Talk:Zionist political violence/Talk:Israeli terrorism

Note: posts dated before June 10 were posted to Talk:Zionist political violence/Talk:Zionist Terrorism

RfC

In response to RfC: This article deserves a VfD. Text that is useful can be merged into other existing articles. --ZappaZ 05:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I notice someone's put a VfD tag on it, but it links to the old VfD. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

ProudWHITEIsraeli's evidince is as biased as anything I have seen here in a long time, particularly when the regular editors of this and related pages try their best to put truth seeking ahead of personal bias; he also violates the no personal research rule. I don't think he has raised any valid points, nor any new points that were not already raised when this page came up for deletion not but a month ago. Additionally with the slew of hate speech this VfD got off to a start with, we ought to close it for a week or two and reopen it fresh, allowing cooler heads to prevail here, regardless their stance of deletion or retention.

In the end, Israel was in the not so distant past a sanctioned torture state, and they certainly have blood on their hands as to the palestinians. The truth is somewhere in the middle here and we aren't going to find it by deleting pages that people simply disagree with, rather than are fundamentally off base. --LouieS 04:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that that middle ground is best found by all parties working to develop the page further. Regarding the definition of terrorism (mentioned above), we I think it makes sense to use the wiki page "Terrorism" as a starting point, as it is better developed than any "dictionary definition". If that definition page unsatisfactory, then it should be improved.

Regarding my last edit, here's the source http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node.php?id=1536. I'm honestly not sure about using "temporarily homeless": it seems like an odd way to modify something... are you "temporarily living", were african americans "temporarily disenfranchised". The assumption is that if you are homeless, you are probably looking for shelter. So, it's tautological. The point of saying that a policy is leaving someone homeless is that it illustrates the fact that the point of that policy is to take away someone's home. Is Israel building housing for the families rendered homeless by its demolition policy? (honest, not sarcastic)

MisterSheik 21:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreeed about the temporary homelessness; but I have to disagree with your sourcing, I belive it to be very biased. Provided you could show the same information directly from Amnesty, I would have no problem with it. --LouieS 23:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, quoted the wrong one... here's the same text directly from amnesty: [1] MisterSheik 16:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Totally disputed tag

I've put the totally disputed tag on this, and in line with our guidelines on using it, I'm making a suggestion here to as how the page could be improved in terms of accuracy and neutrality. The article begins: "This article is about Israeli military and covert operations, which have been described by some as terrorist acts." Instead of an unnamed "some," I'd like to see, for each incident listed, a credible (preferably non-partisan) published source who calls that incident "terrorist." Without credible sources, the article looks like a personal essay, and violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Cite sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:49, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly right. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

One thing that might help editors of this article is if we could develop consensus up front about what a "credible" source is. For example, I'll state as a strawman that Amnesty International is a credible, nonpartisan source. Can we think of any others? Note that this doesn't mean that any source that doesn't appear on our "list" is not credible, I'm just hoping to save us some tit-for-tatting down the road about sources that should be uncontroversial. Nandesuka 20:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd accept Amnesty as a borderline credible source (though I wouldn't call them non-partisan), but I was thinking more of moderate writers for mainstream news organizations, scholars, counter-terrorism experts, and the like. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:21, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

It's going to be a bit difficult to find these specific kinds of sources, as each one comes with its own set of biases. Do you mean American media? Israeli media? Algerian media? Each medium brings its own set of biases (See Chomsky#Mass media analysis). Similarly, what qualifies someone as a counter-terrorism expert? I know that you don't mean to insert your own set of biases with what you consider acceptable sources, but it happens almost automatically. I think that it makes sense to quote Amnesty because of its commitment to the rights of civilians and non-governmental status. If anything, it has been criticised for being too aligned with America and Israel, and was even sued for this by Francis Boyle. To me, the point of finding sources is to avoid producing Wikipedia original research, but once we have a credible source, then we are building ideas surrounding an issue, and that should be the goal. MisterSheik 17:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Military ops

I've removed the section below. The article begins that: "This article is about Israeli military and covert operations ..." but then includes Sabra and Shatila, which no credible, non-partisan source would call an Israeli military or covert op, notwithstanding that the Kahan Commission decided that the minister of defense had not ordered appropriate measures for reducing the risk of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:21, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The Sabra and Shatila Massacre occurred during September 1982 in Beirut, Lebanon by the Phalangist Lebanese Christian militia; The death toll is disputed, and commonly cited estimates range from 400 to 3000. The Israelis surrounded the camps and sent the Phalangists into the camps to clear out PLO fighters, and provided the Phalangists with support including flares, food, and ammunition. An Israeli investigation found a number of officials (including the Defense Minister of that time, Ariel Sharon) indirectly responsible for not preventing the killings, while emphasizing that the direct responsibility lay with the Phalangist militia that had done the killing. The Kahan Commission wrote: "responsibility is to be imputed to the minister of defense for not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the danger of massacre as a condition for the Phalangists' entry into the camps." However, some consider the sole responsibility for the massacre to lie with the Phalangists.

I can agree with that. Israel didn't commit the Sabra Shatila Massacre, even gross negligence does not equal murder. Perhaps it would be worth having a link at the bottom of the page to the main page for the massacre. Not because I want to two related, but because some people may come here looking for information on teh massacre and not find it. --LouieS 14:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that gross negligence does not equal murder. In many countries deporting prisoners to countries where they will be tortured is considerred on the same level as torturing them yourself. I think a case can be made that governments have a responsibility to avoid mass murder and that in abdicating that responsibility they might be culpable for the results. So, instead, I think that the opening paragraph should be broadened and the paragraph should be reinserted and expanded and that instead you should add in your ideas about why this is not "israeli terrorism". Instead of trying to make this page as empty as possible, I think it would be best if we all tried to make the issues surrounding the actions that some people feel are "terrorist" as clear as possible. MisterSheik 16:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi MisterSheik, the point is that it's not up to us to make the arguments. We can only cite other people's arguments that it's terrorism, and they have to be credible sources. And anyway, not all murder is terrorism. See Wikipedia:No original research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:06, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

"Some people feel are terrorist"? That includes almost every controversial action ever taken. Best to stick to credible sources, not what "some people feel". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Louie. Another section needing a source is the one about the use of bulldozers. We need a credible/reputable (preferably non-partisan) source who has called this terrorism, or it should be removed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Bulldozing of houses and destruction of infrastructure within Palestinian residential areas in the name of Israeli security add to the perceived poor conditions and lack of opportunities for the Palestinians. Since 1967 Israel has used Caterpillar bulldozers to demolish Palestinian homes, leaving thousands homeless. Since the outbreak of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000, Israel has destroyed homes suspected to contain anti-Israeli fighters and in efforts to create buffer zones between Palestinian and Israeli zones with the intent to reduce attacks on Israel proper.

