Talk:Palestine Action

You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below.
You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If administrator}}. You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning { display: none; }

Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request

This page is related to a topic subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.)

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a contentious topic.

The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:

All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours (except in limited circumstances)
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)

Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Anti-war

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Freedom of speech

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palestine Low‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology: Social Movements

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the social movements task force.

United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Designation as a terrorist org

I am thinking we could add to the infobox the "Designated as a terrorist group by" United Kingdom

Since the UK designated them as a terrorist org i think adding it to the infobox as has been done with many other articles relating to political movements SylviaComrade (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be added now they have been designated a terror group by the Uk. GothicGolem29 (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is not the danger of pushing this dodgy statement that Wikipedia might be seen as helping to support Govt attempts at conflating acts of relatively minor vandalism with bloody and violent acts of terrorism? Also, are you not concerned that there might soon be no more right to protest in London than there is in Moscow? 2A00:23CC:E914:E801:24B3:E163:85C4:9554 (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a dodgy statement to report a fact and it't a fact the gov designated them. It's also not helping the government to state a fact if people don't see media as helping to support the government by reporting the gov plans to do this why would they with wiki? Besides, Wiki should not not report facts because of what people might think.I am not concerned as I don't think thats going to happen. GothicGolem29 (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, while it is not a questionable to state the facts, is not the view of Govt no more than their own opinion? For just because Starmer consider people protesting against IDF terror bombing to be evil terrorists, should Wikipedia help to maintain such a dangerous and reactionary point of view? 2A00:23CC:E914:E801:3031:5AE8:5A3B:1303 (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Governments opinion it's a legal designation. The designation is not against the group not the general act of protesting for Palestine.Wikipedia should report the fact that they are designated as a terror group thats not maintaining a view it is stating a fact and people can make up their own minds if it is dangerous or reactionary that the gov did this(and I wouldn't necessarily agree with you on that it is either of those things.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, leaving aside the questionable view of the British Government, can you point to an independent legal group that has declared 'Palestine Action to be 'terrorists'? 2A00:23CC:E914:E801:10DF:9C1F:5DB:5A19 (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No but Wiki does not need an independent group to call them terrorists to state that they have been designated by the Uk as a terrorist organisation(and it’s not just the Uk governments view parliament agreed to proscribe them and now it’s the law.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Give that this 1984 style law was rubber-stamped, and put in place with little real debate, would it not be an helpful to state the legal reasoning behind it? 2A00:23CC:E914:E801:C4BD:29A8:3ED4:8277 (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Lords and Commons debated the meassure so there was real deabe. What do you mean by legal reasoning? Do you mean why the government proscribed thm? GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By legal reasoning, I mean: did the Starmer (and his mates) provide sound advice to back up their claims - or did they use dodgy documents to sex up the case again protesters? Given on-going concerns about the legal grounds for this law, should not Wikipedia take care to avoid calling supporters of Palestine Action 'terrorists'? 2A00:23CC:E914:E801:E1AD:2F0C:7D2F:6502 (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They provided reasons for why they designated them like that the group broke into a military base(if thats what you meant advice) weather thats sound or not is something people can decide. I have seen no dodgy documents. Wiki isn't saying supporters are terrorists Wiki is just saying the Uk proscribed them and just because some have concerns based on the legal grounds does not mean Wiki should not report that fact. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although media outlets should report what the Govt claims, should they not avoid giving any impression that they support such reactionary thinking? 2A00:23CC:E914:E801:6139:43F2:6B7E:875 (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is more on what Wiki should do which is report the facts from WP:NPOV rather than what media outlets should do(and I woudn't necessarily call this reactionary.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If reactionary is not the correct word, it could be replaced by 1984 style thinking/mindset. 2A00:23CC:E914:E801:9CBE:69BE:4777:6CE6 (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really am not sure what thinking is class it by but whatever thinking it is Instand by the designation should be mentioned by wiki GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: Please check out the view of the UN on this issue. 2A00:23CC:E914:E801:F966:6687:8CE0:5E4F (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know the UN’s view but the UN taking a view on if proscription is good does not mean we shouldn’t state the fact that it happened. GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations warn against labelling a protest movement as ‘terrorist’

GENEVA – UN experts urged the United Kingdom not to ban the “direct action” group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000.

“We are concerned at the unjustified labelling of a political protest movement as ‘terrorist’,” the experts said. “According to international standards, acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism.”

Could the opinion of the United Nations be use as a new section? 2A00:23CC:E914:E801:F966:6687:8CE0:5E4F (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The UN's section is already referenced under the 'Proscription" section. I don't think it's necessary to put it in a seperate section, as it's already covered under there. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)^talk 08:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Then again, given that it is high profile news, might not a few more lines about the UN's legal opinion be added to the section? (Updated)

2A00:23CC:E914:E801:BDA0:9EED:BF31:35CF (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine Action can now challenge UK ban

Given United Nations concerns about protest group members being called "terrorists", and now the British court giving Palestine Action leave to challenge UK Govt actions, are there not good reasons to have a section within this article about the undermining of civil rights within the United Kingdom? 2A00:23CC:E914:E801:45A1:3D7:C2C6:4ACD (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Group Palestine Action we don't need a whole section on the wider implications about civil rights and if they are undermined(and page article already touches on the criticisms of the order.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about neutrality

This article gives undue weight to Palestine Action’s own framing and language without sufficient attribution or balancing context. It relies heavily on the organisation’s descriptions of its activities (e.g. “non-violent yet disruptive,” “never hurt a human being”) while downplaying or omitting the reasons it was proscribed by the UK government as a terrorist group. This creates a tone that appears sympathetic rather than neutral.

The article does not give equal prominence to the legal and national security concerns raised by the UK government or the nature of the group’s actions, including repeated criminal damage, disruption of military-linked infrastructure, and occupation of premises. These are key to understanding why the group has been subject to legal sanctions, and their omission or minimisation affects the balance of the article.

The use of emotionally charged terms such as “apartheid” and “genocide,” even when attributed, also risks distorting the neutrality of the introduction if not appropriately contextualised or balanced with mainstream perspectives.

I recommend reviewing for tone and due weight under Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy, ensuring it reflects a more balanced summary of both the organisation’s stated goals and the official concerns and legal consequences it has faced. 185.51.172.147 (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]