thereby apply a personal commentary to the article. Arniep 12:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epithet 

message: There is ample evidence that much Zionist political violence was supported and instigated by mainstream Zionist organisations, even though they publically condemned it eg the sinking of the Patria in 1940 (252 dead, mostly refugees) was carried out by Haganah. And Israel has continued this practise, glorifying the terrorism such as the 1944 killing of Lord Moyne, re-burying the executed killers on Mount Herzl in 1975. It is difficult to understand the motives of editors who remove such well-referenced evidence, and it would be nice if we could get on with writing an encyclopaedia without this kind of obstruction. PalestineRemembered 19:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it would be nice. Yas121 13:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP article about Zionist political violence - but we can't blame the Zionists? 

message: Per discussion elsewhere I have added the following based on three relatively solid sources:
:Although J Bowyer Bell writes:
::"In June 1975, the Egyptian government released the bodies of Eliadu Hakim and Eliahu Bet-Zouri, thirty years after the assassination of Lord Moyne, in return for twenty Arabs jailed in Israel as fedayeen or intelligence agents.  In Jerusalem the two were given a heroes' burial in the Mount Herzl military cemetry, the resting place of Israeli premiers and presidents.""Terror Out of Zion:  Fight for Israeli independence" by J Bowyer Bell, Dublin Academy Press, 1977(also corroborated by other accounts [http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/senate/jour-e/031jr_2005-02-03-E.htm?Language=E&Parl=38&Ses=1 
Journals of the Senate (Unrevised) 1st Session, 38th Parliament, Issue 31, Thursday, February 3, 2005, 1:30 p.m.]Israel Today & Always: Remembering Israel's Martyrs From its Third Rebirth into Statehood, Dr. Howard S. Brand, DSW, Ph.D., August 11, 2000)
It seems well established.  --Abnn 02:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough, your source didn't refer to them as "the terrorist assassins". Go figure. Jayjg (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. The book is called 'Terror out of Zion', however. *grin* Hornplease 03:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend dropping this unnecessary tangential conversation, since I don't think it serves a purpose.  --Abnn 03:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider it dropped. Hornplease 03:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added material

message: The following was removed based on a user arguing that it is OR, but it seems to be fully sourced and Kahanism is a political and zionist movement, although very right wing and fundamentalist, which has restored to violence.  Thus I don't see the OR aspects of it.
Other Militant groups
The following groups were all started or branched off from those started by Meir Kahane:
* Jewish Defense League: A "right-wing militant group"  according to the FBI. Although several members have been charged or convicted with offenses related to the handling of explosives, the group is not thought to have any current connection to violent attacks.   
* Kach and Kahane Chai: (defunct) Israel and United States. Eden Natan-Zada was involved with Kahanism before killing 3 people in Shefa-'Amr, an act described by then prime minister Ariel Sharon as "a reprehensible act by a bloodthirsty Jewish terrorist".
* Gush Emunim Underground: (1979-1984)  Formed by prominent members of Gush Emunim. 
* Jewish Defense Organization: a Jewish Militant rival offshoot of the Jewish Defense League, which was founded by Kahane.
--Abnn 06:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have a reliable source that designated this as "Zionist political violence"? ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I support Abnn here.  I'll open a RFC to solicit fresh input. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material is already in the Religious terrorism article; indeed, it was copied directly from that article. You're well aware of this issue; see, for example, this edit from 3 months ago. Jayjg (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If Gush Emunim is nationalist and not religious, then by all means source and include it. Kach is a violent cult, and there is an article for that allready. --Uncle Bungle 14:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is arguing that Gush Emunim is not religious. It is both religious and Zionist. Kach certainly are a violent organization, both religious and zionist. The fact that it has its own article does not mean that it should be censored here. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stop reinserting the same irrelevant content. Jewish Defense League, etc. don't belong here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Those groups are all well known and violent, and I would think implicitly non-religious as well, because political violence contravenes the religious teachings. They should all be included in the article. --Marvin Diode 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to think that such stuff belonged here (cf ancient talk), but Jay and Humus convinced me otherwise.  The problem is that such stuff belongs somewhere in Wiki-Israel-land, but where?  I dunno how Zero knew that Ehud Sprinzak's book "The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right" was staring at me - in fact I tripped over it in my kitchen, but as usual, he is quite right.  To enlarge on the problem, just take a look at some of Spinzak's section headings -Ch. 2 The Zionist Roots of the Radical Right finishes with a section on "The Political and Historical Marginality of the Old Radical Right"  There's a connection, sure, but it isn't straightforward.  After leafing through the book, I realized that plagiarism (always the best choice in scholarly endeavors) might be the answer.  Maybe we should have an artickle on "Israel's Radical Right"  focusing on the stuff people want here, Gush Emunim, Kahane, etc. linking here and elsewhere and explaining connections, following Sprinzak?John Z 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The Kahane groups motivations were religious; there's a difference. Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kahane groups motivations are both religious and Zionist, as a Gush emunim underground etc. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are? What are your sources for that claim? Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are your sources for your [ that these groups are not Zionist? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a weird and reversal of the burden of proof. You are the one making a claim in order to add this to the article - you need to support it. It is not up to editors who disagree with you to prove their position in order to remove your addition. Isarig 15:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this really OR? 

