Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the debate was No Consensus default to Keep. I count 33 Keep, 28 Delete, and 3 Merge (counting "rename" as a vote to keep, since we can't delete & rename), which is roughly 44% Delete, 51% Keep, 5% merge; soundly No Consensus. Essjay · Talk 01:18, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • A slight recount, as it appears the number of votes was a bit off: I see 30 Keeps and 30 Deletes. (The nominator's vote, even if the identity is in question, should be counted as a delete). Reviewing the "rename" votes appears that they are likewise split: there are 5 "Keep, but rename" (counted as Keeps), and 3 Rename OR Merge-- which should default to merge, rather than "keep" -- since we can't, as you say, keep & merge. Plus, there are 3 clear "Merge with State Terrorism." (1 vote to delete the "troll nominator" was not counted either way). My feeling is that in this instance, Merge votes should be considered a special form of "delete"-- with a request to removing the separate article, and combine the factual info into another one. Thus, they should not be counted against "Delete" in the final tally. Thus, it's pretty much 50/50. Still a No Consensus, of course-- which is just why VfDs will continue to be problematic. --LeFlyman 06:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This one was a difficult one to close. I considered leaving it alone, but it was the last one in the archive, so I decided to suck it up and close it. I used a pencil & paper to tally votes, but I'm not suprised I missed some; it was just so blasted confusing. Anyhow, no consensus seems to be the right call. -- Essjay · Talk 07:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli terrorism

Pardon me for having to edit this already existant VfD page, I do not happen to know how to archive this previous VfD page. I bring this page to a VfD delete for a variety of reasons:

  1. I feel it is inherently biased
  2. A page of this manner already exists dealing with Israeli state terrorism and this should be merged there AT THE MOST
  3. This page could easily be renamed Jewish Terrorism as that it what it deals with and such a page is inherently biased as it attacks Jews
  4. This page has been heavily edited by known anti-Semitic and anti-Caucasian racists [personal attack removed] ... and despite popular concensus in the real world that accusations against Israel are laughable, these claims have been allowed to remain on Wikipedia
  5. The last time it was brought to VfD vote, there was not really a true concensus met and there should be a revote. --ProudWHITEIsraeli 00:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • See also /Closed June 11, 2005 vote

PLEASE NOTE: User:ProudWHITEIsraeli/User:TelAvivKid is a strawman sockpuppet (see the link for further details of what that is). His intent, aside from making Jews and Israelis look bad, is to ensure that this VfD fails. Jayjg (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep Take a look at this guy's user name and profile. This is a troll nomination. CanadianCaesar 00:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Right, a "troll". Trust me, Im here to fight against trolls, not be one. -ProudWHITEIsraeli 02:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Is that why you called User: Mustafaa a racist? CanadianCaesar 02:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, and as if it wasnt so blatant that you are a left-wing nut, you have just proved yourself a RACIST. What about my name? What exactly is wrong with being PROUD of your ethnicity and heritage? Simply because I am White and happen to be PROUD of it I am a troll? -ProudWHITEIsraeli 02:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Speaking of trolling...--Calton | Talk 06:07, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zionist terrorism is a valid article but the Israelis don't currently practice terrorism as it is currently understood but military operations. Although I would appreciate more information about the nominator.Capitalistroadster 01:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 'despite popular concensus in the real world that accusations against Israel are laughable'. This is news to me. This topic either as presented or merged with State Terrorism is worthy of inclusion. I am sure it will undergo a lot of revision as editors put their spin on it but that is no reason for deletion.--Porturology 01:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Excuse me? Maybe you live in California or New York or some such place, but the majority of REAL Americans Citizens (and that word CITIZENS is vital and entails much) as well as the majority of the world, recognize that all these attacks on Israel ARE laughable and are racist and just products of the Socialist Propaganda Machine. Sorry if your left-wing fanatical delusions have severed your ties to reality. -ProudWHITEIsraeli 02:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. You are being exceptionally rude. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this is a madeup concept. Perhaps Israeli-sponsored terrorism would work, but actions of a military do not fall under the definition of terrorism. freestylefrappe 01:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete about time this came up for VfD. This page is lacking any real documented incidents of "Israeli terrorism", instead it recasts Israeli efforts against terrorism as being themselves terrorist. Klonimus 02:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same reasons as Klonimus. Carioca 02:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have concerns about the nominator and whether this is a good-faith nomination. I also want to distance myself from his comments about Mustafaa. Nevertheless, the page should be deleted because it's a POV personal essay. It doesn't define terrorism, it's unencyclopedic with no sources, and it has no chance of becoming encyclopedic, because there are no reputable or scholarly sources who would agree that the incidents listed are examples of terrorism. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Brother, I assure you my nomination is completely in good faith, I merely seek to rid the world of the sick propaganda that the Socialist Establishment espouses, namely articles such as this one. My comments about "Mustafaa" were not meant as a personal attack and I am sorry if they have been interpreted in such manner, however I do not rescind my statements one bit. I beleive it has been established time and time again on wikipedia that Mustafaa is biased against Whites and Jews and anyone who is proud of their Whiteness and adherance to Judaism. Do I even need to point further than to the Islamic-Arab allusion his username alludes to than to prove that he is a Socialist Racist? But thank you for backing me up, I wish I could state myself so eloquently as you but yes, this article is very POV and has ZERO encyclopedic content. -ProudWHITEIsraeli 02:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Fernando Rizo has reprimanded me for my comments here and I would just like to say I apologize somewhat for my tone and vocabulary but I stand by my beliefs. -ProudWHITEIsraeli 03:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This page needs cleanup , and definetly needs sourcing; but it does discuss a a very real issue in our world. Though as it stands it is a poor article. And second, due to the hurtful and biogted way this VfD started I believe it should be closed and broguh up for vote again in a few weeks; this has gotten off to such a bad start it need some time so cooler heads can prevail, be they for deletion or not. Additionally (my thanks to Guettarda) this page does not meet criteria under Wikipedia:Deletion_policy--LouieS 03:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Hurtful and bigoted? I dont feel an ounce of pain over "hurting" Racists and Communists. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Does not meet the criteria listed under Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. In addition, why are the nominator's personal attacks still on this page? Guettarda 04:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    Yes it violates WP:NOT is not a soapbox, as well as no original research. Klonimus 05:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Controversy is not a good reason to delete an article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-NPOV and unencyclopedic in intent. --TJive 05:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with State terrorism, again. El_C 06:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Surprise surprise, a KNOWN AND OPEN COMMUNIST wanting to keep the article. Who woulda guessed? -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
      • �`אמת, מי El_C 19:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the troll nominator. Let the article cool for a month and if someone with credibility who can defend the nomination appropriately wants to renominate it, reopen the discussion. This is going to go nowhere because whether the outcome of this VfD is delete or keep it will be for all the wrong reasons. -EDM 06:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Again, POV or lack there of is not grounds for deletion, only editing. --LouieS 06:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree entirely with EDM. The personal attacks on this page make it difficult to reach a reasonable consensus--Porturology 06:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Ruy Lopez 06:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep calling a well respected user like Mustafaa a racist is indicative of the nominators extreme POV, and inappropriate views. ~~~~ 07:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Barring the nominator's user name, I think the article should be kept, but a rename sounds good. The word "terrorist" by itself is breaking NPOV - what you might call a terrorist, I or others will call them freedom fighters, or vice versa. The new title, IMHO, should be Violence committed by Israel. Plus, it could be hard to merge this article into State terrorism, since some of the acts committed by Israelis were not under the direction of the Israeli Government or, as pointed out, retaliation against attacks from the groups residing in the West Bank and Gaza. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. We can't delete articles just because someone doesn't like them. The article is perfectly NPOV and represents all points of view fairly. Besides, the claim that there is a 'popular consensus in the real world that accusations against Israel are laughable', is... well, laughable. - ulayiti (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Ive addressed this before, please read above before commenting. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Represents views that are held by a notable number of people. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 09:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Remind me WHERE these views are held by a notable number of people? Outside of California and NY and other filthy overcrowded inner-cities such as that? Have you ever met an American White (we are the majority after all) CITIZEN who holds these views? Didnt think so. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Whoa there. (raises hand) White Kansas American citizen here. I don't know that it's useful to assign right/wrong to the actions of the governments of Israel or Palestine, but to say that we should completely "whitewash" the articles in Wikipedia is downright offensive. ESkog 21:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename to something more neutral. Agentsoo 09:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • How about naming it to something more TRUTHFUL such as "Unverified Racist Accusations Aimed at Jews and Whites, Written By Biased Racist Arab Communists" -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Troll nomination; WP:POINT. Delete it (the nomination, I mean). If this isn't possible (if this VfD must be taken seriously), then keep the article and have it edited as necessary. Nothing obviously wrong with the title, either. -- Hoary 09:52, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Acusing a country as "terrorist" conflicts with NPOV for one. The page requested to be deleted is an excelent example of what wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a soap box. Israel terorises by buldosing palestinian settlemensts? Come on. With that logic I am a terrorist for helping buld a dam. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Haha, exactly friend. Moving dirt, moving "Palestinians", no difference. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia should never reflect the views of people who equate human beings with dirt. Debate over. ESkog 21:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. AFAIK, facts do not necessarily conflict with NPOV. Sam Hocevar 10:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can be couched in weasly language if you want to make it ultra-NPOV. Dunc|☺ 10:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Israeli-Palestinian conflict page. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Stop putting this article up for VFD again and again...Heraclius 14:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Since when did the fact taht an article has been up for VfD before preclude it from being put up again? I feel this is completely legitimate. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Is the parenthetical abuse and cheerleading really necessary TelAvivKid (ProudWHITEIsraeli), or could we please have a fair an civil vote in the spirit of Wikipedia?
      • Comment I doubt User:TelAvivKid is a real Israeli. Considering the hatred most white supremecists have for Jews, and the fact that the families of most Israelis came from the Middle East rather than Europe, I don't think you'd see many racists of this type among real Israelis. My guess is that "TelAvivKid" is a troll or someone trying to smear actual Israelis.

--LouieS 16:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Can somebody please block the damn troll. -EDM 16:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • If you ignore just how damn racist he is, at least he is absurd to the point of humor! --LouieS 17:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
      He's not racist, he's making it up, and doing it poorly. -EDM 21:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - both the article and the troll. I'm no fan of Israel, but calling its actions 'terrorist' is clearly POV (perhaps even mine). An article concering Israeli behavior in the occupied territories etc (which I'm sure we have elsewhere) could discuss how many have spoke of this as state terrorism - but in the title? Inherently POV. --Doc (?) 19:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The title is just dandy, too. —RaD Man (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - The very title is POV (the subject may be worth mentioning in State terrorism and/or IDF, though).--Doron 20:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A better title would be Alleged Israeli atrocities, and it should be moved, but that can be done boldly after appropriate discussion on the Talk page. I am sure we will end up with redirects from "Israeli atrocities", links from the relevant dab pages, and so on, which seems right and proper. Robert A West 20:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Controversial subjects should still be treated in Wikipedia. ESkog 21:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename. I think it's a poorly written article, and poorly titled, but the subject matter is absolutely legit. Nandesuka 22:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Regarding some of the reasons:
    1. "It is inherently biased" -- having a section about Security within Microsoft Windows is not inherently biased, but instead provides a balanced view of the issue-- this page should do the same
    2. "it attacks Jews" -- The page is restricted to actions by the governement of Israel, and is supposed to deal with the "interpretation of israeli policy and action in the past". It has nothing to do with a religion or culture.
    3. "This page has been heavily edited by known anti-Semitic and anti-Caucasian racists" -- You cannot go around making personal attacks in your vfd (calling User: Mustafaa racist, for example).
    4. "despite popular concensus in the real world that accusations against Israel are laughable, these claims have been allowed to remain on Wikipedia" -- this can be added to the page, but I would include some sources because I think this might be contentious.