I think that the amnesty international report has a section about this. MisterSheik 16:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you know which report? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:06, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the one I mentioned above :) Note that while it doesn't use the loaded word, "terrorism", neither do many of the reports used to back up our other examples of state terrorism pertaining to other countries. I don't think we should wait until we find a source that uses the word when that way is, in my own humble opinion, misleading because many of the sources that consider some of israel's actions to be examples of state terrorism will avoid the loaded word and its political clout in favour of the less ambiguous "human rights abuses caused by country against civilians....". A slightly clearer picture is elucidated on the state terrorism page and that is what I think we need to follow.

My current view of this page is that it should be treated as a section of the state terrorism page that has simply gotten too large to fit on that page and we should compare it to the other sections therein when making decisions about it.... what do you think? MisterSheik 17:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Human rights abuses are not "terrorism", and we can't put words in people's (or organization's) mouths. As for the article, the relevant information is certainly small enough to fit for now, once the non-sourced and/or non-terrorism is weeded out. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we are putting words into people's mouths.... if a source claims something is large, we can say it is big. If we have a source that makes a set of actions fit (one of our) definitions of state terrorism, then we can use that source. See the state terrorism page and look at, for example, the section on China. MisterSheik 17:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"Large" and "big" are synonyms; on the other hand, there is a world of difference between "Human rights abuses" and "terrorism", and putting words in people's mouths, based on what we think they meant, but were too "political" to say, is original research. And if the China section has this flaw, it should be fixed. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If a source makes a claim that A is B, and if we claim that C=B, then it is safe to propose that A may be C. In other words, we have a definition of what state terrorism is that extends beyond "human rights abuses". If a news source provides a reference that a country's actions satisfy that definition, then it is perfectly fair to report this exactly this way. In other words, we can report, under israeli state terrorism, the use of bulldozers to intimidate civilians, the strapping of a thirteen year old boy to a jeep by the israeli army to "prevent stone throwing" (see AI article). Ultimately, I don't see why we need to suspend reasonable idea-connecting and wait for particular language-- This is mainly because I think that western mainstream media will avoid using the same loaded propagandous language that the western powers use against countries like Cuba and North Korea. So, if you insist, I will find an eastern (or middle-eastern) media source that describes these actions as terrorist. MisterSheik 01:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, we can't copy what's happening on other pages. We have to follow policy, and that says we have to be able to cite credible/reputable sources for our edits. If the Amnesty report calls these incidents "human rights abuses," we can't change that to "terrorism." However, we could move the contents of this page to State terrorism if you prefer. In the meantime, we should probably delete the bulldozer section until a credible source can be found that actually calls these incidents examples of terrorism, and as this is the English Wikipedia, it has to be an English-language source, and preferably a non-partisan one. Regarding your argument about idea-connecting, we're not allowed to do that, and particularly not in order to build a case. See Wikipedia:No original research. The most encyclopedic thing to do is to find excellent sources (preferably scholarly, but at the very least mainstream, respected news organizations) and then stick very closely to what they say, without elaborating. When we can't find good news organizations or publishers to back up claims, it's usually because the claims are flawed in some way, and we should let ourselves be guided by that. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Rather than delete it, I've commented it out until we find a good source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sources

It should be noted that there is no policy that sources be in English.

I wasn't asking anyone to "build a case", but I can see how paraphrasing could be done contentiously. So, okay, you're right, we will have to find sources.

That said, it is a mistake to think that requiring sources to be English will not unfairly bias Wikipedia. English speaking countries do not have a monopoly on the truth; if anything, we would be unnecessarily promoting cultural hegemony on wikipedia. What is the litmus test of a respected, non-partisan news source? Any news source that reports that Israel is committing a form of state terrorism is partisan in its detraction of Israel. But, a similar case could be made that any news source that doesn't do condemn Israel's "heavy-handedness" is partisan in its overzealous support. The point is, as we have all noticed, this is a contentious subject and people have a nature of taking sides -- which encourages partisanship. So, yes, I agree, le't find excellent sources, but let's be fair when we consider what excellent sources are.... We are not writing an essay here about "how bad Israel is". We are going to find out if lots of "good sources" have said that israel has committed state terrorism and why, and explain it to people that want to know why these good sources would say that.

Here is an egyptian article calling Israeli military action in the west bank, "terrorist" [2] MisterSheik 04:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You make some good points, MS. First, that the sources must be in English: I don't know whether there's an explicit policy (I'll check Wikipedia:Cite sources), but I'd say it's in the spirit of that guideline, as well as Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability that the sources are provided for the reader, so that the reader can check we're accurately reporting what the sources say — and as this is the English WP, most of our readers are English speakers, so the sources have to be in a language they understand.

Your second point is a good one: that there's no litmus test regarding what counts as a respected, non-partisan source, and that the latter is hard to find in this area. But for example, the Canadian Broadcasting Company would be regarded by most people as reputable and non-partisan, even although Israel has complained about the way it handles the Arab-Israeli conflict. Same with the BBC. Amnesty International is another source I'd regard as partisan, but we couldn't reject it as a source because it's solid and credible, and the same with the United Nations, even though, again, Israel has complained about the UN. As for newspapers, if something like the New York Times were to publish that an Israeli military operation was (or was like) an act of terrorism, they'd say it by reporting that a source had said it, and we could cite that report. They might say it in an editorial, but that's less likely.

I think in this case we're going to have problems finding sources for a lot of these acts, because if you extend the word "terrorism" to cover, for example, the military use of bulldozers, the word ceases to have a meaning. We should probably judge the credibility of the sources on a case-by-case basis, so if you have any in mind, perhaps you could bring them to talk and we could take a look at them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:58, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I still don't think that the source needs to be english for the reasons I mentioned, but I will focus on English sources for the reasons that you mentioned. That said, here's a source that specifically calls the Israeli use of bulldozers, terrorist:

"Sharon, why did you destroy my house?": Operation Rainbow a year later. (On the Ground inGaza) Mohammed Omer.

     Washington Report on Middle East Affairs August 2005 v24 i6 p22(2) (1247 words) 

If you have access to "Expanded Academic ASAP", you can find the full text. Here is the opening paragraph:

"The Israelis called it "Operation Rainbow"--and insisted the name was generated at random by a computer. To the men, women, and children of Rafah who endured the slaughter, however, it was a bitter footnote to a week of horror. In Greek mythology, the rainbow was a bridge between earth and Olympus, between men and gods. In the Old Testament, after sending a flood that destroyed the world, God set a rainbow in the sky as a sign of peace and renewal. But in May of 2004, the shells and bombs in the night sky over Rafah brought only death. "Operation Rainbow" is an appropriate name in only one way: a year later, the images are still vivid, their evidence of Israeli terrorism against a civilian population undimmed."

