Talk:Palestinian suicide attacks

== Edit war ==

== Edit war ==

{{disdis

|user1=Ruzhiner

|user2=HHRIA123

}}

This content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_suicide_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=1303577133] is being edit warred over.

This content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_suicide_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=1303577133] is being edit warred over.

:I'm not familiar with [[Assaf Moghadam]], but the article is very heavily reliant on his opinions (particularly in the dubious 72 virgins section). His article also appears to have been created by the sock. In my opinion, this prominence isn't [[WP:DUE]] but maybe Moghadam is more reputable than it appears. [[User:EvansHallBear|EvansHallBear]] ([[User talk:EvansHallBear|talk]]) 03:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not familiar with [[Assaf Moghadam]], but the article is very heavily reliant on his opinions (particularly in the dubious 72 virgins section). His article also appears to have been created by the sock. In my opinion, this prominence isn't [[WP:DUE]] but maybe Moghadam is more reputable than it appears. [[User:EvansHallBear|EvansHallBear]] ([[User talk:EvansHallBear|talk]]) 03:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

:: The cited author says: ''"More important may be the fact that the conflict bears a strong religious dimension, manifested by the fact that the terms Israeli, Jew, and Zionist are used virtually interchangeably. A deep-seated animosity toward Jews seems likely to serve as an additional incentive to commit acts of suicide terrorism."''

:: The cited author says: ''"More important may be the fact that the conflict bears a strong religious dimension, manifested by the fact that the terms Israeli, Jew, and Zionist are used virtually interchangeably. A deep-seated animosity toward Jews seems likely to serve as an additional incentive to commit acts of suicide terrorism."''

:: The sentence is *very* meaningful, since many of the groups and individuals who incite or carry out violence against Israelis do so on the basis of an ideology that conflates Jews, Zionists, and Israelis. This conflation reveals that their motivations are not merely political or anti-Zionist, but rooted in antisemitism. [[User:Rafi Chazon|Rafi Chazon]] ([[User talk:Rafi Chazon|talk]]) 11:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

:: The sentence is *very* meaningful, since many of the groups and individuals who incite or carry out violence against Israelis do so on the basis of an ideology that conflates Jews, Zionists, and Israelis. This conflation reveals that their motivations are not merely political or anti-Zionist, but rooted in antisemitism. [[User:Rafi Chazon|Rafi Chazon]] ([[User talk:Rafi Chazon|talk]]) 11:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC) {{sockvote}} {{small|({{a note}} This account's username was later changed to {{np2|Ruzhiner}}.)}}

:::I rewrote the text to read: Assaf Moghadam{{better source needed}} writes that [[anti-semitism]] "seems likely to serve as an additional incentive." [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 15:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

:::I rewrote the text to read: Assaf Moghadam{{better source needed}} writes that [[anti-semitism]] "seems likely to serve as an additional incentive." [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 15:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

::::That isn't a good presentation of what quote above is saying. You removed word "Zionist", and I don't see any problem with Moghadam as a source that needs such tag after name (looks like a prominent scholar who published in the most reputable publishers around, I see Oxford, Routledge, Harvard, Columbia). Why you added it? I reverted your change, and also the other one where you removed content that is there for long time (not every mention of the virgins thing is Islamophobic if covered in quality sources). We do not delete things from Wikipedia just because we don't like them! Especially on sensitive topics like this, it is important to have neutral editing that keeps balance. [[User:HHRIA123|HHRIA123]] ([[User talk:HHRIA123|talk]]) 18:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

::::That isn't a good presentation of what quote above is saying. You removed word "Zionist", and I don't see any problem with Moghadam as a source that needs such tag after name (looks like a prominent scholar who published in the most reputable publishers around, I see Oxford, Routledge, Harvard, Columbia). Why you added it? I reverted your change, and also the other one where you removed content that is there for long time (not every mention of the virgins thing is Islamophobic if covered in quality sources). We do not delete things from Wikipedia just because we don't like them! Especially on sensitive topics like this, it is important to have neutral editing that keeps balance. [[User:HHRIA123|HHRIA123]] ([[User talk:HHRIA123|talk]]) 18:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