    5. "The last time it was brought to VfD vote, there was not really a true concensus met and there should be a revote."-- I'm not sure we're looking for consensus, just a majority. Consensus will probably take longer ;)
Given the lack of consensus, I am beginning to think that the title is definitely POV. I would support renaming to "Alleged Israeli state terrorism", or merging with State Terrorism, regardless I think there should be a link to this information from Israel.
MisterSheik 23:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unredeemable POV, soapbox, original research. I would accept an article titled "Israel military action" or similar, or includion of documented information in a violence against civilians article. But this as is will never meet WP guidelines, IMO. DavidH 23:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Which part is original research? :) MisterSheik 23:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to something more neutral, or merge into a more appropriate page. This slop is already covered in excrutiating detail. — RJH 00:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for any of the numerous reasons above. If it can be renamed something more neutral, and the quality improved, all the better. Sabine's Sunbird 01:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article as an editorial soap box and merge salvagable information with state terrorism. There is absolutely no reason that Israel should be singled out because of some warped definition by fringe loonies. Guy Montag 02:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • To clarify my vote last time this came up for VfD, Strong Delete. My rationale? To quote my vote last time: "Merge with State terrorism, and replace this article thereafter with a redirect thereto. This is a contentious topic, and it's patently obvious, unfortunately, that a number of editors are allowing their personal POVs to interfere with their votes on this issue. Until Iranian terrorism, Iraqi terrorism (which is currently a redirect to the anti-"Freedom coalition" nonsense going on in Iraq, rather than what would be relevent, in keeping with the content of this article (i.e., Israeli terrorism), Yemeni terrorism (or Yemenite terrorism)), Libyan terrorism, Syrian terrorism, Egyptian terrorism and Indonesian terrorism get their own articles, this one is completely unjustified. This is nothing more than POV-pushing, and anyone who votes to keep it belies any claim they make to being a NPOV editor." Tomer TALK 02:54, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. as per Tomer --Eliezer | £�,�åV�,� m�,� å m�,�§§åg�,� 03:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the less inflammatory parts with State terrorism: there might someday be an actual article of this title, but this article in no way, shape, or form is it or evrn the kernel of it. Oh, and censor the confused little troll who nominated it. --Calton | Talk 06:07, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: User:ProudWHITEIsraeli/User:TelAvivKid is a strawman sockpuppet (see the link for further details of what that is). His intent, aside from making Jews and Israelis look bad, is to ensure that this VfD fails. Jayjg (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's the kind of thing User:Alberuni would do, who's also from Atlanta, Georgia. It must have killed him to make all those spelling mistakes on purpose. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:26, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Er, why would he start it in the first place if he wanted it to fail? - ulayiti (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
For a laugh. And by being obnoxious, he's hoping people will vote for the article as a vote against him. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:16, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Is there any specific user whose sockpuppet he is accused of being? I'll admit to not being too familiar with the "whites and Jews unite" racial supremacist theory, but then again this is the internets, to paraphrase a quote. --TJive 21:27, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's probably banned user Alberuni, who likes nothing better than to cause trouble for Israel and Jews in general. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:37, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • I assumed that it was just an under-educated Israeli adolescent who doesn't realize how dumb he comes off claiming to be a proud "White" when in many places in the world Jews aren't consider "white" or "caucasian" (an inherent misnomer.) Sadly, Israelis can be prejudicial and racist against their own; within Israel there's still residual devisiveness between Ashkanazim (European Jews) and Sefardim (generally, non-European Jews), although that's disappearing in favor of prejudice against "new" immigrants from former Soviet states and (particularly) those from Ethiopia (Falasha). Whatever this user's personal racist beliefs, they should not form the reason to vote for/against deletion. The article should be judged on its own merits, or lack thereof. (However, I would point out to TelAvivKid that arguing about others' votes makes his/her case unsympathetic.) --LeFlyman 17:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, he wanted you to assume it was an "under-educated Israeli adolescent". In fact, it was a strawman sockpuppet of an American Muslim, and his personal racist beliefs are about Jews. Jayjg (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Is there any proof that it's an American Muslim or are you just blaming people at random?Heraclius 15:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