message: I would question whether "primarily targeting British policemen and soldiers" is necessary - or whether they're weasel words. We'd never accept an equivalent statement about Sunni insurgents in Iraq, for instance "primarily targetting occupation forces". And we'd not accept it in Iraq for good reason - it's not true. Where is the evidence it was true in the case in Palestine? Ditto, where is the evidence that "all" (or most) immigrant victims of the "reign of terror" described by Einstein were "collaborating with the British"? Or the native victims were attacked "in response"? Much of what I've seen suggests these guys armed themselves first, attacked banks etc to raise funds and then attacked the weak, including their own. And where is the evidence that calling them terrorists was restricted to the British government, as implied by the words used? PalestineRemembered 16:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primarily targeting British? 

message: My edit here has been reverted with the summary "intentionally misleading". I'm confident that it's the revert that leaves the article with a misleading impression, while my action improved it. The Yishuv indeed condemned terrorism, but was carrying it out itself. It's direct successor (Israel) recovered and honored the bodies of the assassins (took 31 years, exchanged for 20 prisoners). Israel has denied numerous bombings, massacres, assassinations etc and it's misleading to present their denials at face value with "was opposed".
I'd have brought this matter to the TalkPage before, except I queried another obvious fault in this article, and nobodies bothered defending it. It would appear nobody cares for the article, other than to make POV reverts with misleading summaries, re-inserting misleading phraseology. PRtalk 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Intentionally misleading" means trying to imply that the Patria disaster was actually a Haganah plot to murder 200 Jewish refugees. TewfikTalk 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They bombed a ship full of refugees in order to sink it. Any court would find them guilty of murder - that's probably the right word, not the wishy-washy "carried out bombings, killing over 200 Jewish refugees" that I've edited in. And it's not as if this is some kind of one-off, they denied these killings, just as they denied all the other assassinations and killings, including ones the Nazis would have been proud of. PRtalk 10:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Straw-man argument, I've never tried to put the word "murder" into the article. Let's not try to whitewash people who carried out bombings, including one costing over 200 Jews, who carried out a reign of terror on the Jews of Palestine and have always denied their crimes. The official leadership was plainly not opposed to these crimes - they carried out the sinking of the Patria themselves. PRtalk 06:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "intentionally misleading"? 

message: This is a redirect from Jewish terrorism and clearly is Jewish terrorism; why isn't this article labelled appropriately, as per Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism? It seems very slanted to me. Unless ALL Jewish terrorism is Zionist related, in which case it should probably be called Zionist terrorism. Zionist political violence is clearly the wrong title as it breaks the cycle. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing Zionism, a mostly secular-nationalist movement, with Judaism, a religion. This article title, in fact, parallels that of the Palestinian political violence articles. As for the re-direct, it has been fixed, and now goes to the appropriate spot, Religious terrorism#Jewish. Jayjg (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I dunno. Everytime I add Barabbas to the terrorist category, I get reverted. But there's kind of a long gap in between, so I'm hard pressed to see how an all-inclusive article could be written. -- Kendrick7talk 04:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title 

message: I've restored this with refs from the main article, which should alleviate the WP:OR complaint. I can re-ref from gbooks pretty easily if that's preferred. -- Kendrick7talk 18:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's stopping you? Yahel Guhan 05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patricia sinking 

message: Quite possibly the most glaring example of double standard and NPOV problems in any article on wikipedia. Where is the logic in calling Zionist terrorism 'political violence', and other forms of political violence terrorism? I am quite curious as to how the stewards of this ridiculous white-washing farce justify it. 74.56.218.173 (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Palestinian Terrorism actually redirects to a political violence article. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Standard 

