Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Proposed merger of pages within this wikiproject

This talk page is being used primarily to discuss article issues. Therefore I suggest we merge it with Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues which are used less frequently. Any comments? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

After two weeks' silence, I will BEBOLD. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I think I actually created the second page shown above. thanks for this idea! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–present) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–present) to be moved to Israeli–Palestinian unrest (2015–present). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–present) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–present) to be moved to Israeli–Palestinian unrest (2015–present). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Changes in last 2 years

Hi @HG1: since you were the founder of this wikiproject, I wanted to say hi and ask if you had seen the various changes made to the project since April 2014. The main changes are to the purpose/goals section, the collaboration section, some formatting improvements, and the consolidation and archiving of most of the sub-pages which have not been used for a number of years. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Oncenawhile:, sorry, I really haven't paid attention to the project since I've backed away from my WP editing. Do you feel it's improved? Has there been progress in keeping editing conversations (on WP) civil and construction? Cheers, HG1 (not using auto sign-off, it seems to not work right)

ARBPIA articles

Per this edit, I intend to add all WP:ARBPIA articles into the scope of this project. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal to fix a long term structural problem in Palestine Israel conflict articles

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The proposal did not achieve consensus. --GRuban (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on three related proposals below which are intended to fix a long running structural problem. Currently we have three primary articles on this conflict of which the two main ones (a) cover two separate strands of the conflict, so neither provides a thorough overview, (b) begin in 1948 on the creation of Israel as opposed to the actual beginning of the conflict in 1917-1920, and (c) exclude certain facets of the conflict such as the Iranian involvement. The three proposals below will solve this problem for good. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Israel Palestine conflict - a new entry-level article giving an overview of the conflict from 1920 to today. Each section will have a "main article" subheader to link to the various subtopics. There is no need to create new content - the content will come from a variety of existing articles (particularly those in the extended content box point d. below). The rationale and scholarly support for the name is in extended content box point b. below
2. Existing Israeli Palestinian conflict article to be renamed Israeli Palestinian conflict (1948 to present) to reflect its scope more accurately, and to avoid confusion with the new main article
3. Existing Arab Israeli conflict article to be renamed Arab Israeli wars (1948 to 2006): The use of "wars" follows Encyclopaedia Britannica. It has the benefit of being more representative of the content of the article, and avoids confusion with the term "Arab-Israel conflict" which is frequently used in scholarly literature as an all-encompassing title for all events between 1880s-present (see sources in the extended content box b. below)
Supporting links and sources for discussion

a. Current three primary articles

b. Naming

Naming the conflict by its participants, i.e. "Arab-Israeli" or "Israeli-Palestinian", can be problematic and limiting in scope, consistent with consensus of previous wikipedia discussions. Previous consensus has been that since the term "Israeli" did not exist before 1948, an article with Israeli in the title cannot be used for the wider history including that prior to 1948. Prior to 1948, both primary participants in the conflict lived in Palestine and were "Palestinians". Hence those scholars who have commented directly on the naming issue have concluded that "Israel Palestine conflict", i.e. naming the conflict by the names of the land itself rather than the participants, is the most inclusive term:

  • Neil Caplan (19 September 2011). The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Contested Histories. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 20–. ISBN 978-1-4443-5786-8.: "The conflict analyzed in these pages has been described variously as the “Jewish–Arab” conflict, the “Zionist–Arab” conflict, the “Arab–Israeli” conflict, and the “Israeli–Palestinian” conflict.... The “Arab–Israeli” conflict—perhaps the most commonly used of all these various titles—is in many ways an apt name for the territorial and political dispute since 1948 between the state of Israel, on the one hand, and the twenty or so states that consider themselves to be Arab, on the other.... [However,] it may lead to the erroneous notion that the conflict began in 1948 with the creation of Israel, ignoring at least half a century of a pre-existing Zionist–Arab and Zionist–Palestinian dispute. Also misleading is the notion that the Arab world is a single entity that displays uniform attitudes and policies vis-à-vis Jews, Zionism, and/or Israel... it is misleading to suggest that the Arabs, as a single unit, constitute one of the two antagonists in the Arab–Israeli conflict.... In this book we retain the latter two ways of naming the conflict, using the common and convenient Arab–Israeli conflict to denote and include its wider regional dimensions, while referring to the Palestinian–Israeli conflict when focusing on its core and its two main protagonists. This way of defining the conflict and its protagonists, it should be pointed out, is hotly challenged by some, especially right-wing Israelis and Zionists."
  • Alan Dowty (2008). Israel/Palestine. Polity. ISBN 978-0-7456-4243-7.: "There is another problem with the label. Although the clash between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs is the core of the conflict, the involvement of neighboring Arab states after the emergence of Israel in 1948 expanded the confrontation into an "Arab-Israeli" conflict... The label "Arab-Israeli conflict" is still more common, even though Palestinians have reclaimed their previous position as Israel's major antagonists, and Arab states have to some extent disengaged (Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel). Given this re-emergence of the core conflict and the Palestinians as core actors, we will focus on "Israel/Palestine," while not overlooking the historical importance and current role of Arab nations."
  • Gelvin, James L. The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War (Cambridge University Press, 2005), chapter 8 is called the "Arab-Israeli conflict"
  • Britannica article Arab-Israeli wars which may be a better name for our Arab-Israeli conflict article, in order to avoid confusion with the wider conflict

c. Starting date for the conflict

The consensus of previous discussions, linked above, is that our article Arab-Israeli conflict begins with the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948, and our article Israeli Palestinian conflict begins with the Palestinian fedayeen attacks in 1948-49. The vast majority of books providing an overview of the conflict as a whole begin in 1917 or before (with historical context from the late 19th century). For example:

  • Neil Caplan (19 September 2011). The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Contested Histories. John Wiley & Sons. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-4443-5786-8.: "A more complex historiographical issue is ones choice of a starting date of the conflict, the selection of its major turning points and its periodization. Some may wish to start with the Biblical antecedents of the conflict (Isaac and Ishmael sons of Abraham, as progenitors of todays Israel and the Arabs)-reflecting a belief that we are dealing with a primordial and eternal clash with supenatural overtones. In the pages that follow we choose instead to begin our examination of the evolving dispute with the first modern Zionist immigrants to and settlements in Ottoman Palestine in 1882 - reflecting the altogether different view that this dispute is a human product of historical and social forces that were unleashed in a particular place and at a particular time. This, indeed, is the timeframe adopted by most historians of the conflict and Part II of this book will unfurl the events of the last 130 years of conflict. It should be noted however that some critics have argued that this choice of periodization unduly sharpens our sense of the antagonism between the parties by ignoring centuries of earlier Jewish-Muslim and Arab-Jewish amity and collaboration, before the divisions and disputes brought about in the age of nationalism and colonialisms.."
  • Shared Histories: A Palestinian-Israeli Dialogue. Left Coast Press. 2005. p. 298. ISBN 9781598740134. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help), page vii, "100-year-long conflict"
  • Morris, Benny. Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist–Arab Conflict, 1881–2001 (Vintage Books, 2001), ISBN 0-679-74475-4
  • Ann Mosely Lesch; Dan Tschirgi (1 January 1998). Origins and Development of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-29970-4., p xiv "The reader will find excerpts from a large number of documents that mark critical moments in the Arab-Israeli conflict. They range from the Basel Declaration at the founding conference of the World Zionist Organization and the Balfour ..."; p5 "The Arab-Israeli conflict originated in the contest among European powers to control the Arab territories of the Ottoman Empire."
  • Gelvin, James L. The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War (Cambridge University Press, 2005), subtitle is "One Hundred Years of War"
  • Bernard Reich (1995). Arab-Israeli conflict and conciliation: a documentary history. Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-29856-1., p1, "The Arab-Israeli conflict... has existed for more than a century"
  • Rubenberg, Cheryl A., ed. Encyclopedia of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2008, P80 of volume 1, entry for "Arab-Palestinian-Israeli Conflict" has 23 sub-entries, of which the first is the 1920 Nebi Musa Riots

d. Other relevant existing articles and wikipedia pages

e. Precedent long term modern conflict articles:

These articles are useful as references for what an entry level article on a long term / multi-faceted modern conflict might look like

f. Relevant sources

g. Recent Discussions

When viewed from the perspective of the conflict as a whole, the "Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine" is not background but a key phase of the conflict itself. That is how scholars treat it.
On Israel not existing before 1948, sure, but Palestine did. Hence the title is inclusive, and that's why it is supported by the scholars in the box above.
We need a single article bringing this all together. All other major conflicts have one. Why should this conflict be spread out and disjointed in wikipedia?
Oncenawhile (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Alternative suggestion If you want an wider scope article, then I would say create Arab–Jewish conflict in the Middle East, which could cover the whole history of violence between the two groups in the former Mandate territory, not just post-1920 (which seems a little arbitrary), as well as violence between the populations in countries such as Iraq and Egypt. This could then link to the various historical and geographical conflicts, and would be a wider discussion of the whole issue. Number 57 23:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Wykx and #57 that the current articles cover the issue properly, and that pre-1948 it would be inappropriate to use "Israel". I disagree with 57's suggestion to create an Arab-Jewish conflict article, considering that outside of the Arab-Israeli conflict, any Arab-Jewish conflict in the Middle East is completely one sided. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment A recent article written in The Guardian by Jimbo Wales mentioned this wikiproject. In doing so, it also inadvertently highlighted the reason I remain convinced we need a top level article for this subject. Jimbo wrote: "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict began in the mid-20th century as a dispute over territory, identity and sovereignty." It seems that even our fearless leader has been misled by the confusing structure of our articles into thinking that the overall conflict began in the mid-20th century. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
This notion is absolutely correct - Israeli-Palestinian conflict couldn't exist when State of Israel didn't exist. Previously there was Jew-Arab conflict in Palestine. “WarKosign” 18:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course, but your response is missing the wood for the trees. Jimmy wrote "began in the mid-20th century as a dispute over territory, identity and sovereignty". That is nonsense. The "dispute over territory, identity and sovereignty" began in 1917-20, and arguably before. He was clearly talking about the whole conflict, but we don't have an article on that. Exactly what one should call the overall topic, given the problem you correctly raise, has been considered by scholars as quoted in the box above. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any problem. Israeli–Palestinian conflict began in 1948, which is certainly mid-20th century. The article says that the term is sometimes used to refer also to earlier Sectarian conflict in Mandatory Palestine. Your proposal to shift articles so Israeli–Palestinian conflict covers both reflects this usage, but we agreed that it creates anachronism. Overview of both is mostly of historic value, and is already covered by History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. “WarKosign” 10:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi WarKosign, the IPC article also says that the IPC is part of the AIC, creating confusion. My proposal is NOT to shift articles, but to create a new one. That new article is not to be named "IsraelI-PalestinIAN conflict" but "Israel Palestine conflict", following the usage of Caplan, Dowty and Gelvin in box b above. In other words, instead of referring to the peoples in the fight, it refers to the name of the land, giving both possible names. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
As to your final point, please see box d above - particularly that "History of xxx War" articles are unusual in wikipedia, such that there is no History of World War I, History of World War II, History of the American Revolutionary War, History of the Napoleonic Wars, History of the Iraq War etc. So your point on History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is right, and with a different name, and a little restructuring, it could function as this new "parent" article. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Oncenawhile: The distinction between people and lands is a very fine point that most readers would miss. A good title for the parent article should make it obvious that it covers the conflict as the whole. "Territorial conflict between Jews and Arabs in Mandatory Palestine, Israel and Palestinian Territories" ? It would not cover pre-1920 events, which may also be relevant. “WarKosign” 12:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi WarKosign, that proposal is certainly precise but would fail the remaining 4 WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.
I agree it is critical to avoid confusion. What do you think of the simultaneous renaming the existing IPC and AIC articles to: "IPC (1948 to present)" and "AIW (1948 to 2006)"?
Oncenawhile (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Oncenawhile: Having both IPC and IPC (1948 to present) would be confusing. Also, why is AIW limited to 2006 ? Currently Arab Israeli conflict covers at least 3 notable events in the last decade. “WarKosign” 14:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
With an appropriate introduction, and clear hatnoting, we could avoid confusion and create a significant improvement on what we have today.
Re AIW, 2006 was the last time there was a war between Israel and an external Arab country. That is how the AIC article lead is currently scoped. I'm not sure there is any other way to differentiate it. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a lurker here, wanting to point to the first article in the current issue of American Historical Review that points out that "Jew-Arab" is a false dichotomy because "Jews" are a religion but "Arab" is an ethnicity. Additionally, this article (which I don't have at hand) cites other sources in pointing out that the conflict goes back at least to the 1880s. - kosboot (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
It's more complicated than that. See Who is a Jew?. There are many definitions, and according to some of them Jewish people or Hebrews are a nation, regardless of their religion. Similarly Israel's definition as Jewish state can be understood as state of Jewish people or state of Judaism, depending on one's position on Religious relations in Israel. “WarKosign” 19:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - any new article on this topic is redundant and i fail to see any logic in Oncenawhile proposal. There is not point to invent or synthesize beyond what is more or less clearly described or / and further duplicate existing material. If anything, we should strive to reduce the number of articles on this over-chewed relatively minor conflict (yes - it is not a major conflict, unlike what some people think) and not make it the crown topic of wikipedia. There are much more important things to deal in Mid-East geopolitics, but some editors are forever stuck in 1940s, keeping to create articles like it is a present topic, which is their right of course, but there is also some kind of line to be drawn. I will personally begin a merge and delete series of discussions to reduce the huge amount of copy-paste duplicated material in this area.GreyShark (dibra) 18:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Oncenawhile: propose to begin with merging History of the Arab-Israeli conflict and History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles into parallel timeline articles to make consistent with the rest of Wiki and reduce doublicity. I understand that we can agree on this at least.GreyShark (dibra) 18:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Probably Template:Arab–Israeli conflict (topics) and Template:Arab–Israeli conflict are an easy merge as well.GreyShark (dibra) 18:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The Israeli-Palestinian conflict main phase took place from 1964 to 1993 (PLO activity); there was another eruption with PLO in 2000-2005 uprising and that is it. Since then only Islamist Palestinian groups battle Israel. The 2006 war of Hezbollah with Israel is completely unrelated to Arab-Israeli conflict (which is technically over), but rather to the proxy conflict of Israel with Iran (ongoing since about 2005/6).GreyShark (dibra) 18:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support this effort to organize our information and presentation of this content more concretely and efficiently. I would further suggest that article #1 have another paragraph added to the background section providing links to content on this topic prior to 1920. Called by bot. -Darouet (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Terminology question