There are no "fallacies" in casual discussions. This is not a debate (thank God). But the only evidence you have for him being an American Muslim is that the behavior seems like that of User:Alberuni. Looking at his page, I see no evidence of him being an American Muslim.Heraclius 15:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
You see no evidence that Alberuni was an American Muslim? Whatever. Jayjg (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I think what's confusing to the previous commenter (and myself) is the claim that TelAvivKid/ProudWhiteIsraeli is the same person as the banned user, Alberuni. Is there any actual evidence, or just supposition (as stated above, that it's "probably" him) ? --LeFlyman 18:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I have been following it, and it looks like pure conjecture to me that TelAvivKid is in any way firectly related to Alberuni; unless there is something we arent being told. --LouieS 20:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Heraclius and LouieS may have started editing after Alberuni's reign of terror. He was a highly disruptive editor who was running over a dozen sock puppets at one point, deeply anti-Semitic, racist, and abusive. Those on the receiving end of it became familiar with his trademarks, which I won't describe here, but they're evident in this user. If it's not Alberuni, the user has been invited to get in touch to discuss the issue, and I'm sure s/he'll do that if there's been any unfairness. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (pov) merge to Israel and State Terrorism accordingly. DiceDiceBaby 06:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The assassinations belong in State terrorism. The rest of the article duplicates others, or is unsubstantiated filler. --Uncle Bungle 14:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep The title is fine (if you agree that the title Palestinian terrorism is fine). As regards the suggested name change to an apparently less POV title, if this is carried through, then the SAME SHOULD BE DONE WITH Palestinian terrorism. --Mpatel 14:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and ban anyone that puts this up for vfd again anytime soon. --Dv 18:17, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE, doesn't exist.  Grue  19:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The article is POV. PMLF 23:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. If there are POV problems, try the edit button. Shem(talk) 02:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Briangotts (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per MisterSheik. Rename if necessary. Shem(talk) 02:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is an Israeli terrorrism. Not so wide as the Islamic one, although it exists. It's more ponctual. An example? Iztak Rabin was not killed by palestinians. José San Martin 02:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC) (my grandfather was jewish).
The murder of Yitzhak Rabin was an assassination by a politically extreme individual, not a terrorist action by an entire society. There is a vast difference, and claiming this as proof of supposed "Israeli Terrorism" is the logical fallacy known as "guilt by association" -- as well as false premise. Oh and referencing an ancestor as Jewish as somehow relevant to this matter is a form of "Special pleading". --LeFlyman 04:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article, and then merge any still relevant information that is not original research into State Terrorism. Jayjg (talk) 06:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per a good two thirds of the reasons listed above. Junjk 07:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as José San Martin. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or delete all "Xyz terrorism" articles. If wikipedia wants to be in the "terrorism" blame game then it should keep them all, if not then delete them all. Israelis are not the chosen people. --Magabund 19:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Amazingly enough, from what I can tell no other country has a "Country terrorism" article devoted to it. No "American terrorism", "British terrorism", "Chinese terrorism", "Zimbabwean terrorism" etc. I guess, on Wikipedia, Israel is indeed "chosen" for special treatment. Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • "Israeli" does not equal "Jewish". Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are religions; Israel is a multi-religious country. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I think the George Carlin quote fully applies here:"Israeli murderers are called commandos, but Arab murderers are called terrorists".Heraclius 02:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • My comment is unrelated to the one above it.Heraclius 03:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The juxtaposition of Israeli and Arab murderers seems to imply that there are no Arab Israelis, whereas there are over 1,100,000, around a fifth of the population. SlimVirgin <fontcolor="Purple">(talk) 05:20, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the word "Palestinian" would be better, but I wanted to preserve the integrity of the quote.Heraclius 16:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • While I agree with Slim and Jayig; I think its worht noting that perhaps this article is talking about the wrong things. You have to look at the fact that Israel in the not so didtant past sanctioned torture. Beond