Do you have a source that the word terrorism will cease to have all meaning if applied to the military use of bulldozers? I don't think it's self-evident.

MisterSheik 05:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC) ps Here's another english-language link that makes claims about "Israeli terrorism": http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/563/op1.htm]

The Washington Report story you cite is by Mohammed Omer, an Arab freelance translator and guide living in Gaza, who sometimes writes commentary pieces, and who is well-known for his rhetoric (every act is an act of terrorism, every day worse than Dante's Inferno). He seems to have written this article for the Vermont Guardian. I found it on this blog; scroll down to Deadly Rainbow. He's definitely not what I would call a reliable source.

Al-Ahram is more credible, but it might be a problem using only Arab sources to identify Israeli terrorism. Would you be prepared to call an act of Palestinian violence "terrorism," if the only people in the world who called it that were Israelis? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Esp. that part of the world known as the Federated States of Micronesia! P.S. Welcome to the Federated States of Micronesia! El_C 06:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks SlimVirgin, we have a source now, so now we are able to include the material; users will have to make up their own minds. I am not trying to "build an argument" here. Instead, I am just showing that a viewpoint is notable and referenced. I can imagine that citizens of any of the predominantly Muslim countries will use strong language ("Israeli terrorism") whereas those in the western world will avoid it (in fact, if you look at the article you found on the vermont guardian, the phrase "Israeli terrorism" is replaced with "Israeli violence", while the rest of the article is copied verbatim). From here, we can just represent the information surrounding the issue as clearly as possible. Or, if you like, I can find sources from Pakistan. :)

The fact is, that if we restrict ourselves to sources from the western world, we are representing one cultural hegemony and neglecting anohter with the illusion that we are taking a number of varied sources in. Are France, England, Germany and Canada, going to use the same language in the Arab Israeli conflict? I think so. Would Egypt, Libya, or Pakistan? Sure, but it would be markedly different than the first group. The point is that there are no "neutral" ways of applying a loaded term like "terrorism"-- if what you want are death counts, then it will be easier to find neutral sources, but if you are looking for specific language, then you will find different terminology in different media.

I am sure you will agree that wikipedia isn't intended to be a representation of the western viewpoint, so let's focus on broadening the article. I am sure you can find counterarguments to the idea that these are acts of state terrorism (my guess would be in the new york times or any right-wing israeli newspaper), and I think this would provide balance....  :) MisterSheik 16:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, what was the source that said use of bulldozers was "terrorism"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Mister Sheik, what is the source? The link El C provided is not about bulldozers, and the Mohammed Omer is not a credible source by any standard. He's not a journalist or anyone with specialist knowledge. He's a translator and a tour guide who writes personal commentary pieces. Please let's keep it invisible until we can find a source we agree is credible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:08, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Restored the section on Bulldozers - we now have an independant world statesman who unequivically calls their use terrorism - see the introductory paragraph. 62.253.64.15 19:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Shulamit Aloni

Shulamit Aloni, former Israeli Education Minister and longtime leftist leader in the Knesset just made some rather surprising statements in a recent interview, which perhaps should be referred to in the article (e.g. she refers not only to "Israeli terror", but says it "is worse than Palestinian terrorism.") [3]--John Z 02:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I've added the information to the appropriate article.[4] Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe that such scum ever lead the education ministry of Israel.

Guy Montag 02:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Change of focus

Ruy has changed the intro to: "This article is about about [sic] terrorist acts carried out by Israelis." The difficulty is that we'll have to include any acts of violence (considered to be terrorism by anyone in keeping with the rest of the article) carried out by Israeli Arabs too, which will lengthen the article considerably. The original focus was intended to be state terrorism, which kept it in check. I think we should revert and consider the implications of Ruy's change. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Changing the scope of an article so that one can then insert information which didn't previously fit it is POV pushing at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Save when the introduction is being made consistent with other articles of identical nature. The intro has been made deliberately narrow compared with that at Palestinian terrorism and militancy, and should be changed to read

The term Israeli terrorism is commonly used to describe acts of political violence committed by Israeli individuals, groups, or the Israeli government against Palestinians, Arabs, fellow Israelis, and nationals of other countries.

This change, which I made last night, was reverted with no explanation under a banner of "rv pov introduction" with no justification whatsoever. Shem^(talk) 02:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Changing the scope of an article so you can add items you want is POV. This article was separated from Zionist terrorism a while ago; that article contains the items you are referring to. Please make sure your familiarize yourself with Talk: pages and previous consensus before editing controversial articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Justify deletions

User:Guy Montag your home page is not reassuring regarding your objectivity for this article. Justify your deletions of incidents listed. --Zoophilatelist 00:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You've randomly inserted dozens of links to incidents that have been endlessly discussed in talk. For example, you inserted Qana, as Israeli terrorism, when it doesn't even qualify in the same catagory. You erased Israeli explanation for their actions, and you poved entries on Baruch Goldstein. If you read the talk pages, you would have seen that this has been discussed. Also, you have to qualify your additions with sources. Claiming that assassinating terrorists like Rantisi is terrorism has to be cited and sourced. Entering information about actions committed by Israel's allies without the exhaustive explanation in talk is also egregious pov. I do not know if you are new or not, but gung ho actions like that are not tolerated for long.

Guy Montag 00:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

How do you think Qana is not terrorism? Your blanket "explanations" (your own apologetics) for all these incidents should be sourced. From your POV the assassination of Rantisi is justified (and all the innocent bystanders killed at the same time too) but do you have the same POV about Rehavam Ze'evi assassination? I doubt it. Do you think a helicopter missile is not terrorism against a crippled old man in a wheelchair (Yassin)? To you, it is all justified. Reading your home page it is no surprise. You should not be threatening me or other users as if your tolerance is being tested. What makes you think that your POV is more tolerable? --Zoophilatelist 01:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Qana is well sourced already. Rantisi was the leader of a terrorist organization responsible for planned murder of Israeli civilians, and your precious wheelchaired sheik was paralyzed when he was a boy, something that didn't stop him from planning numerous terrorist attacks against Israel civilians. Rahevem was an Israeli politician not responsible for anyones murder. Finally, why don't you read about the policies on editing and cooperating in talk. I am only giving you slack because you are new, but the pov pushing of your caliber is so blatant, that it strikes out of the text like a bullseye. I do not mind your pov, you just have to learn to cooperate on your edits to improve an article. Bulldozing away is not going to fly.

Guy Montag 02:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

"I am only giving you slack because you are new," AND you have no power to do otherwise. He has EXACTLY thye same right to edit as you do. Please adhere to wikipedia policty regarding attitude to newcomers or I shall report you to an admin (or which you are NOT one). Thanks. 62.253.64.15 13:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag and Viriditas

Why did you delete all the Israeli assassinations like those of Ahmed Bouchiki, Abbas al-Musawi and Arab al-Mawasi massacre? Is Zionist POV editing the onl kind that is allowed?--Zoophilatelist 01:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Try adding your edits one at a time. --Viriditas | Talk 01:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Lavon Affair

I have included a brief note on the Lavon Affair. I believe this is worth discussion--Porturology 03:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The Lavon Affair was intended to make the British lose confidence in Nasser's government, and therefore keep control of the Suez Canal, not to terrorize anyone. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

And this was achieved by blowing up public buildings.--Porturology 12:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

No buildings were blown up; in fact, the homemade bombs did little damage. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you justifying these actions because they failed? Would you justify the London Bombers of 21/7 for the same reason?--Porturology 03:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is a disgrace. Coqsportif 09:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Citation request

To User:62.253.64.14 and User:62.253.64.15, please stop removing the citation request from the intro and leaving misleading edit summaries. We're supposed to avoid expressions like "some say x," particularly in introductions. We should attribute it to credible published sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:58, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

With respect do you want a more credible published source than the BBC? (which is what I provided) I'll try to take out the "some say". 62.253.64.15 15:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

First, if you're using a source, please link to it after the sentence. But now it's just as bad: which neutral govts, apart from Turkey? And what exactly did Turkey say? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:16, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

The source is [5] however the speach seems to have been widely reported - but the term is in common provenance - a search on Google for the phrase "Israeli Terrorism" gave 3,480,000 hits. 62.253.64.15 18:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that link. The intro now at least makes sense. I've added "state terrorism" because that's what he called it. I deleted the sentence: "Israel was "bombing civilians, killing people without any considerations - children, women, the elderly - razing buildings using bulldozers," he said" because it's not clear which part of that (or whether all of it), he called "state terrorism." We might need to find the original interview/speech. Also, we don't need the date he said it in the intro: people can click on the link if they want more detail.

I also deleted: "Other actions were apparenct acts of punishment or vengance" because there was no source and it's not clear what it referred to. I also made the bulldozers section invisible again until we find a definite source for it.

We can't go by Google hits because it depends on the quality of the sites. But thank you for tracking that source down. The page is much improved now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

How does "razing buildings using bulldozers" not fulfill your definition of "definite"? 62.253.64.15 20:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I have two concerns: first, it's not clear exactly which acts he was calling state terrorism, because we only have a BBC summary of what he said. Secondly, we can't base every example on the page on one man's opinion; if we're going to do that, the material should be incorporated into his page, or renamed "Turkish prime minister's views on Israel". SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:15, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Confusion

What is the difference between this concept and Zionist terrorism? Is there any difference? Does this page exist solely due to antisemitism on Wikipedia? Does the concept terrorism not compute when juxtaposed to a nation? Is this page as ridiculous as the Christian terrorism page? Just curious. freestylefrappe 01:53, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

From your third question onwards, yes, yes/no, and yes. It should be redirected to State terrorism, which I daren't look at because I suspect it's just as bad, but at least all states are hopefully being treated equally there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

This page used to be merged with Zionist Terrorism (where it probably fits reasonably well) - but since the inclusion of this material was being used by POV pusghers to deny that any jew anywhere ever had been involved in terrorism the two articles were split to make defence of the (100% incontestable historical facts of) zionist terrorism article easier. Bit of a pity really - because the way that the early zionists became the establishment is a fascinating story. 62.253.64.15 02:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

State terrorism is a real concept. Why else is the coalition of the willing in Afghanistan and Iraq except to destroy state terrorism. To study Israeli state terrorism is not anti-semetic and I am offended by the implication. The actions of the government of the state of Israel is the subject of this article not the Jewish race. Christian terrorism is a real subject that deserves study but it is not state terrorism and to study it is not anti-christian. If wikipedia has space for every garage band and school I think individual country pages on countries' state terrorism is valid. This page seems to be one of few but from a quick look there are pages on Palestinian terrorism and japanese war crimes. There is a significant amount of material on the Australian treatment of aborigines which I feel is a form of state terrorism. I have difficulty seeing why a mild page like this is creating such havoc.--Porturology 03:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

State terrorism is a disputed concept, but regardless, there exists an article about it, and whatever properly cited and NPOV material remains on this page following a thorough cleanup should be transferred there, and this article re-directed. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Porturology, I have a suggestion. Why don't you go to the page about Australia's treatment of aboriginals and rename it Australian terrorism? Then write a page about the state terrorism (to include military and covert operations) of the country you come from and call it e.g. British terrorism. And after you've done that, come back here and help us with this page. It only causes havoc because it seems to be singling Israel out. If that were no longer the case, the havoc might disappear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Good point; I'm still waiting to see which other state has a terrorism page devoted to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see what other state publicly announces that it intends to employ assassinations, including assassinations on foreign soil Israel to kill in U.S., allied nations . Assassinations and helicopeter hits on wheelchair-bound clerics are terrorizing activity. Jayjg , why don't you do something, like write an article about another state's terrorism if you think it merits an article. Wikipedia is wide open for more information that you could provide.69.209.203.45 05:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at the state terrorism page. About 30 countries are named with examples.If Wikipedia is paperless and inclusionist (i.e every school and every band gets its own page) I agree that each of these countries deserves their own article. I am happy to help with the editing but setting each article up and linking from the main article is beyond my skills and time. How about it slim virgin and jayjg? As you say this may take the heat out of this article.--Porturology 06:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The change needs to be the other way; all other countries are found on that page, including Israel. Israel doesn't need a special page, any more than any of the other countries do. As stated above, once the information is cleaned up here, the good material will be incorporated there. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"I'm still waiting to see which other state has a terrorism page devoted to it. Jayjg" - see Palestinian terrorism and militancy - or do they not count because their country is under illegal foreign occupation at present? 62.253.64.15 06:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you asserting that the incidents listed on that page are examples of State terrorism? "Palestine" is not an independent state, and please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"Are you asserting that the incidents listed on that page are examples of State terrorism? " - no - yet you seem very keen to ensure that the examples on THIS page are so you can "redirect". Limit scope then edit out of existence.