There is a RfC at Talk:Mohamed_Hadid#Request_for_comment, that participants may be able to help with, as well as perhaps clarifying policy with regard to the underlying question. Mohamed Hadid was born in Nazareth in 1948, months before it became part of Israel. Should his place of birth be referred to as:

  1. Nazareth, Mandatory Palestine
  2. Nazareth, Israel
  3. Nazareth, Mandatory Palestine (now Israel)

Any input would be appreciated. Edwardx (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the best place to reply would be on the RfC page and not here, to avoid duplicate discussion. “WarKosign” 18:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. My apologies for not making that clear. Edwardx (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian sovereignty question

There is an Rfc at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#Survey Reboot which needs attention from experts and professionals alike. The dispute is whether or not the Palestinian National Authority (aka Palestine, although rebranded) should be considered a sovereign state on par with Pakistan, Jordan, and of course Israel, et al. Input is welcome.--Neve–selbert 17:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania Posters

Please see a draft poster for Italy Wikimania at [1].

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Reading that Guardian article, it's obvious Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) doesn't edit in this topic area. Luckily for him and the WMF the Guardian didn't decide to investigate his claims. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
What do you disagree with? Oncenawhile (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Since the RFC above did not achieve consensus to for a new article bring together the three key articles of the overall conflict, I have instead created a disambiguation page at Israel Palestine conflict. Any comments appreciated. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

SodaStream

I've posted the following in the Village Pump, and was made aware that perhaps this should be here too

The article on SodaStream keeps pressing that they employ 500 Palestinians, and they mention more than once how the company had to let go of them because they had to move the factory from Ma'ale Adumim in the West Bank after boycotts.

The whole tone of the article is biased, it quotes the people, and states the facts that help its case in regards to the Palestinian land situation & the controversy that surrounded it and led to the move in the end.

I find it biased to keep mentioning that they employed 500 Palestinians (and not mentioning other employees, which include Jewish Israelis, and Palestinian-Israelis) without mentioning what the same process might have done to other workers. They also mention that they are expected to employ Bedouins (who are in fact Israeli citizens) in an upcoming plant.

I'm requesting a neutral-party reading of the article. And I need more details on this particular situation (reporting only the facts that give a good image, but not all the facts or the ones related to it), vis-a-vis Wikipedia's editing policy (WP:SOAP, WP:NPV). I'm also asking if the way it's written warrants a {{advert}}, or if it reads like it was written by a PR firm to present a better public image as means of damage control after the controversies and boycotts. ¬Hexafluoride (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration 100 - a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"?

I've opened a peer review here because I'd like to bring the article to Featured Article status prior to the 100th anniversary next year. By far the most challenging FA criteria is to ensure that the article represents a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" (WP:FACR 1.c.), so this is the focus of the peer review.

Please could all editors who are familiar with the scholarship surrounding the Balfour Declaration kindly provide their input?

Oncenawhile (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

AN/I

For some reason, all(?) most(?) members of Wikimedia Israel have heard of the discussion here, but no-one from "the other side"? More eyes are needed. Huldra (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I'll check it out. “WarKosign” 11:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Israeli disengagement from Gaza

There is a dispute over at Israeli disengagement from Gaza over the inclusion of a statement on the stated motives in the lede of that article. See talk page: Talk:Israeli disengagement from Gaza#Stated motives for the disengagement. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles about 1948 war

There's a discussion about three related articles about the 1948 war at WT:WikiProject Israel#1948 war articles. Please join the discussion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Rushing to AE

This is not the first time I see this. Every now and then I notice Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement if getting filled with I/P related users. In the last two days, three users (including myself) were reported there. From my point of view, as well as others who commented on all three complaints, all three were not quite neccessary and were rushed. One of the complaints was actually about a content-dispute while the complaint on me was for violation of 1RR, dispite my self-revert. The third complaint seems to be closed soon as well. You can see that we have a problem here, of rushing to AE. Therefore I asked all users, myself included, to show some maturity and try to solve the problems in the relevent talkpages, even if 1RR is violated. Do not act in a robotic way and rush to AE. It is ok to sometimes ignore someone's violation of 1RR.

Personally, I had a traumatic expiriance of a complaint on me, for a violation of a consensus I didn't make, which led to a week-long discussion, in which I said and did things out of agitation which almost led to my permananet ban from Wikipedia.

Please go to noticeboards only when something drastic happenes, and after an actual discussion, to prevent bad expiriances and to maintain a possitive workplace. Thanks.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Basically, you are asking people to assume good faith. “WarKosign” 07:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me also add, be civil for god sake. We are now having another bitter argument in AE again for civility. It is not that hard to be civil, and the man saying this lives in Israel. In recent days I"ve started loosing faith in some editors here, from all sides of arguments and I am not going to name anyone, but this is really depressing as well as dangerous for the project, as it might cause several users to leave or else be kicked.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles 3

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:
  1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.
  2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles 3

Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The general 1RR restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:

Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles

RfC - Three months in, is the new "gain consensus" ARBPIA requirement working?

I have only become aware of this new rule today (in front of an AE(!)), so have been looking around to see how well it is working. Since we're now three months since the new rule, it would be interesting to get views on whether this change, the first amendment to the 1RR protocal in nine years, has been positive or negative to the I-P editing environment. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Important discussion

...now, on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, Huldra (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

More opinions

...are needed on Talk:2017 Umm al-Hiran attack, Huldra (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration 100 - Request for Comments

Further to the thread above on this topic from this time last year, very significant progress has been made on bringing the Balfour Declaration up to FA quality. The breadth and quality of sourcing has been increased radically, and the topic has had key gaps identified and filled in. The key piece still to fix is the lead, which currently is not representative of the article as a whole.

If this WP:FAR is successful, I believe it will be the first Israel-Palestine related article to reach WP:FA status for seven years, with the previous one being SlimVirgin's nomination of the Muhammad al-Durrah incident in early 2010.

Comments from all interested editors would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Peer review/Balfour Declaration/archive1.

Oncenawhile (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

BDS and antisemitism

Should Category:Antisemitism be applied to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions article? Feel free to join the discussion. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 20:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Marwan Barghouti

Please join the discussion at Talk:Marwan Barghouti#breaking of fast about whether this material belongs in the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Jordan Valley

Please see the discussion on the talkpage here about the scope of the article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on suggested rename of "Energy in the State of Palestine" to "Energy in the Palestinian Territories"

The discussion is here. “WarKosign” 07:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration 100 - Featured Article Candidate

Three months to go until the centenary of the declaration. Per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Balfour Declaration/archive1, this article has now been put up for a featured article review. Comments, suggestions, and help in responding to feedback, would all be appreciated.

As I mentioned above, if this WP:FAR is successful, I believe it will be the first Israel-Palestine related article to reach WP:FA status for more than seven years.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Any further input here would be appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

More opinions....

are needed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Applied_Research_Institute.E2.80.93Jerusalem_.28ARIJ.29_a_WP:RS.3F Huldra (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

AFD

More opinions are needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Reuven Shmerling. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome at a move discussion

Talk:State of Palestine#Requested move 23 October 2017“WarKosign” 06:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il is down

All the http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il links seem to be down for the last few days, the address now redir to http://www.antiquities.org.il.

Does anyone know anything about it?

I don't know if http://www.antiquities.org.il intend to get up all the old http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il links...but most of them are, at least, saved on archive.org.

Sigh, it will be some job moving them all to archive, though: this finds 640 links, Huldra (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone here have any contact with http://www.antiquities.org.il? It would be really useful to know what their plans are....Huldra (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I dropped them a line on their contact us web-form. It probably will come back (possibly elsewhere) - there is a mess in various official Israeli websites due to a "handicap access" regulations for public bodies that has them modifying web-sites with a web-driven handicap assistance widget (quite silly, one would assume whomever needs it has a much better tool installed on his computer) + other modifications to makes sites handicap friendly.Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
They were fast in replying - the antiquities website should be back up next week.Icewhiz (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Icewhiz Thanks! Much appreciated! Huldra (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration 100 - Thank you

Many thanks to all members and followers of this project for helping Balfour Declaration reach WP:TFA on its centenary day. Many editors, from all perspectives and backgrounds, helped develop the article over the last couple of years. And other editors helped simply by standing back and letting the effort succeed - i’m sure it could easily have been sabotaged.

There have been around 200,000 views of the article over the past few days; having the article at such a high quality level should be a good advert for what we can achieve here through collaboration and sharing of different perspectives. Our ability to achieve balance in perhaps the most passionately contested area of world history, in an internet full of partisan echo chambers, should make us all proud.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

More views could be needed

..on the latest Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, Huldra (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfCs

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Queer theory

I think that the section Queer theory#Racialization Outside the US needs attention of this project. It doesn't seem neutral. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC re 1948

Please see the RFC discussion at Talk:1948 Palestine war, the outcome of which may impact the name of 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and 1948 Arab–Israeli War as well. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Siege of Jerusalem (AD 70)

We need more eyes on Siege of Jerusalem (AD 70). A "new" editor moved the article to that title (from Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)) ...claiming talk page consensus. I cannot see such a consensus for the AD title...but I cannot be bothered edit warring about it. Any views? Huldra (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Per MOS:ERA, "Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article". Inside the article I see CE used everywhere except one wikilink to Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC), so I believe the article's title should use the same convention. “WarKosign” 22:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Vote stacking - monitoring proposal

Experienced editors in this area will recognize that there are a broadly stable number of long-term editors working here. Every year, a handful of new long-term editors join the fray.

Despite the success of the WP:ARBPIA3 500/30 restriction, there are still numerous suspected cases of vote-stacking, in which accounts are alleged to have been created, worked up quietly over the 500 edit mark, and then used for vote stacking or edit warring. Sometimes these accounts are unmasked at WP:SPI, but this is not always possible.

Of course, we must always be careful not to bite the genuine newcomers.

I propose that we create a list, historically and ongoing, of these suspected situations. The list would show the incident, the name of the suspected account, and the list of longer-term editors whose edits the account sided with.

This would not be intended to cast guilt on the suspected accounts during some kind of probation period, but rather to allow us to assess whether a pattern exists - specifically whether the suspects tend to support any long-term editors in particular.

Comments here would be appreciated before taking this forward.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Suspected by whom ? How do you define an incident? “WarKosign” 11:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Each to their own. If this is overly prescriptive it will be counterproductive. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Take it to ARBCOM if you want to make such list--Shrike (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, what this place needs is not only some more arcane rules but a list of undesirables as well.
The only way the 500/30 thing can be considered a success is if the point was to limit the number of new editors on the encyclopedia anyone can edit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Shrike and No More Mr Nice Guy: you seem quite defensive about this idea? Onceinawhile (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I defensive about Wikipedia polices what you propose seems to me as violation of WP:POLEMIC that the reason I propose that you ask ARBCOM.--Shrike (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  1. Make it very difficult for new editors to enter a topic area
  2. Create a list of those who make it but disagree with you
  3. ????
  4. Profit
No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@No More Mr Nice Guy: Do you know something about this topic that I don’t? Since the proposed list is explicitly for all editors to build together, what makes you think that a list of possible votestackers would take one side over another? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I was being too cynical. Could you give a few examples you've seen of new editors vote-stacking in your favor? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Now, isn't this objection suspicions ? Maybe we should consider it an incident and add these two to the list once it's created ? (No, I don't really mean it, just showing how such a list can be easily abused). Shrike is right, there is a guideline in place discouraging such lists. “WarKosign” 17:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I suspect the list, if created, will contain every user with more than 500 edits and less than 2000 who participated in more than 2 TP in a "votestacking situation" (what happed to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion?). Will certainly be effective in scaring newbies off talk pages, perhaps increasing edit warring, while perhaps building camaraderie among those named in the list which may foster future Israel Palestine Collaboration between named editors.Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Once, I dont think this is a workable idea. Yes: there are some editors (who have fulfilled the 30/500 requirement) who I strongly suspect are socks (Heh, basically anyone who is "learning the ropes" much faster than I did....). But I dont see how we can avoid that. Of course, I would have preferred some honesty ("Hey, I was an ignoramus/idiot/youngster back in ...., please give me a new chance"), etc....but, hey, this is the internet....As long as we allow anon editing, we will have socks.
I think the 30/500 requirement has vastly improved the situation. At least for me! (I haven't had a rape or death threats for months! It hasn't been this quiet since about 2010...)
I would rather look for cases of blatant hypocrisy....say, when editors vote delete on AfD for the articles on dead from "the other side", referring to WP:MEMORIAL...then start a lot of articles which amply fulfil WP:MEMORIAL about dead from "their own side"....etc, etc, etc. Huldra (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Huldra, I think it would be interesting, but someone would have to maintain such an AfD list. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

RSN re Southern Syria

Thoughts at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Princeton_PhD_re_Southern_Syria would be appreciated.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC

Please see Talk:Jabel_Mukaber#RFC, Huldra (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Translation from French

Two articles needs to be translated from French:

Both authors are used (on Crusader stuff) on en.wp, Huldra (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Translation from German

One article needs to be translated from German:

He is used on Crusader related stuff on en.wp, Huldra (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Caption to be checked for Commons image on Palestinian lynching

File:1st intifada lynching.jpg
Original caption: Palestinian lynched for collaborating with Israel, 1992

Hello,

A Commons user asked for a review of a picture called 1st intifada lynching.jpg , with the following comment on the talk page: "This Image cannot have been taken in 1992, nor can it be during the 1st intifada, although it seems to be taken at almanara/ramallah ; compare with this image, its the same location, showing the same bill board, it shows a car with car plates introduced by the PA (anytime after 1994); and its most probably sometime after 1999 and before araf died in 2004." The image is currently pictured on the following pages : Israeli–Palestinian conflict, First Intifada, Lynching, Palestinian political violence, Collaborationism as well as wikiquote:Lynching and lt:Pirmoji intifada.

Palestinian violence towards alledged collaborators with Israel is a topic of interest, however the objections to current image description seem valid. Does anyone know more, in order to have a more correct dating and description? Place Clichy (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. It is almost certainly a copyvio, and will be deleted. The uploader has had other photos deleted which were alledged to be “own work” but without evidence. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Are talk pages now blocked for IP users in the WP:ARBPIAINTRO ?

Talk:2018_Gaza_border_protests#QUESTION A user imply that an IP can not edit a talk page, Are talk pages banned now for IPs ? 5.144.49.77 (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The policy reads "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." ImTheIP (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Important discussion

..is taking place on Mistake in infobox, and follow up on wikidata, here, Huldra (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Enclave law (Israeli civil law in Israeli controlled portions of the West Bank)

Please could interested editors join the discussion here. The has been an attempt to undermine the article by removing all sources which do not include the specific terminology "enclave", despite the article being about the concept of Israeli civil law in Israeli controlled portions of the West Bank. There aren't enough involved editors to ensure a sensible discussion, so all input is appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

ARBPIA original author rule

Can someone please explain to me the logic of the ARBPIA original author rule ("If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit")? I have found myself at AE for unknowingly tripping it. Now I am trying to make sure I remember it in future, but I can't for the life of me understand what the point of this rule is. What problem was it trying to solve? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Sigh....I suppose I am one (at least partly) to blame for this, as I started this mess, on WP:ARCA. Alas, my intentions were good (me think!!)...during the old system inserting something was not counted towards 1RR, while removing it was. That meant than anyone inserting something (say, something negative about a person, or place) would always win in a one-to-one "fight". My intention was to make it an "equal playing field", so that inserting something also counted towards 1RR. Alas, some arb.com members brought their luggage (from the American politics pages, me believes), thinking that removing any edit warring was the goal; bringing a "consensus required" to the IP pages. (And me, stupidly, did not see that at the time.) One of the consequences was that I was the first to be blocked under the new rules!!...I brought it to WP:ARCA again, where the "consensus required" was removed, but instead they went for the "within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit" option. As I recall, User:Kingsindian, User:Zero0000 and myself strongly argued against counting "within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit", we wanted it to be "within 24 hours of their last edit". (The first option is so much more "gameable", the last is not.) Alas, the "higher powers" chose the first option. Huldra (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
This encourages WP:BRD - if one makes a bold edit and it gets reverted, they need to discuss it rather than re-instate it knowing that the opponent already used up their 1RR quota and would be unable to revert them again. “WarKosign” 22:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, if you insert something, and it is reverted, then having a rule where you cannot insert the same within 24 hrs would do the same: both inserting and reverting it would mean the editors have used up their 24 hour "quota". Huldra (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The advantage about having a 24 hr rule after your own edit (as opposed to 24 hours after your edit has been reverted) is that a you will always know when your last edit to that article was. Seeing when something has been reverted is NOT always that simple (unless all has been reverted), Huldra (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

ARCA

Please see [2] --Shrike (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Infobox settlement#Colour change

Please see Template talk:Infobox settlement#Colour change, Huldra (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

1948: a bipartisan proposal

Please comment here on a bipartisan proposal to help fix the long-running structure/title issue on our articles covering the 1948 war. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The next installment of this discussion is now open at Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war#RfC: Should the three articles have a common prefix?. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:1947–1949_Palestine_war#Agreeing_the_final_stage for the next part of this discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
This is taking a long time. Comments on a new proposal at Talk:1947–1949_Palestine_war#New_plan_to_resolve_this would be appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Please !vote on this discussion about the titles of 1948 articles

Talk:1947–1949_Palestine_war#Vote (after reading Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war/Name)

In short, for more there a decade there is a problem with the titles of three articles: 1947–1949 Palestine war, 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and 1948 Arab–Israeli War.
It was agreed that there is a need for a common prefix for these three articles, and a neutral title should be chosen. Before casting a vote, you are encouraged to donate 10 minutes of your time and read Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war/Name to understand the background of this long discussion. Thanks.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The voting table has now got traction, with 10 participants. I am hopeful that with a few more, we can find a resolution to this decade-old discussion.
Please could you add your vote for all five options there?
Even if you feel this is esoteric, please vote now. We need as many people who are knowledgeable about the conflict to vote here so we can close this debate once and for all.
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:Legality of Israeli settlements

@Shrike and Nableezy: please you either of you help me understand these edits [3][4]? Pinging Shrike because they’re his edits, and Nableezy because he originally pointed me here.[5] Onceinawhile (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

In July 2012 the prior consensus was challenged with a finding of no consensus. That resulted in there both being no consensus for the systematic inclusion of the phrasing to article, but it also found no consensus for the removal of that phrasing from the articles. As the phrasing had already been added to all the relevant articles it had no real practical effect except for some editors being able to put on that page that the discussion has been superseded. As it stands, the prior consensus is still in force as there hasnt been any consensus to change it, but I suppose for the new planned settlement in the Golan there might be some dispute as to including the phrasing. nableezy - 02:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. Shrike, do you agree with Nableezy’s description?
I propose to put a summary of this explanation on the subpage so that subsequent editors can understand this. I’ve been here for a long time but never understood this; we have an obligation to make this type of thing understandable and navigatable for less experienced editors. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Right now regular rules of Wikipedia apply to this text like any other text.So no clarification is needed as the text have no special status --Shrike (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Well it seems it's not that simple. Do you disagree with anything in Nableezy’s post above? Onceinawhile (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Nableezy's post can be summarized in that this is WP:STABLE in most articles - that is not a consensus for anything project wide. There may also ge varying DUE/SYNTH issues on a local article level (e.g. sources not mentioning the location - and/or pre/post dating existence of location.Icewhiz (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, well either way this deserves to be explained simply and centrally for newer editors, so they can understand what the situation is, and what it is not, vis a vis this text which appears across a large number of articles. @Shrike, Nableezy, and Icewhiz: I will have a go at summarizing what you have written here. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
See the new text at WP:Legality of Israeli settlements, for your comment and amendments. I have tried to avoid getting into the above debate as to the technical position of consensus today, instead pointing to WP:CCC. The idea is that the page is a factual unbiased description of fact, simply explaining what new editors will see on various pages and why it is there. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I suggest you roll this back to where it was in Nov 2013. There simply isn't any consensus here. WP:CCC is not relevant (as there is no consensus), and WP:STABLE - well - is just a general principle here. Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The 2013 version is about as helpful as a punch in the head.
It cannot be beyond the wit of man for us to agree a way of explaining this. Is there anything inaccurate or misleading in the version I just drafted?
Onceinawhile (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Onceinawhile (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

note re project

glad to see this project continuing. will try to view more often. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Westbank name guideline

Wasn't there some Westbank guideline page that we should use Westbank and not Judea and Samaria? does anyone remember it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:WESTBANK. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

ARBPIA4

I see that ARBPIA4 has concluded. I did not follow the discussion. Does anyone have a sense of what has changed as a result? I am conscious there may be trip wires that it would be good to be aware of. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Some things:
  • Now there is only one set of rules instead of multiple sets.
  • Now the rules apply also to portions of pages related to the conflict, even if the page as a whole is not.
  • Non-EC editors are not allowed to take part in "AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc"
Zerotalk 14:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Zero. This all seems very sensible. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

“Confiscation” vs. “expropriation”

What terminology should we use? “Land expropriation in the West Bank” is the name of the Wikipedia article...I propose we try to use the term “expropriation” and put “confiscate” in quotations when a source uses that word to highlight the questionable neutrality of that word. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Putting "confiscate" in quotes would be an editorial comment, which is strictly forbidden. Both words are common in sources on the topic, so a general choice can't be made on that basis. I'll note, however, that the argument here is false. There is nothing neutral about "expropriation". Legally it is an action whereby a sovereign power takes property from a private owner to use for a public purpose (see eminent domain). Using it for the West Bank implies that Israel is a sovereign there and not just an occupier. The Hague Conventions, which Israel claims to follow, are very clear that military necessity is the only reason for which an occupier can seize private property. And its choice of word is instructive: Article 46 says "Private property cannot be confiscated." Zerotalk 13:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok. So then can the Wikipedia article be changed from “expropriation” to “confiscation”? It just seems to me (though I could be wrong; I often am) that as an encyclopedia, the word choice should be constant...?

Again, I was only pointing out an inconsistency in terminology.

Seeing as how Israel disputes the assertion that it is an “occupying power” from Israel’s point of view, it seems that The Hague convention would not apply here.

I do not mean to take sides; I only want a decision of consistency in terminology, as vehicles an encyclopedia. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

“Behooves” not “vehicles” lol Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

In the matter of occupation and International law in general, Israel's opinion can be discounted. Start there.Selfstudier (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Isn’t it arbitrary to discount Israel’s view? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

That's why it says in all the articles "Israel disputes this". This verbiage was reached after a lot of centralized discussion apparently. And no, you cannot just say that the US has the same view as Israel (as you have been doing in a number of articles) because it is not at all clear exactly what their position is, they never used to say "illegal" in any case (at least not publicly). And they are still bound by prior UN resolutions that they either signed up to or abstained from until such time as there may be different resolutions or are no longer a member.Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Palestine sovereignty and Israel occupation

If one must be sovereign over territory to be considered a state, then doesn’t that imply there is not an occupation? And if occupied, doesn’t that imply lack of sovereignty?

I think of the Polish government-in-exile during WW2...wouldn’t they have been considered a sovereign government over an occupied state?...but seeing as the Poles didn’t have sovereignty, wouldn’t the state be considered nonexistent during this time period (de facto, not jure). Any information one can point out to me would be beneficial. Thankyou Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

These things are complicated, especially things that begin with "If"; see what you make of Vichy France.Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
What complicates things even further is that alleged occupation happened before the establishment of the so called state. In fact, no sources say that SoP is occupied, only the lands that it claims. It is a sovereign state de-jure without having effective control over the land that it claims. “WarKosign” 05:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
It's not an "alleged" occupation, it has been confirmed time after time, not only by the ICJ but even by the usually compliant Israeli Supreme Court. The argument goes that SoP is a successor state but the argument is abstruse at this point. It's also academic because an occupying power unwilling to recognize its own status clearly has no desire to end its occupation.Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Alleged: "asserted to be true or to exist". Here you are asserting that it's true, hence it is alleged. Many things that are alleged are actually true, and many are not. “WarKosign” 15:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks y’all for information Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Jordanian “rule” vs Israeli “occupation”

Would it be incorrect to characterize the Jordanian rule over the West Bank before formal annexation in 1950 as an “occupation”, seeing as, similar to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, sovereignty had yet to be applied? Just trying to understand, so as to harmonize the terms characterizing the Jordan and Israeli governances during this seemingly similar time. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

See Deir Abu Da’im, for example Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Deir Abu Da’if my apologies Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I assume you read the article Jordanian annexation of the West Bank where you are proposing a page move? The first line of the lead reads "The Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was the occupation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) by Jordan (formerly Transjordan) following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and its subsequent annexation." Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Changes to many pages

@Selfstudier, @Nableezy, @Huldra (is probably dolling for thinking “@“ will rag you like Twitter, but idk)

My proposed changes, before this RFC thing @Levivoch proposed:

(I am fairly certain y’all with agree with the wording from a factual standpoint, albeit you may disagree about deserving to do in here or not.

British Mandate era

During World War I, Ottoman sovereignty ceased and *******INSERT VILLAGE/AREA NAME HERE****** came under British occupation in World War I. Civilian rule began in 1920, although the Mandate for Palestine wasn’t assigned to the British until 1923. *********the Mandate was published in 1922, effective in 1923....also, despite the name, it appears to me that “‘Trans’jordan”, although briefly without a government from 1920-1921, only involved land EAST of the Jordan river, hence not relevant to land east of the River********* Then:

Jordanian era

During the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, *********INSERT VILLAGE/AREA NAME HERE******* came under Jordanian occupation. Remaining under Jordanian control after the 1949 Armistice Agreements, it was annexed by Jordan in 1950, although there was limited international recognition (the United Kingdom, Iraq and Pakistan).Benveniśtî, Eyāl (2004). The international law of occupation. Princeton University Press. p. 108. ISBN 0-691-12130-3. This purported annexation was, however, widely regarded as illegal and void, by the Arab League and others, and was recognized only by Britain, Iraq, and Pakistan.George Washington University. Law School (2005). The George Washington international law review. George Washington University. p. 390. Retrieved 21 December 2010. Jordan's illegal occupation and Annexation of the West BankIt is often stated that Pakistan recognized it as well, but that seems to be incorrect; see S. R. Silverburg, Pakistan and the West Bank: A research note, Middle Eastern Studies, 19:2 (1983) 261–263.

Then:

Post-1967 During the 1967 Six-Day War, *********INSERT VILLAGE/AREA NAME HERE******* came under Israeli occupation, remaining so after the war.

Regarding the proposed additions regarding the British era, I don’t believe anyone will object (I may be mistaken, in which case I apologize).

Regarding the proposed additions/changes regarding the Jordanian era, I quote selfstudier (I don’t know how to make a link to his username; sorry) regarding when a government is characterized as “rule” or “occupation” or “annexation”:

“The first line of the lead (Jordanian annexation of West Bank) reads "The Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was the occupation the of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) by Jordan (formerly Transjordan) following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and its subsequent annexation." Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Jordanian_“rule”_vs_Israeli_“occupation” (IDK how to make hyperlink...I have tried reading wiki how-to articles but I as of now I am still winding up hopelessly flummoxed)

This would harmonize the characterizations of governance between the Jordanian and Israel governances pre-annexation (Israel has of course yet to make an annexation claim, so of course it is an “occupation”; it logically follows then that Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem and the Golan should be termed “annexations”, but I digress...). Also, Jordanian “occupation” of course ceases with annexation, thereafter being characterized as “rule” I suppose.

Then:

Post-1967

Beginning during the Six-Day War in 1967, *******INSERT VILLAGE/AREA NAME HERE******** came and has remained under Israeli occupation.

The reason I emphasize “DURING” in both the Jordanian and Post 1967 sections is because occupation starts “during” not “after” a war/conflict; “during” emphasizes that, I believe.

The reason for the specifics above (including the brief occupations by the British from 1918-1920 and Jordan until 1950) is so that one can track the changes in the governance of the land since 1920.

I didn’t add anything about the 1995 accords because there is usually information regarding that in the article; also I am not knowledgeable enough (hopefully one day I will be).

If there is a different place for me to place this, please let me know on my talk page; for some reason I am not getting alerts when people comment on these pages (I think I tried the “watch page” button...I’ll figure it out eventually, I’m quite hardheaded, thx. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Edit requests Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Zarcademan123456 please add a WP:RfC for each of the issues, ie, one for the British Mandate era, one for Jordanian era, etc. Also: for each issue: please clearly mention the alternative: do editors support version A (which equals xxxxx) or version B (which equals yyyyyyy), thank you, Huldra (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I have spent the past 60 minutes reading these RFC edit request articles, and unfortunately I find myself just as confused as when I started. I know that Wikipedia has a process, and unfortunately I just can't envision myself sucessfully figuring out how to utilize that process. I believe that the proposals I were making were truly in the interests of creating more information at the same time as fair and balanced; hopefully someone can do this RFC for me. If not, not the end of the world. Thanks y'all````

Map change!

If you look at say, the Rockefeller Museum-article, the map in the template:Infobox museum now suddenly includes the whole of East Jerusalem in the Israeli area. How can we change this? Huldra (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The data is taken straight from OpenStreetMap. Someone in OSM has removed the green line from East Jerusalem and from the Golan Heights. Tried to see what's up but the history tool didn't work for some unknown reason.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I have asked here not to link to the map, until we get OpenStreetMap to undo this, Huldra (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
This is where the appropriate history file can be found. I do not know how to use "Osmium" though. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
OK I have found thea related change. It is by zstadler and the changeset was number 81283696, with an edit comment of "Remove disputed and redundant subarea members". Possibly this edit was also related. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
OK maybe it was this edit instead, where the status of the Armistice line Golan Jerusalem was changed from "disputed" to "historic". Need to find the same for Golan. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at OpenStreetMap Wiki. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Once. One alternative (suggested at Template_talk:Infobox_museum#Jerusalem) was to use |map_type=Jerusalem East Central instead, alas, the map it uses is this, which has a lot of Hebrew text. I have asked the original uploader here if it could be changed into one which English text, only.

I think we probably should not be dependent on "outside" sources, such as OpenStreetMap, The East_Jerusalem.png (even with English text) wouldn't be the best, either, perhaps we we should just make out a new map? Huldra (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal by Zarcademan123456

I propose adding the following to many pages regarding Palestinian localities so as to show how the legal status of the land went from Ottoman to British. Right now the articles often only start with “In the 1922 census of Palestine conducted by the British authorities...” without any mention of why the British, and not the Ottomans, are conducting such a survey. For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beit_Jala, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Walaja, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beit_Sahour

British Mandate era

During World War I, Ottoman sovereignty ceased and *******INSERT VILLAGE/AREA NAME HERE****** came under British occupation in World War I. Civilian rule began in 1920, although the Mandate for Palestine wasn’t assigned to the British until 1923.

note to people viewing this RFC, the Mandate was published in 1922, effective in 1923....also, despite the name, it appears to me that “‘Trans’jordan”, although briefly without a government from 1920-1921, only involved land EAST of the Jordan river, hence not relevant to land east of the River — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarcademan123456 (talk • contribs)

I moved this section here from the top of the page, where it had no header. It was posted by Zarcademan123456 on 26 March 2020. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Find a way to solve the issues of Israel vs. Palestine in history

There is a problem, we can't ignore it. There are two articles: History of Israel and History of Palestine. They both contain good information, yet they are split. The Israeli article says in its lead section that it deals with the Land of Israel. The Palestinian article says in its lead section that it deals with the region of Palestine. We can all agree that these two areas overlap each other. What's even worse is that I found out the Israeli article really talks about the history of Jews in the Land of Israel, while the Palestinian article talks about the history of the place in general, with more weight to Muslim periods and from the British period deals mostly with Palestinian history, i.e. the non-Jewish inhabitants of this land.

This, of course, reflects the deep nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the conflicting narratives of the Zionist Jews and the Palestinian Arabs.

In my opinion, these two articles should be merged. Problem is, what will be the name? I thought about merging them under "History of the southern Levant", but I think it doesn't fit right and would have to include Transjordan and Lebanon, which is not what we need. I propose changing it to "History of Israel and Palestine". This will keep the title clear and will draw all readers. The first sentence of the lead section will explain the rest. What do you guys think?. I think that merging these two articles is going to do a lot of good and it is a key to solving a lot of issues in this part of Wikipedia. In my vision, this new article will include all of the information about roughly the territory of Israel and Palestine from the Bronze Age onwards, with a short summary of the prehistoric periods, whose information will be moved to Prehistory of the Levant. The article will also be short about the Mandatory period, as most of this information will move to the Mandatory Palestine article, or to a History of Mandatory Palestine, there is more than enough material for such article. The information about modern Israel and Palestine will be moved to many articles, as the contemporary history of an ongoing conflict is hard to be described in a single article. For that, we could have a History of the State of Israel and we have articles for Palestinians, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian Liberation Organization, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Palestinian refugees etc.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

We have never come close to getting consensus around Holy Land or Southern Levant or any other euphemism. Either they are too religious, too awkward, too unrecognizable or a combination. And often they reflect pro-Israeli attempts to try to hide the historically-correct name Palestine when the name Israel won’t fit.
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Holy Land is not acceptable. Holy Land is a nickname to either Israel or Palestine. If the Christians didn't hate the Jews they would probably call it "Israel" or "Judaea" since this is how the bible calls it. And as for the problem of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
There is an article for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it is linked by all other articles related to it. Maybe a redirect on the top of the article saying "for the article about the conflict see Israeli-Palestinian conflict and problem solved? Either way, if you wanted to read about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but found out the article is about the history of the land, I actually think this is a win-win in our effort to spread human knowledge.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
And I think we can all agree that "History of Israel and Palestine" is not great, but I find it to be the best option we have. I don't want this to end like the 1948 Palestine war, in which everyone agreed there is a problem with the title yet no one could agree on a different title so we stuck up with the old name.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Well I suppose you could throw up the merge tags and see where it goes. I cannot readily see how a 2 millennia gap in the "Israeli" history can be easily dealt with and even passing beyond it there seems a lot of reliance on biblical narrative. I suspect this is likely why we have two articles to start with.Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
There is no gap. There was continuous Israeli presence in the land. “WarKosign” 11:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Israel not= Jews, there was none of the former and relatively few of the latter (there were more elsewhere) in that period. I'm not going to get into an argument over it, put up the tags and see what people think.Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
WarKosign, would you agree to merge these two articles under History of Israel and Palestine to merge the information and then start a new discussion for different potential title?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Bolter21, I would agree to proposed changes if we found a neutral name.History of Israel and Palestine sounds strange to me as we talking about two different entities while in reality we talking about the same thing Shrike (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Sounds strange but this is what is it essentially. There are no other ways to call it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
It is simply Palestine (the place, back to antiquity, at least where I come from). I see why you might want to avoid that but if you can't, then you can't and it will likely just have to stay the way it is now (12 tribes, history of Israel and so on).Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
It is not simply Palestine. The Land of Israel didn't cease to exist when some Roman emperor decided he doesn't like Jews. There's Israel and there's Palestine. It is the same place, stolen from the Canaanites, who post-date some 1 million years of human history in this land who never heard of no Israel nor Palestine. From a historic point of view, both the Israelis and Palestinians are pieces of crap and likely one million years from now they will be as insignificant as some neolithic cultures in the 6th millennium who also lived here and fought over territories and narratives. There are 6 million people who live here and learn the history of their land. There are another 6 million people who live here and learn the history of their land. One calls it Israel one calls it Palestine. There are two national movements in this land and you can't simply remove one of them. Saying "it is only Palestine" is like saying "there was never a state called Palestine and therefore it is Israel". An encyclopedia can't have two articles for the same place.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Bolter21, "stolen from the Canaanites" Do you really believe in Biblical narrative? Shrike (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the state of Palestine, you are talking about the state of Israel. Nor am I trying to remove anything, I said either put up the merge tags and see what happens else just leave it be.Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Fwiw https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Israel "This discussion focuses primarily on the modern state of Israel. For treatment of earlier history and of the country in its regional context, see Palestine, history of." Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Shrike It was a cynical remark and definantly not the biblical narrative. It was meant to show that both the ideas of "Israel" and "Palestine" have no domain over the physical, existing land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. Personally I tend to agree with the minimalist approach to the beginning of Israel. I need a framework to share this knowledge with the world and the framework is a single article about the history of the land I live in, which frankly I care more about than the name people who don't live here give it. I can't write the same information in both articles, but replace the name accordingly, that is ridiculous. Wikipedia should not mirror narrative disputes but go around them and deliver the whole package.
Selfstudier we are not Britannica, it is not a question of sources. I have a huge hardcover book about the history of the Land of Israel from the Paleolithic to the Ottoman rule, talking about essentially everything and not only the Jews. So? Anyway, forgive me for a hostile manner. One of your remarks really annoyed me. I'll add the tags.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I think what Oncenawhile and I share in this opinion is that we see this as a technical move that will allow us to properly doccument all human knowledge about the history of a single place with two names.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes that is right. The name Israel for the land has always been nothing more than an irredentist and exclusionary term by one group laying their claim (“Israel” being the name of a person (Jacob) or a people (the Jewish nation), so Land of Israel means simply “our land”. Of course the land has never in history been 100% Israelite/Jewish). Palestine is the classical name and is thus entirely inclusive. The nonsense about Hadrian changing the name from Judea to Palestine is just that, nonsense (show me the primary evidence if you aren’t convinced).
But Bolter and I agree on the need to be practical here. Israeli-nationalists are not going to agree to a single article named Palestine. So compromise is necessary. Above all, our readers need a single article. Yes that will require an imperfect title. But it is for the greater good.
Onceinawhile (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Sidenote here, offering this title (History of Israel and Palestine), is a betrayal of my national narrative. In my country I will never call it "Palestine", but I respect the reality outside and offer a compromise for the sake of proper historic documentation of a geographic region in which I happen to live. (Before this turns into a WP:POV dispute).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
We already have an article named "History of Palestine" (it's even editable) so it makes no difference to me whether Israeli-nationalists agree and I'm sure they feel exactly the same way.Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
They make up half of this land's population don't you think their opinion should be respected in only the title and have the article simply tell the story of a minor land in the Middle East?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm sure they feel exactly the same way about the History of Israel article (also editable).Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I get where you are coming from, being in the middle of it all, the difficulty is that this is not just a domestic issue and hasn't been since 1947 (or 1917 depending on how you look at these things).Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
You fail to understand the purpose of this merge. Right now there are two articles talking about the same place with somewhat identical content, but one leaning towards the Jewish population and the other leading towards the non-Jewish population. This can't be accepted. It is a single geographic unit and should have a single article. There will be an article for the Land of Israel, article for Palestine (region, and an article for History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. But for the history of the geographic region there will be one article and the most neutral name I can come up with is "History of Israel and Palestine".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Since you have said this twice now, I am going to take a closer look at at the History of Palestine article and see if it is in fact true that the Jews are being elided therefrom.Selfstudier (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Bolter21: I understand the problem, but there is an alternative to the merger of two big articles like that. It is to restrict the scope of History of Israel to the history of the current state of Israel, as the history of the Jews and Judaism in Palestine is already dealt with in History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. T8612 (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Turning "History of Israel" into just the history of the State of Israel makes sense as long as we have the History of Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel, so we kind of cover the entire Jewish part of the land's history. The problem is what shall we do with the History of Palestine article? Is it "just about the land" or is it also about the modern national movement from the 20th century?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
History of Palestine is about what happened on the land since Prehistory. The History of the Palestinian state is dealt with in History of the State of Palestine, which would therefore mirror that of History of Israel (the current state), but on the Palestinian side. T8612 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
This is not what the article says. Neither the Palestinians nor Israelis can deny what happened in the land until the Mamluk period. But if you look closely you will see that in the History of Palestine article, most of the information is centered around the Ottoman and British period, and the section about modern times deals only with the Palestinians.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The article is way too big anyway and should be trimmed. The sections on the British Mandate and the Ottoman period must be shortened. T8612 (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Every few years this issue gets raised. Usually by people like Bolter21 who have never actually researched or edited the History of Israel or the History of Palestine. I believe that Wikipedia should be a vehicle for creating peace and understanding and that we achieve that by providing a space for people to explain who they are. There is no single "universal history" and the assumption that all history is "territorial" is POV. "Israel" is not just a territory, it is also a people, a religion and a nation. The History of Israel reflects that and yes the boundaries between each sphere are unclear because boundaries are not static immoveable objects but constantly changing. The Jews are an unusual people and Israel is an unusual country. Any attempt to tell the history requires a willingness to go beyond a narrow territorial definition while keeping the territory as an anchor. Most importantly there are two states on the territory at the moment with mostly undefined boundaries. The assumption that history can be easily categorized into narrow divisions will never be true, especially not for such a contested space. To say that it is a single country is to ignore reality and to take a political stance which most people reject. By allowing each side space to present their narrative we prevent conflict: Not increase it. If you join the two pages, the result will be an explosion of conflict between different groups of editors and will result in an awful, unreadable, committee written page. It will not further mutual understanding and will simply generate mutual deafness and the erasure of different aspects of history.Telaviv1 (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Telaviv1: you have just described the History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel page, not the History of Israel page. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
If it has been raised before, I would like to see the discussion, might save some time.Selfstudier (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
2012 Hmm, any more? Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Apropos of nothing at all Category:History of Israel & Category:History of Palestine Comparing the two nav templates is also educational.Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Telaviv1, I've never editted the article about the History of Israel simply because it is mostly about Jews in Israel and I have a problem with adding that information to History of Palestine since I know most readers will miss this information. And adding the same information to both articles is ridiculous. And when you have "History of Israel" and "History of Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel" you can infer that Israel is the land and the latter is "a people, a religion and a nation". The purpose of merging both articles it to de-politicize this issue and allow for a proper doccumantion of the history of the land, from the Bronze Age, to Israelites, the Arabs in the 19th century and the Druze state in the Galilee.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
It is worth noting that it was an edit by Telaviv1 which changed the scope of History of Israel from the state to the land. The edit is here. Not only was the edit summary misleading, the edit was made explicitly against consensus (see Talk:History of Israel/Archive 3#Section "Jewish history in Israel". That was all a long time ago, and it stuck. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Yep, and the article's scope was much better before that edit. T8612 (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The two articles on Israel are already big, and a merger seems inadequate. I suggest we return to the situation before this edit and restrict History of Israel to the history of the current state. T8612 (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
But the article of Palestine doesn't really do that. From the Ottoman Period it is mostly about contemporary Palestinian history. And the history of the Israelites, the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, Persian Yehud Medinata province, Hellenistic rule, Hashmonean Dynesty and Jewish revolts against the Roman Empire are very not "Palestine". This is more than 1,500 of Jewish history in the land before it was called "Palestine" by anyone. It is very difficult to write the following "In 166 the Jews of Palestine revolted against Hellenistic rule", or the "Hashmonean dynesty in Palestine". The region cannot be studied under one name. It was Canaan in the Bronze Age, Israel and Judah in the Iron Age, mostly Judah from the Persian to Roman periods and only in the Late Roman Period it was called Palestine by the Roman rulers, but the Jews there continued to fight for independence. The end of the Jews as the main ethnic group in the region occured only in the 4th century CE and from there it could easily be called Palestine with no problem. King Ahab did not rule over Palestine just like Herod didn't rule over Palestine and the reason is because just like "Israel" has national implications, "Palestine" also has national implications and can't simply be treated as "just the name of the land" because it isn't and especially not after more than a century of conflict between Arabs and Jews over this land and the whole idea of its name and history. There is one land and its current inhabitants call it Israel and Palestine, that's the rationale here.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Whilst I continue to agree with your main point, this summary is mostly incorrect. "Hasmonean Palestine" is how scholars refer to it. The Hasmoneans had Hellenistic names spoke Greek. "Judea" was a sub-regional name - its use as the name for the whole region was for a very short amount of time, much much shorter than you write above. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
No you not correct at all. "Hasmonean Judea" have 87 hits [6] while your term has 38 hits [7]--Shrike (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
There are Israeli and Zionist scholars who refer to the Land of Israel as Palestine, since for Jewish scholars, "Palestine" is the English term for "Land of Israel". But these scholars enjoy the privilage of not having to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or with contemporary 21st and 20th century issues. Sadly, we in Wikipedia don't have this privilage, since Wikipedia does not represent a single school of knowledge. Therefore, Onceinawhile, although the name "Palestine" as it appears in articles such as "The Early Bronze IV Period in Northern Palestine and Its Cultural and Chronological Setting" or "New Developments in Greco-Roman Archeology in Palestine" are fine since they are not in a place where the I/P conflict is discussed. As a free Wikipedia we cannot ensure that anyone will try to link the histroy of the land of Palestine with the Palestinian national movement, just like the history of the land is always linked in the Jewish people with too much weight.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Bolter21- I know, that's why 'History of palestine' should be more generic and Israel's history more specific and detailed regarding the Jewish history (which is already the case in the articles about Israel and Jews in the Land of Israel). The distinctive history of the Jews in the region is related to Israel as a Jewish nation state and should not be emitted. It is essential to Israel's historical background, even if we ignore ancient history, how can one learn about Israel without the history of the Yishuv for instance? The current state is a bit complicated but at least balanced and stable (you can see for yourself the controversies it creates). Keep in mind that some may not be concered about the confusion between the articles but simply want all Israel's pre-independence content to be removed for political reasons. Infantom (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I have taken a closer look at the History of Palestine article. That a once ill-defined area called Palestine (I don't see why the "region" bit is even necessary nowadays) has been ruled at different times by different groups is not in dispute. I do not see much evidence of an attempt to erase the Jews and for the Palestinians, in the absence, since 1948, of their own State (of Palestine) their history needs to go in this article at least up to 1988 (or even 2012). Whereas, the Jews now have a different history since 1948 in the state of Israel. The business about linking the State of Israel with a prior Jewish presence in Palestine and attempts to erase Palestinian identity are a function of the conflict rather than a reflection of the actual history. In any case, I see no need to rename the article (it isn't really a merge because frankly, there is a lot of material in the History of Israel article that does not belong there but in History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel).Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. The Iron Age section is interesting but doesn't really tell the history as it just a list of ancient sources that are mostly not the Israelite bible (It is generally accepted that the Bible is not 100% reliable, but who said that Assyrian and Egyptian inscriptions are more or less reliable?). But the main issue is that most of the article actually deals with the Byzantine, Muslim, Crusader and especially the Ottoman period, which are the mian non-Jewish periods of the land. And again I say, it is probably annoying for someone who is not Jewish to hear that, but to a Jewish eye and ear, it impossible to write about the entire sequence of history in this land from stone age to Netanyahu under "Palestine", especially when there a Palestinian movement. Indeed we can call the geographic region "Palestine", but it wasn't always "Palestine" just like it wasn't always "Israel". Therefore I suggest History of Israel and Palestine for the land, History of the State of Israel for the modern state, and we have the article for Palestinians, State of Palestine, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, West Bank, Gaza Strip who well doccument Palestinian national history. Also, I don't think the joined article should deal too much with the British period, since the whole idea of "Palestine" and "Israel" in the 20th century until today is mostly centered around the British territory, so the information could just be a summery of what is already written there.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
As it has been pointed out above, the main problem of these two articles with overlapping material comes from this edit. Before that History of Israel started like this: "The History of Israel refers to the history of Israeli statehood since the country's declaration of independence on May 14, 1948." and the scope was much more appropriate. I suggest we return to this situation. The article History of Palestine could be balanced and talk more about the Jews without involving such a huge and uneasy merger. Bear in mind that this is the English Wikipedia, and most English speakers would think of the current country when they hear Israel, while Palestine is less associated to a specific country. T8612 (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
This poses a problem. The history of the Land of Israel (i.e the history of Palestine) is going to be subjected only to pro-Palestinians, as no Israeli will rationally write about the kingdoms of Israel and Judah under "History of Palestine". If such thing will be done, I will make sure to make sure readers in History of Israel will know about History of Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel (because this is what they search for when thinking about "History of Israel" and even if there will be a link to "History of Palestine" no one will click it and will again have this aparthied and obviously most views will go to the Israeli articles since Israel gets more views and again, two narratives in two sets of articles and no one is willing to edit either unless he wants to contribute to his own national narrative, which I personally don't want to therefore don't edit either article although I have a lot to add from seemingly endless sources of information.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
T8612 puts his finger on it. For equivalence, all of the material currently in History of Palestine should be transferred to the History of the State of Palestine (I am not advocating that).Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Bolter, your "problem" is an exaggeration, there is an article History of ancient Israel and Judah and it is linked from the History of Palestine navbar (I just put that in, I don't know why it wasn't in, was it removed?) If you want to extend a summary of that in the article, I am content to follow WP policies re appropriate sourcing for such material. The lead in general seems more than balanced to me, Israel, Land of Israel, Judah, etc are all getting mentioned and linked there. Again, WP policies are the way to go, I don't see a problem with adding material if it is properly sourced and of an appropriate weight.Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

For the record, the country now known as "Germany" did not exist until 1870ish, while the Hsitory of Germany starts in 750BC. Perhpas you should start by telling the Germans to get rid of their imperialist page? ITaly did not exist until 1861, but its history starts around the same time. "Iraq" was founded by Great Britain in 1922, while the Hisotyr of IRaq starts at around 1600BC. The Hsitory of Egypt starts around 3000BC but there is no real connection ot the modern state, other than archeological. The history of Mexico apparently starts in 1500 BC. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The difference is that there is no other article already dealing with the history of the land of Italy or Germany (cf. History of Palestine), nor an article on the history of the Italians/Germans before the creation of modern Italy/Germany. If you want an article on the history of Israel from ancient history, then you should support the merger of History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel with History of Israel. Currently, we have articles with a lot of overlapping material and this is awkward. T8612 (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah but for Germany there is no other name. It is pretty much "Germany" (equivelent to "Deutschland") since Roman times. Essentially what you offer to to make it like History of Turkey and History of Israel. The problem is that while Turkey can be discussed without the history of the land because it was created in the 1920s and thus "History of Turkey" deals with the modern state, History of the Ottoman Empire deals with the Ottoman period and History of Anatolia deals with everything before. This makes sense becuase the place is known as "Turkey" since the 1920s, it was part of the Ottoman Empire between the until the 13th century, and "Anatolia", a name used mostly in antiquity is great to describe the history before the Ottoman Turks. In Israel and Palestine the situation is different, becuase unlike Turkey, today there are people who claim there is no "Israel" and people who claim there is no "Palestine". Furthermore, unlike Turkey, whose national history really date only as far as the Turkic invasions, the Israeli Jews are and claim to be of this land and the history of the Jews who lived here from the 12th century BCE to Byzantine times and formed a majority here are essentially part of the modern state's history because the Israelis who live here today are decendants of those who lived here 2000 years ago. And since the connection between the Jewish people to this land is eternal, every bit of history in the Land of Israel is significant to the Jews, including the history of non-Jews in this land. "History of Palestine" is unacceptable for this matter, just like "History of Israel" isn't acceptable. Even if you will try to revert Telaviv1's edits from 2011 and make the article on the State of Israel and disconnect the history of the State of Israel from anything prior to the Zionist Movement in the 19th century (which is pretty much a huge WP:POV against Zionism and the State of Israel), it will naturally return becuase you can't disconnect modern Israel from ancient Israel.
What I say, is that in order to baypass the political issue, move the history of the land into a single article, which is probably going to be based on the information from History of Palestine, but with a name that allows for proper doccumentation of each period for 2020 readers and will also make sure that the hard work done in articles such as History of Israel and History of Palestine will actually reach more audiance becuase right now most readers go to History of Israel although there is more information in History of Palestine, and as I've said, me and most other Israeli editors are not going to contribute to an article that describes our home as "Palestine" and while you might think to your self "that's your problem", the readers are those who miss on a lot of informatio they themselves seek to know and it just reduces Wikipedia's reliablity. There is no serious database on the entire sequence of history in the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan that is free to everyone, but the demand is high. People want to know what happend here.
The only other option I see is to just split the history into a bunch of articles, Prehistory -> Prehistory of the Levant, Bronze Age -> Canaan, Iron Age -> History of Ancient Israel and Judah+Philistines, Persian -> Yehud Medinata, Hellenistic -> Hasmonean dynasty, Roman -> Herodian Kingdom of Judea+Herodian tetrarchy+Judea (Roman province)+Syria-Palaestina, Byzantine -> Palaestina Prima+Palaestina Secunda, Early Arab period -> Jund Filastin, Crusader -> Kingdom of Jerusalem, Mamluk period -> ?, Ottoman Period -> Ottoman Syria, British period -> Mandatory Palestine. Can't there be a single article that deals with these all since they are all part of the history of the same place which I like to travel and forgive me, but is not known to the locals "simply as Palestine"?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
This is English Wikipedia and the admittedly Eurocentric/Western tradition is that this place has been called Palestine since antiquity and trying to call it something else is just ridiculous. The "locals" can or have already set up their own WP's and they can go read whatever they want to read on those.Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
You just refuse to call it Israel that's all. Is the European tradition more important than what the actual people who live in this land thing? There are two national movements claiming the same place, Israel and Palestine. So here's the history of Israel and Palestine, as the same place. And frankly speaking the Hebrew Wikipedia actually did an amazing job at writing the entire history of the Land without giving too much weight to the Jewish connection. Since we actually live here and it is in Hebrew there is nothing to prove to anyone so there is no need to talk too much about the Jews. Most of the events that are doccumented in History of Palestine deal with places that are today in Israel and the reason why most Israelis want to doccument the history of the land is not to prove it is ours but becuase we live here and we want to know why there is a Crusader castle inside a Muslim village named after a Jewish town from the 2nd century BC, where traces of human settlement from 9,000 years ago can be found. You say that "This is English Wikipedia and the admittedly Eurocentric/Western tradition is that this place has been called Palestine" but if people didn't have a problem with the existence of Israel you wouldn't mind calling it Israel. The dispute is really not about European traditions it is about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I try to bypass this, you want to enhance it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Israel is Israel, it is a modern state that came into existence in 1948. (See, that was easy, I called what is Israel, Israel). I understand your narrative requires you to try and make the connection between the historical area known as Palestine and Jews and then Israel, the modern state, but that is all it is, a narrative and full of holes at that. A similar kind of thing is attempted with the 47-49 events where that narrative sees 1947 as something to be glossed over. I am not personally bound up in the conflict, I am neither Palestinian/Israeli, nor Arab/Jew and while I have I have a POV certainly, it is not of the type that you are implying. I support the rights of both sides, it is simply that my POV tells me that the rights of one side are being denied far more than the rights of the other.Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
So instead of making one side happy and the other not, make both equally unhappy and call it "History of Israel and Palestine" so there could be a proper article about the history of the land? Let's be real, with "History of Palestine" it is not going to happen and keeping both articles while removing pre-Zionist history from History of Israel will only make the two narratives stronger instead of pushing them aside and make an academic, wide, peer-reviewed, historical and geopolitical narrative, based on curious human knowledge?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The article was not created to make one side happy, it is a proper article about the historical place known as Palestine (you cannot get more commonname than this), you just don't like it because it does not dovetail with your narrative. As for the History of Israel article, if you think that people cannot see through the obfuscation, then you are sadly mistaken. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
For me Palestine is the Palestinian Arabs and they are in the West Bank and Gaza and so long as there is no Palestinian state I will not recognize a single part of my country as "Palestine". I am willing to give up this narrative, since I recognize that "Palestine" is used a lot in research and therefore suggest "Israel and Palestine", as a mirror to the current national situation and to provide room for both narratives. Historically "Palestine" is no stronger than "Holy Land" or "Jerusalem" and Jews didn't have problem with this name ("Jewish Agency for Palestine" etc.) until it was cited as the reason for the killings of Israeli civilians. Since Palestinians also hear the name "Israel" cited as the reason why they are being killed, I agree to work on an article that will have both names. A "Two State Solution" if you'd like.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Whether you give up on your POV or your narrative is a matter for you, nor is it at all relevant to the proposed renaming. I could just as well respond by saying that if Israel had not been created in 1948 or if a Palestinian State had been created at the same time, we would not be having this conversation. In fact, rereading the comments that you just made, I think that, for me at least, this would be a good place to stop.Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Ultimate purpose is an article about the history of the land. Right now we have two articles and neither do a good job.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

As it has been pointed out several times, "Palestine" primarily refers to the region for Western readers, not the people, whereas Israel designates the current country. Obviously, Israeli readers associate Palestine with Gaza, the West Bank and the Palestinian movement, but this is not the Hebrew Wikipedia... T8612 (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Try to Google "Palestine". This is what I got:
  1. Wikipedia article for "State of Palestine"
  2. Wikipedia article for "Palestine (region)"
  3. "Top stories" box, 3 articles, all dealing with Palestinians or State of Palestine
  4. "Images for Palestine", all of which are maps showing division of land between Israel and State of Palestine
  5. Palestine News at Al Jazeera
  6. Palestine History at Britannica
  7. What are Israel and Palestine? - vox article
  8. The Palestinian Authority - The New York Times
  9. Palestinian territories profile - BBC News
  10. The Palestine Exception — something about Palestinian rights activists
Out of top 10 results only 20% deal with the region and 80% deal with the modern state/people. So no, Palestine is not a neutral name for the region. It used to be a neutral name for the region when there were Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs. Today when you say "Palestinian" there is no doubt what you are not taking about an Israeli, and when you say Palestine without mentioning "ancient" or "region" it's presumed you are taking about the de-jure state. “WarKosign” 21:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
That's not what I get (it also depends on what you might have in your browser cache). More to the point, what do you get when you google "History of Palestine"?Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
For "History of Palestine" I get 9 results, some of which deal with more than one subject. Roughly, out of 9 there are 3.5 results dealing with the region, 2 dealing with the modern state, 3.5 dealing with the conflict. Clearly "History of Palestine" does not mean what you believe it means for most of the people using the term. “WarKosign” 23:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose I will not, at this point, read -- or comment -- on the entire mess that is above. However, it's really as simple as this : Israel and Palestine are not the same entity. They have two separate histories which are, confusingly, often rather intertwined. Additionally, since 1948, there has been essentially two separate political entities so at the very least the separate histories of those must be kept separate. There is a POV dimension here as well: the merger is only logical if you believe the one-statist viewpoint, which is highly controversial among both Israelis and Palestinians, that Israel and Palestine are "the same thing" (another common Palestinian Arab viewpoint, different in a nuance, is that Israel is a foreign entity that is the political apparatus of the what they often consider to be the occupiers of their native land Palestine -- yet, even this would merit separate discussion of the history of that institution). --Calthinus (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Calthinus, "Eretz Yisrael" and "Historic Palestine" are the same place. This is the scope of the united article, not the history of the Israeli and Palestinian nations, who live in this land, known by one as Israel and known by the other as Palestine.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
What, do you think all a state, all a nation, is is land? Nothing but material? If we are talking about geological history, you are right. But for nothing else. --Calthinus (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I fail miserably to create a frame work that takes out national history out of geographical history. The problem is only the name of the framework. So far I have failed miserably.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 02:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Well I think that the guy who can reach a consensus on this issue should apply for a peace negotiator position in the Middle-East! The current state of the articles reflect the impossibility to build a consensus imo. T8612 (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Story of my life.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Bolter21 Plenty of Israeli history does not occur in Israel -- i.e. Herzl, Bibas, Zionist conferences in Switzerland... (debatably also: Babylonian Exile, etc...) likewise, a good chunk of Palestinian history occurred in Lebanon, North Africa, Syria etc as that is where the PLO ended up. While I appreciate your intentions here, the reality is the merger would be awkward, involve large scale deletions, and POV warring, because we are talking about a conflict that has remained intractable on Wikipedia for ages, as well as (for different reasons) in the real world. Don't give up on hope, but also be prudent.--Calthinus (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The way I say it was that we would have: History of Israel and Palestine for the history of the land and its various occupants and rulers in history with regard to geography, religion, economy etc. A history to read if you stand there. Then we will have History of the State of Israel, for the history of the modern state and its Zionist origins in Europe. We will also have History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel to deal with the Jewish history of the land with more detail than both previous articles and also give a place to periods in which the Jews were only a minority of a few hundreds in this land. Conterary, we will have Palestinian history (like Jewish history) for the history of the modern Palestinians Arabs from their disputed origins to their disapora across Arab League states and their struggles. Right now, we have History of Israel which is a combination of the history of the state with a small summery of the history of the land with a lot of weight towards to the Jews. The "History of Palestine" refers to the land but is clearly leaning towards the Palestinians, as it barely even linked to the modern State of Israel, which frankly controlls pretty much 100% of Palestine, or how Palestinian nationalists call it "Historic Palestine". The history of this land is celebrated in parks, museums and monuments and most of them are located in Israel. Many sites celebrated by Israelis are not Jewish at all or have very little connection to the bible or to the Israelite/Jewish narrative. These sites include Scythopolis, Caesarea, Montfort Castle, Belvoir Fortress etc.. It feels odd to me to write about Mishmar HaEmek, a kibbutz in Israel, and then write about Tel Shush, an archaeological site in the kibbutz that is from Bronze Age Palestine (which was before anyone could imagine the name "Palestine" or "Israel".
And for the political implications of such move. I think that even if there was a Two-State Solution and a Palestine next to Israel, or otherwise a One State Solution with one state, either Israeli or Palestinian, this wouldn't change the fact that this land has a history that goes back well before the Zionist-Palestinian centuries.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Levant/Levantine/southern Levant are commonly for the geographical region in academic discourse. Otherwise it's typically called Israel or Canaan. Which doesn't necessarily mean we should be changing/merging/creating articles. Drsmoo (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Name: Naharayim or Baqoura?

See here: Talk:Naharayim#Requested_move_4_April_2020, Huldra (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap - an explanation

I received a reply from a contributor at OpenStreetMap. The reply is here. He writes:

The current situation on OSM is is not perfect, but the it is the most close possible to the current situation on ground. The map does not reflect the desired situation for some people but *the situation on ground*. If you doubt it, you can visit East Jerusalem or the Golan, ask locals who paves the roads, who installs infrastructure and who charges taxes. They will all answer it is Israel or its sub-authorities. The question may be asked: In most areas of the West Bank, Israel is paves the roads, installs infrastructure and charges taxes. why not including them in Israel? The answer is that although Israel invests in these areas, it has not declared them as its territory, and therefore the territory cannot be labeled as Israeli territory.

In the past, various "editing wars" were taken place in OSM regarding the marking of borders between Israel and the Palestinian territories. People fought physically to include these places in their territory. You can't assume they'll avoid virtual wars for that. However, the existing situation has not changed for a long time. If you ask me, I'm not going to change anything. I do not intend to return to these wars again.

This of course makes them an outlier, as all major online and offline maps show the 1967 lines recognized by the vast majority of the international community. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"If you ask me...". Best ask someone else.Selfstudier (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, you could tell them that OpenStreetMap has just made themselves totally irrelevant for Wikipedia, at least when it comes to places in the Jerusalem-area, Huldra (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I think we will just have to stop using it. Zerotalk 22:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
If you want to change something you have to do a RFC about it. --Shrike (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
On the contrary, if the map has changed we need an RfC to keep the new version. The consensus version is the previous map. Zerotalk 06:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

