Jump to content

Talk:King David Hotel bombing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeKing David Hotel bombing was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 13, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 22, 2004, July 22, 2005, July 22, 2006, July 22, 2007, and July 22, 2010.


"Warnings" subsection

[edit]

Someone with authority to edit this article certainly needs to fix the link to "Palestine Post" in this subsection as it links not to the predecessor paper to The Jerusalem Post but rather to the current postal organisation servicing The Territories. This is a fairly egregious error. 72.105.77.191 (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Zerotalk 03:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2022

[edit]

Add this to the category of Attacks on buildings and structures in Jerusalem as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Attacks_on_buildings_and_structures_in_Jerusalem HistoryResearcher101 (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, don't see a reason why not. Done. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Terrorist attack"?

[edit]

"The King David Hotel bombing was a terrorist attack"? From past discussions in Wikipedia I was told that the official policy of Wikipedia is not to take sides and identify an attack or organization as terroristic, which is why Hamas and Second Intifada are not classified as such. Is there an explanation for these double standards? 2A00:A040:197:1220:9095:D57C:54E5:D02F (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of those pages make reference to terrorism, so I'm not sure where this double standard claim is coming from. However, in this particular instances, the terroristic nature of the act is particularly well attested in reliable sources, our go-to, including tertiary ones such as the Encyclopedia of terrorism. This page also has a section that explains at length why the act was considered terroristic, alongside Irgun itself, which was condemned by all the authorities involved. "Irgun was branded a terrorist organisation by Britain, the 1946 Zionist Congress and the Jewish Agency." Iskandar323 (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of attacks are called terrorist attacks on WP, so you are mistaken (just for example, Afula mall bombing, but lots more). The Second Intifada wasnt a terrorist attack, and the views on Hamas are wider than "terroristic". nableezy - 14:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend taking a look at this article's talkpage archives.     ←   ZScarpia   19:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]