Talk:Mike's Place suicide bombing

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

ISM visit controversy[edit]

There is a paragraph with the title “ISM visit controversy” but after reading it I am at a loss to understand what the controversy in all this is. I assume that the visit was indeed controversial or discussed in some way in relation to this bombing and in this case it obviously makes sense to mention it but the text should probably explain how. GL (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike's Place suicide bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was labeled terrorism for years until just now[edit]

Not labeling this terrorism is why we have things like this https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/wikipedia-at-war/ https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/17958bb/why_does_the_english_wikipedia_article_for_hamas/

since the us labels them terrorists as do all other non terrorists states, allegations of MOS:TERRORIST apply here just as much to September 11th and other areas that are just as explicitly labeled a terrorist attack.

I'm asking seriously what is the difference between this and September 11th?

Since no one has ever explained that here, not labeling it as terrorism is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yestyest2000 (talkcontribs) 18:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Ohnoitsjamie as an involved editor. TarnishedPathtalk 11:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yestyest2000, please refer to MOS:TERRORIST. The passage I removed was especially egregious. TarnishedPathtalk 11:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]