:::::I removed the 72 virgins content, not because I don't like it but because it's [[WP:FRINGE]] as the rest of the section shows. Just because it's published in a RS doesn't make it [[WP:DUE]]. How long the content has been there is irrelevant. The [[WP:ONUS]] for restoring this content is on you. Please self revert and seek consensus before re-including. [[User:EvansHallBear|EvansHallBear]] ([[User talk:EvansHallBear|talk]]) 19:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

:::::I removed the 72 virgins content, not because I don't like it but because it's [[WP:FRINGE]] as the rest of the section shows. Just because it's published in a RS doesn't make it [[WP:DUE]]. How long the content has been there is irrelevant. The [[WP:ONUS]] for restoring this content is on you. Please self revert and seek consensus before re-including. [[User:EvansHallBear|EvansHallBear]] ([[User talk:EvansHallBear|talk]]) 19:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

::::::The 72 virgins content is not something new, it was on article for long time already. Many editors have worked on this page since then, so no, there is no ONUS now to bring back something that was never really gone. People don’t just go through old content and delete it because now they think ONUS is needed. What I found really problematic is that you came after one year and decided to remove it just like that, this looks a lot like [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. Also, [[WP:FRINGE]] doesn't apply just because "rest of section" sounds different. Please read what it says: fringe means something far outside of mainstream or accepted view in the field (so please read policy pages before using them as arguments). Like the examples given in that page [[Holocaust denial]] or [[Moon landing hoax]]. What we have here is quote from reliable scholar in serious source, saying 72 virgins is a motivation. In the past I have seen other academic sources before that also say similar. So this is not fringe idea. Again, we don't remove content just because someone doesn't like it, that’s not how we work here. If you really think this is as fringe as Holocaust denial, then you must prove that. And please remember that even if you find that some scholar disagreeing is not enough to call something fringe (instead we should present their view alongside the current one). [[User:HHRIA123|HHRIA123]] ([[User talk:HHRIA123|talk]]) 19:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

::::::The 72 virgins content is not something new, it was on article for long time already. Many editors have worked on this page since then, so no, there is no ONUS now to bring back something that was never really gone. People don’t just go through old content and delete it because now they think ONUS is needed. What I found really problematic is that you came after one year and decided to remove it just like that, this looks a lot like [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. Also, [[WP:FRINGE]] doesn't apply just because "rest of section" sounds different. Please read what it says: fringe means something far outside of mainstream or accepted view in the field (so please read policy pages before using them as arguments). Like the examples given in that page [[Holocaust denial]] or [[Moon landing hoax]]. What we have here is quote from reliable scholar in serious source, saying 72 virgins is a motivation. In the past I have seen other academic sources before that also say similar. So this is not fringe idea. Again, we don't remove content just because someone doesn't like it, that’s not how we work here. If you really think this is as fringe as Holocaust denial, then you must prove that. And please remember that even if you find that some scholar disagreeing is not enough to call something fringe (instead we should present their view alongside the current one). [[User:HHRIA123|HHRIA123]] ([[User talk:HHRIA123|talk]]) 19:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

:::::::[[WP:BEENHERE]]: {{tq|Any text on any page is subject to change at any time, no matter how long it has been that way. If there is a good reason to remove long-standing text, the length of time it has been there should not be an obstacle.}}

:::::::[[WP:BEENHERE]]: {{tq|Any text on any page is subject to change at any time, no matter how long it has been that way. If there is a good reason to remove long-standing text, the length of time it has been there should not be an obstacle.}}

:::::::We have substantial sources saying that 72 virgins is an [[Islamophobic trope#72 virgins|Islamophobic trope]] and these are the only 2 sources that say this is a motivation. So, yes, this is a fringe theory. [[User:EvansHallBear|EvansHallBear]] ([[User talk:EvansHallBear|talk]]) 19:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

:::::::We have substantial sources saying that 72 virgins is an [[Islamophobic trope#72 virgins|Islamophobic trope]] and these are the only 2 sources that say this is a motivation. So, yes, this is a fringe theory. [[User:EvansHallBear|EvansHallBear]] ([[User talk:EvansHallBear|talk]]) 19:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)