“Palestinian resistance” for advanced Jew-haters

There is an interesting, very very sophisticated discussion, including some “good advice” for disturbers, at Wikipedia about how anti-Semitic mass-murderers may be characterized in Newspeak, given that terrorists may not exist, and, worse, anti-Semitic mass-murderers may not be called “freedom fighters” either [my bold, orthography not mine].

“Some people” here would include Hamas, no? Who have called for the destruction of the state of Israel and the etsablismeent of (all of ) Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital? IronDuke 00:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

On occasion, yes Hamas has said that, though they also have said they would accept a state within the Green line in exchange for a long term truce. [A judenrein state for themselves in lieu of the Jewish State? – RR] Im sure we could find a way to clarify the meaning of what it is they fight for. But that is discussion that is best kept separate from determining how, or whether, to include the word “terrorist”. nableezy – 00:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

we need to stick to the guideline here. per wp:terrorist, the note on this very talkpage says that words like terrorist and freedom fighter are “inherently non-neutral, so they should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article. If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation.” both views (terrorist and resistance) are notable but they need to be attributed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Untwirl (talkcontribs) 02:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

First Israel widthdrew from Gaza, so Hamas is lying about armed resistance. The only reason not to display what Hamas is known most for which is terrorism, is the anti-Isarael bias of some editors and administrators. Tannim1 (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The article already does adhere to WP:TERRORIST; what you are calling for runs afoul of said guideline, which is why some editors object to it. It would also be in your best interests not to characterize other users as “pro-“, “anti-“, etc… i.e. your “the anti-Isarael(sic) bias of some editors and administrators” line. Discuss the topic, not the participants. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For a – haha – even more sophisticated “final clarifying solution” of “the meaning of what it is they fight for” — they: Hamas, as well as they: the illiterate Wikipedians — maybe the latter should now try to refer directly to the “Palestinian Minister of Uncontrollable Rage“, of course “by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation”:

Leave a Reply