that, Israeli Tarrorim has a phenomenon is worht mention; that is simply because it exsists in a good portion of people's minds in our world, in needs to be adressed. I think this page addresses it in entirely the worng way. Rahter we should be looking at how and why people came to look at Israeli actions as terrorism in the first place, who those people are and why they came to their conclusions. --LouieS 14:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Louie, fairies exist in the minds of lots of people in the world, but that doesn't make them real. Our policies say we should cite the views of published majority- and significant-minority opinion (not tiny-minority opinion). When I last looked, not a single source was cited, so the article as it stands violates our content policies, and were it to be cleaned up to be in accordance with them, much of its current content would have to be deleted. The point is that it's unfair to single Israel out when there's no article on British terrorism, French terrorism, Italian terrorism, and so on. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not a proponent of the singling out either. I think the solution here is to extend the information relating to other examples of state terrorism. Surely, this would help put things into perspective. This can start by extending the country sections of the State terrorism article -- if a country's section becomes large, a new article should be created. I think the "don't single anyone out" argument should always be dealt with by extending the information that we represent rather than removing information. Should we not have created an article on Windows until we have Linux? The detractors can add balance by adding information rather than removing it.
Regarding sources, we already have a number of sources at the bottom of the page and in the text. I think that regardless of your viewpoint, the notability of the article is evident given the sources and the surrounding debate. We have an article on Sasquatch -- doesn't mean he exists :). MisterSheik 17:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename or Move - Including the word "terrorism" is inherently POV, likewise all other articles whose titles inclde the word. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:59, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. as per Tomer -- Mario 17:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: First off this is TelAvivKid/ProudWHITEIsraeli, I had to make this account because once again my account was banned (read: censored). This account will probably be banned soon too since SlimVirgin said I can't return until I "prove I am not Alberinu". Right. Well that should be easy :-/. No worries though, I was just on a friends account reading this and decided to answer some questions, Ill probably stop editing after this. First off I am not Alberuni, I dont even know who that is, but if hes anti-Semitic then he deserves to be banned or whatever. For you nosy Commie bastards that want to know more about me, I am in my 20s originally from Tel-Aviv, now living in the United States, HAPPY? I started reading Wiki about 2 months ago and have been especially reading this page until I decided to stand up for Jews everywhere and VfD this POS. I'd just like to say all you a-holes who have accused me of racism while being blind to your own hatred of the White Race, you are truly HYPOCRITES. How come I dont see any articles about how the damn Mexicans are terrorizing the US by coming over here ILLEGALY and lowering our standard of living? How come I dont see any articles on how East Asians are increasinly taking over Slavic lands in Asia ILLEGALLY and IMMORRALY? Huh? Racists. -MissRebelsGuy 22:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Interesting. You first claimed you were originally from Jerusalem.[1] Now you claim you're originally from Tel Aviv. It's hard to keep the story straight, isn't it? Tagid li mashehu, ha'im atah medaber ivrit? Im kein, tichtov mashehu b'ivrit po, bevakahsa. Jayjg (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for all of the reasons others have given above. Much of the content is covered elsewhere, the rest can be merged into other articles (eg State Terrorism etc). The concept of '(insert country here) terrorism' makes little sense anyway, given that terrorism, by definition, is by a non-state actor. Batmanand 23:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as José San Martin. JamesBurns 05:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: ?באמת ישראלי, ולא אלברוני, מה שמך בעברית "ProudWHITEIsraeli" יש לי שאלה...אם אתה ,משתמש Tomer TALK 06:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per excellent points Tomer made on July 31. I also would like to question the authenticity of the nominator. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Viriditas | Talk 10:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Haham hanuka 18:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or move I think that if this is not OK then Palestinian terrorism should be changed as well. MicahMN | Talk 18:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Incognito 21:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. some of the information is noteable and should be merged into other articles (perhaps Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). it doesn't fit the definition of terrorism, however. ObsidianOrder 12:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. JustMe2005 15:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unbehagen 22:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC).