Jump to content

Talk:Maxim restaurant suicide bombing

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

Untitled

[edit]

I renamed and refactored this article to focus on the suicide bombing, rather than on the restaurant, since there is not much especially noteworthy about the restaurant other than it being the site of the attack. -- uriber 13:45, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I preferred it at Maxim restaurant - that the noteworthy thing about Maxim's is the suicide bombing doesn't seem a problem with that. Compare Rachel Corrie, not Rachel Corrie's death, despite Corrie being basically only noteworthy for dieing. Does that make sense?
Given that the restaurant "was known for being a symbol of co-existence", I'd like to try to write a little more on that subject at some point, but it is awkward to do so under the current title. Martin 18:10, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree, but please do link your article to this one. Good luck! gidonb 00:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Terrorist

[edit]

Is the word "terrorist" one that is used on Wikipedia? It sounds like a point of view issue. --87.80.140.49 22:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the word "terrorist" MUST be deleted as Wikipedia is a neutral website.

Well, the 9/11 page refers to "terrorist". As long as it's there, it should be here as well. If it is a consistent standard of Wikipedia not to use the term terrorist, I have no problem with that, but that doesn't seem to be the case. user:Sokalite

I agree with IP198 that the use of the word "terrorism"violates WP:WTA#Terrorist.2C_terrorism, and I would prefer to delete it for a more neutral POV, but since there are also articles on Israeli_terrorism#Israel and State terrorism by United States I have to concede the point to Sokalite that it's widely used and I'm not going to revert it.
But if you're going to start down that road, you could apply the term "terrorism" to a lot of people -- Hanadi Jaradat, who blew up the restaurant, and also to to the Israeli Defense Forces, who killed her fiancé, brother and cousin. Nbauman 15:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no longer an article on Israeli terrorism, and the article on State terrorism by United States is disputed. "Terrorism" is widely used and widely disputed and reverted. Nbauman 17:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with a wikipedia-wide ban on "terrorism" as an unusful/NPOV. But this is a minor article which is not the place for this form of debate. If "terrorism" remains in use in the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks but removed here the implication is that those were terrorist attacks while the Maxim bombing wasn't, and this in NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sokalite (talk • contribs) 13:11, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
Would you have any objection if I changed it to read, "Her fiancé, brother and cousin had been killed by the terrorist Israeli Defense Forces"? Nbauman 21:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the US Army or the British Army were refered to in the equivalent articles as terrorist armies, then I would have no problem with that. Sokalite —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:12, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

use of the word terrorist is against policy. See WP:WTA#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter. Sucide bomber is an accurate description of event. IP198 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still basing my standard on the 9/11 article. As long as it says "Terrorist" there, it should say terrorist here. I promise to ascent to the removal of "terrorist" here the second its removed their, but otherwise the implication is that Atta was a terrorist and Jaadat wasn't. Sokalite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokalite (talk • contribs) 06:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think whether we call the terrorist a terrorist or not should be discussed. Otherwise we're just in an endless circle of changing and rechanging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokalite (talk • contribs) 05:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term terrorist violates wp:wta. That's clear. The examples of use of the word "terrorist" in wp that you gave have been reverted, except for the 9/11 article where it is currently under debate. So the only support you have for your position is the 9/11 article, which is disputed.
As you can see from the above discussion, I was ready to concede the point because there was an article on Israeli terrorism. But that article has been deleted, so your argument doesn't hold up. WP rarely refers to people as "terrorists." It's not fair or NPOV to refer to Palestinians as "terrorists" when not using that term for the IDF when they engage in equivalently illegal activities.
The Israeli government makes a point of calling Palestinians "terrorist", so when you do too you are adopting the Israeli government's political perspective.
Your use of the word "terrorism" is your own POV, and wp:or. You have no source for that word except the Israeli government's statements.
If you're going to call Jardat a terrorist, then you should also call the IDF soldiers who murdered her brother and cousin terrorists too. This would be one of the few WP articles that uses the word "terrorist", so it doesn't matter what they call the British army. (And articles do use the term to describe the American army, although that's disputed too.)
If you keep insisting, and we can't get consensus, let's go through the WP dispute resolution process. Nbauman 14:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm following standard practice by looking at how these things are done on the more prominent wikipedia articles, such as the 9/11 and 7/7 ones. I'm not familiar with the WP dispute mechanism, if you'll enlighten me on it I'm sure we can approach it. Until such a dispute mechanism is in place, I'll follow common use as in the 7/7 and 9/11 articles.
I don't think the term terrorist applies to a state army anyway. I think terrorism refers specifically to sub-state organization. For an army, the equivalent action would be properly termed a "war crime". Another different is that the killing of civilian by Hamas or Al Qaeda is intentional, while that by the US or Israeli armies is collateral.
Even if you don't accept my terminology, I'm still following general use because the 9/11 article does not refer to the US led coalition attacking Iraq and afghanistan as "terrorist" coalition or "terrorist" forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokalite (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's at WP:DR Nbauman 03:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Maxim restaurant suicide bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maxim_restaurant_suicide_bombing&oldid=1252286856"