""Palestine" is not an independent state," - as I thought. How very convenient for your line of arguement. "please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jayjg" - sound advice for us all. My kettle is really black today you know. 62.253.64.15 06:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The point is that no other country has its own state terrorism page. The Palestinian terrorism page isn't about state terrorism. Israel seems to be the only one, and it's hard to see what a legitimate reason for that might be, given that lots of other countries are in, or have been in, wars, conflagrations, disputes, fights against terrorism, and so on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

This article contains examples of alleged Israeli State terrorism; the Palestinian terrorism article does not. Unless you're willing to attribute the acts listed on that page to the "Government of Palestine", please bring a more relevant example. Oh, and please focus on the article, not the editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"The point is that no other country as its own state terrorism page." I think the arguement was raised earlier that no other country behaves in the way that Israel seems to at the moment. If you can cite any with a long standing a history of breach of international law, history of extra territorial adbuction and deliberate policy of assassination I am open to correction. However I have yet to see that case made. 62.253.64.15 06:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, right, Israel is the terrible rogue state, all other countries (China, North Korea, United States, Russia, etc.) behave admirably in comparison. LOL! Jayjg ^(talk) 07:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Syria, Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia, all perfectly well behaved compared to Israel. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:10, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, get to work on the articles then. We'd love to see them when you're done contributing.69.209.208.166 07:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If either of you would like to point out a 30 year history of illegal occupation of territory gained by invasion on the part of any of these states rather than just bandying about names feel feee. 62.253.64.15 07:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that has to do with State terrorism, much less Israel, but perhaps you were thinking of China's occupation of Tibet. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No because AFIK the Chinese dont engage in Assassination, Kidnapping outside their claimed state, or have their withdrawl from Tibet called for by the UN in anythink like the same terms as does Israel [6] (as an aside I would have very squarely compared Israel's treatment of the occupied territories to Indonesian treatment of East Timor - and think an article on Indonseian Terrorism would have been bang on topic). As you well know it is the confluence of many factors (assassinations, kidnappings, ethnic cleasnsing) which make the Israel / Palestine situation nearly unique right now. 62.253.64.15 07:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry your going to have to back up your ethnic cleansing claim, where are you getting this stuff Solidarity International? Oppresion? Yes. Justified? Perhaps. But extermination isn't even in the same league as oppression, and simply is not in any way taking place in Israel. --LouieS 09:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Slow down there a second. Ethnic Cleansing is NOT a synonym for "extermination" - it refers to a spectrum of behaviour from mass killing to day to day harassment and intimidation. The common element is that territory is passed from one ethnic group to another by the use of some level of violence. Are you honestly saying that the denial of the right of return to refugees to their homes since 1948 and subsequent settlement of "occupied territories" from 1967 with its associated roadblocks, military occupation, one sided economic development etc does not constitute ethnic cleansing? Extermination - no that would be a silly thing to say. But ethnic cleansing I can back that claim up pretty convincingly. 62.253.64.15 16:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

But Israel offered citizenship to palestinians at one point and most of them turned it down. There is even a Palestinian anti-defemation league in Israel! roadblocks and occupation are methods of oppression not ethnic cleansing. --LouieS 19:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently nowadays "ethnic cleansing" means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

62.253 is engaging in the dispute here, rather than talking about the article. We should concentrate on finding reputable, and if possible scholarly, sources. When I last checked, we had two sources: Ted Turner and the Turkish prime minister, which is unencyclopedic to put it mildly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22israeli+terrorism%22&btnG=Search&meta= Results 1 - 10 of about 28,300 for "israeli terrorism"

That would be 28,000 separate references to the phrase. Some of these are from bad quality sites. But eventually enough "bad quality" references agregate to make a firm case that the phrase is 1. in common usage 2. has a commonly understood meaning. And I would argue that "enough" here is a number less than 28,000. Here is a link from encarta - http://encarta.msn.com/related_761588322_23/terrorism.html so apparently at least one major online encyclopedia has found the phrase encyclopedic enough for inclusion. 62.253.64.15 20:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

And for the record I dont think Israel ever offered the population of the "occupied territories" citizenship. I'm just using the dictionary definition [7] of Ethnic Cleansing "The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide." Words mean what we agree them to mean - wasn't thast the thrust of Witgensteins later work? 62.253.64.15 21:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, 28,000 non-citeable sources adds up to nothing. 28,000 X 0 = 0. I've managed to find 4 citeable sources so far, but they are very general. I've added them all to the correct article. Please find other citeable sources soon. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I dont share your ease in describing the real world in balck and white terms and think it's overly simplistic and unrealistic. Things are not binary 1 or 0. There are shades of grey - is Al Jazera a citaable source (I think yes - do you?) what about "Queers against Israeli Terror" ?.

If you get enough people using a term then the term is "in use" - and that's what we are trying to establish in the first paragraph. 62.253.64.15 22:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"Enough people using the term" doesn't really make something true or, more importantly, encyclopedic - by that standard I could insist that the articles on George W. Bush describe him as a "terrorist", and Fidel Castro as a "monster" . I'm not really describing the world, I'm describing Wikipedia's standards and policies. We need citeable sources for all of this stuff. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

My original point seems to have been lost in a debate over the meaning of state terrorism. What is the difference between Zionist terrorism and Israeli terrorism? Even if there were 28,000 hits, do we get even a single hit when using the other term? Is there any essential difference in the terms that would merit separation (ignoring prevalence). Another curious aspect would be whether the terms (assuming they are separate in use/meaning) are based on regional differences or ideologial POV. freestylefrappe 01:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Not all Israeli's are jewish or zionists. However the Israeli Govt (democratically elected) acts in the name of all of them - zionist or not. So it seems reasonable to make a distinction between terrorism promulgated on ideological grounds (zionism) and that conducted on nationalistic / state grounds (Israeli terrorism). Clearly because of the demographic mix of the state of Israel many Israeli Govt Policies will favour the Zionist cause so there is bound to be overlap - but this would be akin to conflating that actions of eg the demographic goct of Iran with "Islamic Terrorism" - clearly not the same thing. 62.252.0.6 07:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, acts taken by Zionists before the creation of Israel couldn't possibly be "Israeli terrorism", since Israel didn't exist at that time. Nor could terrorist acts by non-Israeli Zionists be considered "Israeli terrorism". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"The point is that no other country as its own state terrorism page." - please see Syrian terrorism 62.252.0.6 15:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed; a garbage article created either as WP:POINT in response to this article, or by the actions of a strawman sockpuppet, after I made my comments above. In either case, it just strengthens my point. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You know I'm actually coming round to the view that they should ALL be merged into state terrorism. You could (validly) start one of these up for literally tens of places couldn't you? But would we just transfer the POV hagling to another (currently stable) article? 62.252.0.6 15:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The State terrorism article is already the focus of haggling, and at least is watched by many more eyes from all sorts of perspectives than these one-offs. I'm eventually going to get all the unsourced crap out of that Syrian terrorism article as well, and there won't be much left to merge once I'm done. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Perfect example of the problem with this article

"In 2003, Israel announced it was embarking on an aggressive policy including staging killings on in the United States and other friendly countries. The policy involves Israeli hit teams, which consist of units or squadrons of the Kidon, a sub-unit for Mossad's highly secret Metsada department. (UPI) Israel to kill in U.S., allied nations"

Not only is this kind of nonsense added without any citation that it is actually "state terrorism", but the information itself comes from a series of anonymous people making claims in 2003. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a mass of Original Research, or the National Enquirer! Jayjg ^(talk) 07:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

In that case, let's delete everything in Wikipedia that doesn't have a "citation". I'll get working on that. Israel commits targeted killings. On foreign soil that's not only criminal, it's terrorism of the populace. It's not orignial research, look up the definition of terrorism. 69.209.208.166 07:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid Jayjg has a point. Unfortunetly Israel-Palestine is the most overly hyped and overly demonized conflict of recent times. That said, it desirves special attention and care perhaps not necessary when discussing the finer points of a moth's mating cycle. --LouieS 09:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't be afraid; sometimes I actually do have points. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Any other editors concerned by the censorship of criticisms?

Are any other editors also concerned about apparent censorship of talk page discussions from this page, for example, here user Jayjg appears to remove a valid allegation of inconsistency under the claimed banner of "no personal attacks" or that the anon editor was "disruptive". I don't see how those accuastions are valid nor see how censorship is justified in this case. Any comments? zen master T 02:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It wasnt a personal attack but I'd hardly call that censorship. The link was highly biased and the comment was directed particularly towards Jayjg...it added nothing to the discussion. If you feel strongly about it, I doubt Jayjg would oppose to re-adding the comment. freestylefrappe 02:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

That anon is a disruptive editor who is blocked and keeps evading his block with dynamic IP addresses, so his edits are being reverted by several people. Since April, he's been adding anti-Semitic POV, making highly abusive personal attacks, violating 3RR constantly, and editing with multiple sockpuppets (confirmed by the developers). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

That editor should be reverted for block evasion. When s/he is prepared to adhere to Wikipedia policy, we'll still be here. El_C 03:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The comment was directed towards Jayjg to explain inconsistency I interpret, he can certainly choose to ignore the challenge but he certainly shouldn't censor. I make no claims as to the quality or levelheadedness of that anon's other edits, I only know that what Jayjg claimed about the paragraph he deleted is provably inaccurate. Wikipedia needs a clear policy to prevent exactly this, unjustified deletion of criticism. zen master T 03:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"Censorship"? "Censor"? Those are highly pejorative terms with negative connotations; much worse than "Conspiracy theory". An unbiased Wikipedian would never use them. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow you've stooped to mocking now. And the parallel you are trying to draw is completly inaccurate (and you know it), I am asking if anyone else is concerned about whether your actions were censorship, unlike "conspiracy theory" which is illegitimately and improperly conclusive. There is no disputing you deleted that anon's paragraph. You can chose not to respond directly to charges of censorship but don't mischaracterize or otherwise play games. zen master T 22:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Several people are deleting that anon's comments, zen-master, regardless of what they say, because he's a blocked troll evading his block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

That seems like too convenient of a way to discredit valid criticism of Jayjg's inconsistency and valid criticism of Israel assassinating a wheelchair bound cleric with a rocket from a helicopter. It's very easy for someone to create a sockpuppet account that pretends to be an editor or you do everything in your power to frustrate a legitimate editor that presents a valid criticism but then they get blocked as a "troll", so their valid criticisms can be deleted and anytime anyone brings up that criticism or the issue of censorship you and your POV gang can simply frame the issue as the editor being a "troll", it's obvious really. The anon's paragraph on this talk page Jayjg deleted is a completely valid criticism and anything else that editor did is irrelvant to the validity of that criticism and whether or not it should be deleted. Why does your gang of POV pushers always deflect from the core understanding of each issue? I have another question for you to respond to simply and directly please: if the talk page paragraph Jayjg deleted did not itself violate wikipedia policy under what criteria was it deleted? I am considering posting on every wikipedia users' talk page (over the course of however long it takes) my theories and evidence for your POV pushing gang, and a detailed analysis of the sneaky methods you employ, though something tells me that info might be deleted or filtered in many different ways for some reason. zen master T 22:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"Asking"? Hardly; you've baldly stated that I engaged in censorship. Look at the title you gave this section, or your subsequent statement that "he certainly shouldn't censor". Your statements are, in fact, "illegitimately and improperly conclusive", as well as violating the Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy, particularly when your false charges have previously been answered elsewhere. Your use of the term "Censorship" imputes a motive which is wholly at odds with the stated and actual reasons for deleting the comments of that banned and disruptive editor; something, as SlimVirgin points out above, that others have done as well, though none of the others seem to concern you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I created this sub section with a title that ends in a question mark. I did boldly state in discussion that you engaged in censorship but in the context of challenging you to explain your actions, you have not yet responded to my challenge directly nor responded to the fact that both your claimed reasons for deletion were inaccurate. The paragraph you deleted itself did not violate any wikipedia policy, please explain under what justification you deleted it. zen master T 22:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The question mark was about whether other editors were concerned, not about whether it was Censorship, which you baldly asserted to be the case. And Zen-master, you know that whenever you start getting repetitive, especially about questions that have already been answered, I stop responding to you. This is yet again one of those times. Cheers. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

If other people don't think it's censorship they won't be concerned. You are doing a good job deflecting from the fact that you appear to have committed censorship and a good job never responding to the core original issue. There are only two ways to end what you call repetition, you can simply choose not to respond to my challenge to explain your actions or you can try to explain your actions. zen master T 22:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, you keep missing the point. The anon is a blocked troll who evades his numerous blocks using dynamic IP addresses. For that reason, and that reason alone, all his posts are reverted, because he's not supposed to be posting. If he had written: "Good for Israel for getting rid of terrorists," it would have been deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:49, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

That is the exact opposite of the point, talk page discussions should be deleted only if the text in question itself violates wikipedia policy in some way. If wikipedia policies truly currently support the removal of text merely because they are from a "banned" anon or a "troll" as you and others claim then wikipedia policy must change, the danger of censorship and/or intentional discrediting operations is too high. We need to disassociate content from who says it in order to analyze criticism fairly. zen master T 17:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that up to a point we should separate content from who's posting it. But with a blocked disruptive editor, the blocks will be ineffective if he can post using dynamic IPs and his posts remain in place. One of the only ways to make the block effective in cases like this is to keep on removing anything he writes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

What purpose does deleting a perfectly acceptable talk page discussion paragraph serve other than censorship? Anon IP blocks are temporary, deleting talk page discussions is permanent. I am not arguing that IPs used by banned accounts shouldn't be blocked once discovered (if the original ban was according to policy) I am arguing that talk page content that does not itself violate policy should not be deleted under any circumstances. And, the fact that this supposedly disruptive editor was making a completely reasonable point here on this talk page and your POV gang censored it leads me to consider it reasonable that his original blocking/banning was in error or too severe. It's likely this anon editor was "frustrated" rather than merely "disruptive", is that possible in your view? zen master T 18:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

ZM, please stop referring to my "POV gang." It isn't fair to expect me to debate with you and put up with that. As for the anon, since March he's been adding anti-Semitic material, often just in the form of slurs, to articles and talk pages using dozens of different IPs and sockpuppet accounts, confirmed as such by the developers. He has also created abusely named accounts and, as I recall, vandalized at least one talk page. He's a disruptive editor by any standard. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, any post with offensive material is ok for deletion (though only the part that was offensive perhaps, not the entire section/paragraph if not a case of simple vandalism), a challenge for Jayjg to explain inconsistency does not meet any deletion criteria. I agree the anon editor was likely highly disruptive, but the paragraph Jayjg deleted did not itself violate any policy and so should not be deleted. What is the harm of leaving non disruptive paragraphs in a talk page even if they were posted by a "disruptive" editor? Is it possible extreme frustration can cause someone to become disruptive if they don't believe their points are being analyzed fairly? If you Slim in 2 weeks have a bad day and become disruptive does that mean we can delete everything you've ever posted to wikipedia? There is also the danger of a POV pushing editor being sneakily duplicitous by creating a sock puppet for the purpose of discrediting opposing POV by having that sock puppet post those valid criticisms then have the sock puppet become a "dispruptive" editor to illegitimately taint that valid criticism for the future. There are more than 2 opposing POVs in this world, and even "disruptive" editors can have valid points, we should preserve all criticism when the content itself does not meet any deletion criteria. zen master T 18:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that this guy had only bad days. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:01, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Talk page posts should only be deleted if the content itself violates policy somehow. zen master T 21:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why jayjg and slimvirgin are being so captious and defensive. Why not just avoid this argument by pasting back what was deleted and be done with it? MisterSheik 19:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You must have an unusual definitions of "captious" and "defensive". In fact it was posted back the Talk: page long ago, 11 minutes after I deleted it,[8] and I did not delete it after that. The real question is why zen-master felt the need to pursue this the day after it was posted back to the page, and continued to do so for days? Perusing Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories clears up that question quickly enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, this is just a backhanded attack at zen master. At the least, you are saying that he or she is needlessly going after minutiae. But, what is the point? Just say, "dear zen master: oops, I did not mean to come across as censoring. I deleted those comments because I thought X, but I guess we can leave them on the page", and be done with it. A little bit of flexibility and everything could have been avoided.

From where I stand, it comes across as though you might be taking this personally. For example, no one was calling YOU a censor, but zen may have thought you were censorring. So what? Just put the stuff on the page, and don't worry about it. People are not daft; if you are not censoring, we can see it :).

I don't mean to patronize you here, jayjg. When I first came to wikipedia, I had a lot of respect for many of your thoughtful edits. What I hate to see are such bright people (you and zen) bickering over nonsense.

MisterSheik 21:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I first responded to Zen-master, exactly as you suggested[9], but he still carried on a campaign against me and eventually widened it to this Talk: page. A number of other people explained this to him as well (e.g. [10] [11] and below), but Zen-master is pretty obsessive about these things, refusing to stop re-arguing his point regardless of what information is brought in response. The only thing that seems to stop the endless flow of repetitive Talk: comments is to stop responding to him, which I did long ago, and which you have now criticized me for doing. In other words, I've stopped "bickering" long ago; it appears you have stirred up the pot again. Perhaps, in the future, you should familiarize yourself better with the issues involved before leaping to judgment, or even to comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

MisterSheik, what's frustrating is that it seems obvious to many of us that trolls and disruptive editors should be ignored - posts deleted, IP addresses blocked, and ignored. And it looks as though zen-master followed Jay here, though I don't know that for sure of course, and I'm assuming good faith, but it does look like that. I agree that neither the troll nor the subject matter is worth any kind of discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:01, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think what MisterSheik is asking is why are Slim and Jay trying so hard to rationalize away censorship? If he's not asking that I am. Does not bad faith apply equally to jayjg's apparent bad faith deletion with a completely inaccurate checkin comment? I judge people more by what they do than what they say. zen master T 22:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but we're just going round and round: you say censorship, we say a response to trolling. We may have to agree to disagree. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The anon editor's likely trolling is irrelvant as the content itself did not violate policy. zen master T 00:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it did not — but you still misinterpert policy. As I already said, *for* block evasion. That editor is not permitted to edit any page, whatsoever, wherever, until the block period has expired, period. Another editor can make the same comment and obviously it would not be removed. And yes, this discussion seems highly circular, with much innendo and redandancy. El_C 00:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

If that really is policy then policy needs to change. Why do you simply refer to policy rather defend the censorship that it allows? What is the rationale behind deleting all talk page posts by banned ips regardless of content? zen master T 01:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Tha rationale is not to let blocked users game the system — no one should have special rights. You seem to be suggesting otherwise. I have no intention of rewarding any editor for having evaded their block. I don't view that as censorship. And I don't view the content and the contributor in isolation — the contributor is the one who can best explain and qualify their own comments. If you take issue with policy, I suggest you further articulate, draft, and bring your proposal/s to the pertinent policy page/s and see if you can gain consensus for them. El_C 01:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

If the anon user is posting an arguably reasonable criticism on the talk page how is that gaming the system? How is not deleting that talk page paragraph after the banned user's new IP is blocked gaming the system? Seems to me there is greater danger of gaming the system in the opposite direction by allowing editors to censor or taint valid criticism. zen master T 03:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It's gaming the system by it giving itself a special right, a right that other blocked users do not have (and should be discouraged from attaining). It's unequale treatment. El_C 03:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

They only have that "right" up until the subsequent IP is blocked so what is the harm? Censorship is much worse than any alleged unequal treatment. zen master T 03:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, the harm is unequale treatment. I'm afraid I find your argument amounts to sophistry. When the block period expires, the user will be free to edit pages again. End of story. El_C 04:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Who is being harmed and how are they being harmed? I don't see either, and I see greater than zero harm with even minor censorship. zen master T 06:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I am no longer interested in continuing this conversation at this time. El_C 07:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

El C, as you may have noticed, zen-master is quite willing to repeat himself ad infinitum in defense of his own unique understanding of what he believes Wikipedia policy should be. The best response when this inevitably happens is to stop responding, as you have done. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

"Alleged Israeli terrorist incidents"

Who alleges these incidents are terrorism? We need some citeable sources for these, and quickly. I've been asking for citations for days, and all I've seen so far are deletions of the request for citation. If the allegations that these are "terrorism" is not quickly forthcoming, then this section will have to go, much like the rest of the original research had to go. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

We seem to have a bit of a double standard going on hee. I look at other articles on terrorism eg Palestinian terrorism and militancy and dont see each and every line item there needing a separate citation that an independant source calls it terrorism. Do you think we should be applying this standard universally? I'm happy to cooperate with you if you do. 62.252.0.7 06:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm focussed on this article for now; for all your Talk: page complaints and article reverts, I don't recall seeing an actual citation coming from you. The latter would be more beneficial to this article, and in general. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

So - is that a yes or a no then? 62.252.0.7 18:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Get a userid, and stick to it. Then I'll take your suggestions and comments more seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

So - lets get this clear - you're not willing to give a yes or no answer to a perfectly simple question - prefering to play games instead? Now doesn't that say something about quite how valid you REALLY think your point is? 62.252.0.6 18:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

So - lets get this clear - you've been editing here for months now, but you still refuse to take 3 minutes to get a userid and stick to it, preferring to play anonymous IP games instead? Now doesn't that say something about whether or not you're really here to contribute to the project or not? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said - creat a hostile atmosphere (I was told to "Fuck Off" by one of the people you habitually turn to for support) and you get people reluctant to get an ID.

So do you want to answer "yes" or "no" now ratehr than resorting to ad hominem attacks on me? 62.252.0.6 20:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this the same person I was writing to before? It's hard to tell, the anonymous IP address keeps changing. Who are you? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm the person who is asking you to give a simple yes or no answer. Are you going to? 62.252.0.6 20:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Going to what? I can't keep track of all these IP addresses, it's very confusing. Sorry, I need to have a real userid, otherwise I can't really respond any more. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah - so basically you're not willing to address the issue. Very well - just dont complain if "undiscussed changes" get rolled back when people have tried to discuss in good faith. BTW - you loste the "moral high ground" the moment you resort to this kind of game playing. 62.252.0.6 21:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Is this the same anon, or a new one? Refusal to get a userid is a classic example of a lack of good faith, and you lost the moral high ground when you refused to get one. Come back when you've figured out how to create a userid. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Just a comment from a bystander who can't quite believe how childish this exchange is. I would like to ask Jay to answer the original question: why is there a double standard in how things are required be sourced in this article compared to how things are currently sourced in, say, Palestinian terrorism and militancy? NJC 13:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

"Sacred terrorism"

Hmm, I see the book is dedicated To all the Palestinian victims of Israel's unholy terrorism, whose sacrifice, suffering and ongoing struggle will yet prove to be the pangs of the rebirth of Palestine... and is published by AAUG PRESS ASSOCIATION OF ARAB-AMERICAN UNIVERSITY GRADUATES, INC. I'm sure there will be lots of encyclopedic unbiased information in that, based on the work of a recognized historian. Anyway, is the book provided on the web with the permission of the author/publisher? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This coming from a hypocrite POV pusher who cites Jewish Virtual Library, Daniel Pipes, and Israeli government websites. --FarQJoo 03:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the Arab-American University Graduates calling what Israel does terrorism? Daniel Pipes isn't much more unbiased, although you'd like to think it so.Heraclius 03:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

If we're looking for unbiased cites of people who are considered encyclopedic sources, "Sacred terrorism" hardly looks like it. And where does Pipes come into it, aside from being brought up as a red herring by an Alberuni sockpuppet? Mind you, Pipes has relevant academic degrees, many publications, and is often quoted and cited as an expert, unlike the author of "Sacred terrorism". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the review was there already, so it seemed silly to not add the book. I agree, the rhetoric can be rather strong, though not surprising considering the title. The author was the daughter of a member of Sharrett's cabinet, and it is useful at least for quotes from Sharrett's diaries, accuracy vouched for by Uri Avnery at least. I believe the AAUG is defunct (maybe not - they seem to be reorganizing after "a period of weakness" - see http://www.aaug-asq.org/newsletter_goes_here.htm) and the author deceased; I do not know about the permissions, perhaps it is in the public domain, it is from Grover Furr's home page, who apparently teaches at Montclair State University. According to at least one source, Hermann's Real Terror Network, "Sacred terrorism" is Sharrett's coinage; he is quoted using similarly strong words in his diaries in this book and elsewhere. --John Z 03:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia strongly frowns on linking to Copyvio material; I suggest removing the link until you can establish its status. As for Rokach, she identified herself as "an Italian writer of Palestinian origin", which suggests that she was ambivalent about her identity at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, reverted self. Isn't there some policy against names like the sockpuppet's? --John Z 04:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is, but this particular editor doesn't really care; see User:Jayjg/Alberuni for the whole amazing, and often shocking, list. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Each incident should be evaluated in the context of "Regardless of the moral, political, or tactical justifications, these attacks are defined as terrorism when they are indiscriminate or directed at non-combatants, according to all academic definitions of "terrorism," and definitions used by the United Nations" - taken from the Palestinian terrorism and militancy entry. Unfortuantely "indiscriminate" is a subjective term... =/

Title = "Jewish Terrorism in Israel"

טרור יהודי בישראל is a much more substantive article. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to translate it in full... El_C 18:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, except the list of actions (or rather, individuals) in that article is not all inclusive, and the title may be objectionable since most of Israeli terrorism occurs outside Israel itself (the occupied territories and elsewhere). It's also surprising that I don't see Yigal Amir's name on there. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean supplanting it, just that it is informative and a full translation could be of benefit. Not sure if I'll find the time to do this myself, especially since there dosen't seem to be much interest, and there are others here also fluent in the language, anyway. El_C 06:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The items listed here are allegations of State terrorism on the part of Israel, which is something else, and which is why this will be merged there. Amir is under Zionist terrorism. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and merge them if no one objects, so let me know here please if anyone does. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I've merged the contents and redirected this title to State terrorism. I didn't include the Lavon affair, as it wasn't a clear example of terrorism (no violence against civilians), nor did I include the alleged massacres, but others should add them if they disagree. I did include the civilian deaths in the assassination attempts against Arafat. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

The Qana Massacre

I have added the Qana Massacre to the acts of terrorism committed by "The Zionic Entity".Hamadamas 19:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You added it to the wrong article then, you need to add it to the "The Zionic Entity terrorism" article instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I sure wish there was one. Hamadamas 06:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Your request

You ask that I not redirect pages on Jewish terrorism, Zionist terrorism, and Israeli terrorism to other pages. Those pages have for some time been redirects, and established so by concensus after much discussion. If you want to change that, I think the burden is on you to get people to support the changes you want. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I am reopening these pages and if people have any objections then they should discuss it on their respective discussion pages. I am not comitting vandalism by uncoupling the redirect. You and your friend are actually reverting my changes. I am again going to uncouple the redirects and if there are any objection then discuss it on discussion pages and have a consensus.

Siddiqui 23:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You wrote "Zionist occupiers perpetrated many grisly massacres against our people" in an article. Statements of opinion are a violation of Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. In addition, we don't write encyclopedia articles in the first person. And you are making a broad, offensive generalization by equating the terms "Jewish", "Zionist", and "Israeli". The reason people are quickly reverting you is you are adding opinionated statements to articles. Rhobite 23:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)