message: The 1940s violence is often known as Jewish terrorism (), yet that article had nothing mentioning those events (and apparently a see also to this article was removed some time ago as "not relevant"). Should we consider a merge? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jewish religious terrorism is about violence carried out for religious reasons. Zionist political violence was violence carried out as part of a movement of national liberation. They are not the same. Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The very term "Jewish religious terrorism" is hardly used in any literature (), and the term "Zionist political violence" is a complete OR (). Both phenomena should be discussed under Jewish terrorism, and split only if there is too much material.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those sources speak of 1940s actions, not 1990s. And we're not allowed to use the term "terrorism" on these articles: see Palestinian political violence. Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not allowed? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and WP:OR argue otherwise.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see a problem with the title of this article, particularly since the Jews were often the victims of this political violence by the Zionists. The problem comes from edits like this, stripping out all the context behind, for instance, the decapitation of the non-Zionist Jewish movement in Palestine in 1924. And this article is mysteriously limited to events of the 30s and the 40s, although Zionist political violence started in 1919 or 1920 (at the latest) and continues, probably, to this day. However, I should warn you against using any information that might, conceivably, have also been quoted by Holocaust Deniers, since it could be treated as an instant perma-block offence. PRtalk 18:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PR, please stop using article pages as soapboxes, you've been warned about this before. Jayjg (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I haven't researched Palestinian terrorism, but "Palestinian political violence" is at least used by some publications (although "Palestinian terrorism" is much more common). However as I've shown before, "Zionist political violence" is a Wikipedia-only term, and as such, a likely violation of OR. I am sure it was invented for what some thought was good reasons, but we are building an uncensored encyclopedia without euphemisms; those are simply bad for this project, outside or inside titles of articles. Perhaps a better solution would be to move this article to "Zionist terrorism", move Jewish religious terrorism back to Jewish terrorism, and summarize the "Zionist terrorism" there (as one section; religious terrorism can have another one, it so far does not look significant enough to merit its own article). PS. Please note I have no agenda for or against either side of the PI conflict, but I simply am interested in using the most correct and commons terms (hence I would also likely support renaming of "Palestinian political violence", as noted above). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources don't use the term "Zionist terrorism", as a closer look at your google books search shows, and use of the term "Jewish terrorism" in reliable sources is pretty rare too. This title is fine. In any event, I think it would be better to start at the "Palestinian political violence" page first, since the term "Palestinian terrorism" is significantly more common than either "Jewish terrorism" or "Zionist terrorism" among reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: No, actually it's perfectly reasonable for the article to cover through the time of the founding of the state of Israel. Zionist political violence up until that point centered on the goal of establishment of a Jewish state. Post 1948, any such instances carried out towards the "political ends" of the Jewish state would be more accurately termed Israeli political violence. Of course there are extra-state acts of violence carried out in and out of Israel. eg, the Jewish Defense League, but these are more accurately referred to as Jewish, rather than Zionist, purveyors of violence. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish terrorism 

message: Zionist political violence doens't only concern Irgun and Lehi but also Haganah, Palmah and all other militias that was active in the Yishuv. This article is not neutral in that sense.
The reasons and origin of this political violence should be explained (that looks too much like an attack of Zionism today) : it was in reaction of 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936-39 arab palestinian attacks that were themselves a reaction of the arrival of more and more zionists in Palestine. Ceedjee (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  pov flag 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support 93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And perhaps suppressing the discussion of acts as terrorism could be inherently POV, particularly when those acts include what most reasonable people would regard as terrorism (such as throwing bombs into crowds, setting off bombs in market places and railway stations, sending parcel bombs, carrying out or attempting to carry out assassinations of politicians and diplomats, bombing embassies in other countries) and particularly since there is a WikiTerrorism project (which implies that a discussion of those acts which are seen widely as terrorism, as terrorism, is supposed to take place).  -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't think that fighting for freedom and using terrorism are mutually exclusive. A freedom fighter could use terrorist methods and therefore be a freedom-fighting terrorist or a terroristic freedom fighter. Wouldn't it be legitimate to discuss the few cases (such as throwing bombs into crowds, setting off bombs in market places and railway stations, sending parcel bombs, carrying out or attempting to carry out assassinations of politicians and diplomats, bombing embassies in other countries) where the aim was to terrorise (albeit for political reasons rooted in Zionism's goals) as terrorism?   -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is better to keep a neutral title to globalize all the actions with any morale connotation. We can have a section titled terrorism where all this actions would be explained with their due weight. The NPov issue about this subject is that we mislead people in making them believe that the "zionist political violence" was mainly terrorism (the minority case) and when we don't give a clear background. And anyway, that doesn't justify the move. At best, another article could be creating only focusing on that but I would suggest, for a global npov concern of wp on this hot issue, only when this one is properly developed. Ceedjee (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

text: See WP:AGF and wp:civil. Ceedjee (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Who is exactly the "they" ? and do you have references from wp:rs sources for that allegation ? Ceedjee (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: People who were involved in Terrorism at the time in the land of Palestine (aka Israelis) --Rockybiggs (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you didn't mean what you wrote... Ceedjee (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey