Talk:Palestine Arab Congress

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire 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.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Palestine Mid‑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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

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)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

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

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Second Congress

CED (Concise Oxford Dictionary defines protest when used intransitively as make a protest against an action, proposal etc usually followed by “against” “at” “about” etc. It can also be used transitively sometimes followed by “that” and means “affirm” Thus to “protest the faith of Jesus Christ” means to affirm the truth of that faith. “To protest that Darwin’s theory of Evolution is true,” means exactly that the speaker or writer believes the theory to be valid and accurate. Protest can therefore be positive rather than negative and it seems to me to be dangerous to use a sentence like “He protested abortion” without adding the words “against or “in favour of” after the word protest. Therefore I have changed "protest" in this para to "protest against " as I think this is probably what was meant.Spinney Hill (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Misreporting of Second Congress

"Calls for unity with Syria were dropped, since the area was now under French control; however, unity between Palestine and Syria re-emerging at a later date was not ruled out." Neither source, nor any I can find, suggests that the reason for unity with Syria was dropped was due to the French. The reason that unity with Syria was not ruled out is because the Resolutions did not mention Syria at all. Other than the first seven words, this sentence should be dropped. Mcdruid (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The third congress, right? Regan says "The idea of a Greater Syria was removed from their platform although unity between Palestine and Syria re-emerging at a later date was not ruled out." so we need to remove only "since the area was now under French control".

Done Selfstudier (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources claims it was due to Syria being under the French. Mcdruid (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]