RFC: West Bank village articles

This RfC concerns whether to make an edit to "all relevant articles" in the highly contentious topic area of the Israel-Palestine conflict. One aspect of this conflict is the war of words, and Wikipedia articles are contested territory in that theatre, so the whole topic area is fraught and difficult. I should begin this close by disclosing my prior involvement.
I have never edited an article in this topic area, but on two occasions five or six years ago, I did close RfCs relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict: here and here. I am confident that I am sufficiently neutral and uninvolved to be able to assess the consensus here objectively.
I find that there is no consensus to make the disputed edit to "all relevant articles". However, there is sufficient policy-based support for making the disputed edit to some of the articles in the topic area. Editors will need to decide whether to make the disputed edit article-by-article in the normal Wikipedian way, but from reading this discussion side by side with our policies, guidelines, manual of style and other practice pages, I have been able to identify some points that I think will help editors to make that decision.
1) It is not normal Wikipedian practice to include easter-egg links from relatively bland phrases like "Came under Jordanian rule" to our nuanced articles Jordanian annexation of the West Bank or indeed Israeli occupation of the West Bank. There is scope for editors to correct instances of this.
2) In cases involving the Jordanian annexation, the wording came under Jordanian rule following the 1948-1949 Arab-Israel War and was later, in a move not widely recognized internationally, annexed by Jordan in 1950 enjoys widespread support.
3) To remove an easter egg link is not a violation of WP:SYNTH.
4) Although I do not agree that the no-consensus outcome of a requested move discussion in April 2020 should affect our word choices, editors do prefer "annexation" over both "occupation" and "rule".
I hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 15:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this example edit be made in all relevant articles? Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  • The indicated edit is being made at many articles and then being reverted. The originator, @Zarcademan123456:, has been asked to gain a central consensus but states that he is unable to manage the necessary procedure, therefore this RFC.
  • Support change IMHO this is a clear improvement, as it differentiates between "rule" and "annexation", which are two very distinct things, including in their legal ramifications, and took place at different times. I might add that I saw this edit only on one article, but agree that it makes sense to make it on other relevant articles as well. Debresser (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Technically this is an inference made to justify inserting a trivial historic sequence,-(a) the West Bank came under Jordanian rule and was then annexed (b) Battir (or any other village), is in the West Bank, therefore Battir (any village there) was first ruled and then annexed by Jordan. In normal practice, for each instance you would require, to avoid WP:SYNTH, a source specifying the combination in the phrasing proposed as applied to each and every village. Such sources don't exist, and the edit is therefore original research. Finally, even were this allowable, one would have to complete the sequence by adding things like, 'the annexation' wasn't recognized. You end up with textual bloat, to what end, is obscure (not really). Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The difference between factual rule and annexation is not trivial. For example, the fact that Israel passed the Golan Heights Law in 1981, thereby annexing it after it had been under Israeli rule since 1967, is mentioned at great length in the Golan Height article. Also see for example our West Bank article, which features prominently in its lead the following sentence: The "West Bank" was the name given to the territory that was captured by Jordan in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and subsequently annexed in 1950, until 1967 when it was occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War.
No WP:SYNTH involved, as it is trivial that what is true for the greater area holds true for its parts as well. Simple logic is not synthesis. Compare the sentence "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the Israeli and United States governments dispute this.", which has been added to the articles of all Israeli settlements by applying this very same logic. Debresser (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Has it been added to all? It is not only inaccurate but needs Wikilinking to International law and Israeli settlements for efficacy.Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and the hypocrisy is clear for all to see. Nishidani says that we would need to add a sentence to let readers know the annexation wasn't recognized by everyone and that would be bloat. Yet, he has no problem with that in any article about Israeli settlements. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Please read and internalize WP:NPA, particularly the operative phrase comment on content, not on the contributor. nableezy - 14:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Nableezy, Please explain how this isn't hypocritical: "Finally, even were this allowable, one would have to complete the sequence by adding things like, 'the annexation' wasn't recognized. You end up with textual bloat, to what end, is obscure (not really)." Considering every Israeli settlement article has this sentence: "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the Israeli and United States governments dispute this." That's not an NPA, I was commenting on the content. Please try harder next time. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
You really want to go back to AE and argue calling somebody's comment hypocritical (when by the way you dont seem to understand what Nishidani wrote) is not a personal attack? Really? nableezy - 15:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for the simple reason that we should not be in the business of surprising readers by linking the term "Jordanian rule" to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, an article which discusses an action that was not recognised by the international community. As others have said, clarification of Jordan's West Bank period is a welcome addition. Having said that, I would suggest a slightly different version of the text, one that combines both sentences into one:

    In the wake of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and after the 1949 Armistice Agreements, [Town X] came under Jordanian rule, having been annexed by her in 1950.

There is no need to overburden the text with discussion of the international community, since the link to the annexation article provides all of the clarification about that. Havradim (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)}}
I prefer simply to remove the easter egg:
Change Jordanian rule to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and done.Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The problem with that solution is that the name "Jordanian annexation of the West Bank" isn't very "fixed": there was a suggestion last month to change it (see the talk), and from the talk-page you can see other, ongoing suggestions to change the name, Huldra (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Using the actual article name does not flow with the text as well as in the above proposal, and it also glosses over the fact that there was a two-step process of capture/occupation/rule (what have you) followed by annexation; I believe this is important because keeping it at two steps clarifies the point that the annexation move was not immediate. Havradim (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
We can tweak for flow. We should not cherry pick only a part of the information that is in the wikilink. Anyone desperate to know what happened after 1949 can just follow the wikilink and find out, that's the whole idea of a wikilink. The alternative is to separately source information that is to be added independently of the wikilink but then the floodgates are opened and everyone will want to add their preferred bit of info into the thing. That's what is happening here and it is not only with this particular edit.Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

*Support I don't see any policy-base reason not to include well sourced and uncontroversial material- Transjordan did in fact annex all these villages. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Blocked SockSelfstudier (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose Presently, most (all?) West Bank articles links to:
A. Under "Jordanian era" (1948-1967): to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank ,
B. Under the "Post-1967" era: link to Israeli occupation of the West Bank
I think we can all agree(?), that those two articles cover (or should cover!) very complex problems, with extremely diverse views. To WP:CHERRYPICK a few facts out of any of those articles is to invite to endless discussions/edit-wars over many, many articles. (Expect that if some facts from the Jordanian era is included, then some facts from the Israeli occupation of the West Bank will also be included in each West Bank article) I prefer to "isolate" complex issues in one (or a few) articles....and then link to those articles. Huldra (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
If the views are so diverse on annexation, would you consider providing sources to back up this assertion instead? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose but not really the idea but more the execution. I think this change is poorly written. I dont really have a problem with including the material, but not this way. X came under Jordanian rule. It was annexed by Jordan in 1950. is halting imo. Battir came under Jordanian rule following the 1948-1949 Arab-Israel War and was later, in a move not widely recognized internationally, annexed by Jordan in 1950. reads better to me. This is a silly RFC to be honest, things dont need to be so party line or all or nothing. See why people object to edits and figure out a way to work through the problems. nableezy - 21:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The sources do not support the assertion that Jordanian annexation is not widely recognized. In fact, it is widely recognized, and it violates WP:NPOV to emphasize a minority (barely existant?) view that it was not an annexation.
Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Only a few states recognized the Jordanian annexation. The rest of the international community did not consider the West Bank to be Jordanian territory. See for example here (Since 1948 it had been under Jordanian administration, and Jordan claimed to have annexed it in 1950. This purported annexation was, however, widely regarded as illegal and void, by the Arab League and others, and was recognized only by Britain, Iraq, and Pakistan.) You are mistaken on this fairly basic piece of information, and simply googling "jordanian annexation" isnt exactly how one researches a topic like this. nableezy - 22:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
This suggestion is fine with me as there is no wikilink involved (and so no cherrypicking) and I think it is not difficult to find a source saying something along those lines. (Looking down the page I see that Zarcademan, for whom this RFC was originally put together, also approves of this formulation.Selfstudier (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I could agree with this language as well, but I see no harm in adding the link to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank because it is helpful to readers. I agree with Debresser that this is not a case of cherrypicking. Havradim (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

* Support per reasons mentioned above.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I take back my support. This is kinda ridiculous to repeat this sentence in every single article. Editors should focus more on the content of these articles not the hidden political messages in them and if they do, it is better to remove political messages rather than to add counter messages. The article Battir goes to educate about a village, not about what is already written in other articles. The Palestinian villages are not part of a series of "villages under Jordanian/Israeli occupation".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
And I don't mean to remove this information from the articles but I don't think this RFC is necessary.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Something had to done to deal with the mass inserting/mass reversion business, it was either an RFC or go to ANI (again)Selfstudier (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I would cautiously support this subject to caveats about "all relevant articles". I think we need a list: I can see this being used to crowbarr a factoid into only tangentially related articles, because there are agendas at work here. Guy (help!) 09:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes Factually correct. I find it pathetic that people are edit warring over this kind of stuff really. I'm pretty sure if someone on the 'right' side had added this text, it would have been entirely uncontroversial. There seem to have been a lot of reverts for the sake of reverting appearing on my watchlist recently. Number 57 10:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Who says this is picked from a wikilink? And why would it be cherrypicking, if this is a major step, as is evident from other articles, where the difference between "rule" and "annexation" is a big deal? Debresser (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
It's cherrypicked or it's unsourced, either way, not useful. I have added a source to the edit on Battir to remedy this deficiency.Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
It is sourced. Either for Battir specifically, or for the West Bank as a whole, and from there it is simple logic. Debresser (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, if you just want to change it for Battir, the source should say Battir. Part of the idea to get a central consensus is to avoid this sort of wikilawyering.Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
No! It is rather your argument that is Wikilawyering. I am just applying simple logic. You could say (although I am not making such claim) that I am applying WP:IAR, and you are insisting that WP:SYNTH is applicable. Now you see that it is you who are Wikilawyering? Debresser (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Use the language in the sources, which support annexation "Came under the rule of" is a passive and ambiguous phrase that suggests consent. Annexation, which is used universally in the sources, is much more clear and closely adheres to the language of the sources. Opening an RfC and contesting language that clearly satisfies WP:V and WP:NPOV seems to me like WP:STONEWALLING. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Change "rule" to "occupation"

It should technically be “came under Jordanian occupation. Between 1949 and 1950 it was occupied. Then “It was annexed by Jordan in 1950.” Situation was identical to the Golan before 1981 annexation, Crimea before Russian annexation, and the Gaza Strip during Egyptian occupation (1949-1956, 1956-1967)...let’s just make sure terms are synonymous with each other, as befits an unbiased encyclopedia. Rule without annexation is occupation, unless a mandate or a trust territory. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Is that oppose or support?Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
That is a comment. Debresser (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
We just had an RFC on changing it to occupation, an RFC proposed by Zarcademan, and it has just been closed with no consensus. And how can you not support your own edit?Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Per his comment below, Zarcademan was apparently expressing his support in the first Rfc, albeit with some changes. You interpreted his comment as a separate question, which was a fair assumption. Havradim (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
You already voted.Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Selfstudier, come on, that's a little sneaky of you considering you TPO and switched up the talk page discussion. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Precisely, and I will return that header now. @Selfstudier please do not change headers made by other editors. This is the second time you have done that on two different discussion in the last 24 hours, and it is not allowed. Debresser (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Selfstudier, you can't change talk page discussions. That is a big no-no. You can have discussions in an RFC, I'm not sure where you got that you can't do that. What you can't do is change talk page comments and most certainly can't put !votes into people's names. Zarcademan123456 made a comment and Debresser commented on that comment, not on the RFC. This is a threaded discussion on the RFC. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Precisely. Please review the WP:TPO link above. This is a second part of the Rfc, where everybody can express their opinion (including vote, although, or perhaps precisely because Wikipedia is not a vote), without connection to their opinion (or vote) in the first part. Debresser (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I closed the RFC that I opened on Zarcademan's behalf, thereby leaving it for discussion purposes.Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


I don’t know how to support, that is why Zarcademan123456 (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose also per arguments already hashed out in this discussion. Moreover, Wikipedia's role does not include redefining. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral, The Jordanian occupation ended in 1967, more than 50 years ago and the Jordanian claim in 1987. I don't think it really matters if it says "rule" or "occupation" the facts are stated. I feel it has to do with the Israeli "occupation" of the West Bank and the question "why Jordan 'rules' and Israel 'occupies'?". There are many answers to this question but they are irrelevent for an encyclopedia. So I don't mind whether it will be occupation or rule or control or whatever.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Bolter21: now you have voted both "neutral", and "support" ..that is once too many, Huldra (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Forgive me I moved it to the right place.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as I have stated before: Jordan formally occupied it for 2 years (1948-1950), then annexed it for the next 17 years (1950-1967). But editors want those 2 years to "trump" the 17 year? It makes no sense, unless someone is out to make a political point (and "equal" it with the Israeli occupation, which is rather silly, IMO), Huldra (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Jordan occupies for 2 years, then annexed and ruled. However, “rule” encompasses both “occupation” and “control” so what Havradim suggested above I would support Zarcademan123456 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

When reading again, what Nableezy proposed actually sounds best to me, IMO, as it succinctly clarifies rule then annexation and the fact that it was not widely recognized, as is done most whenever Istaeli annexation is mentioned Zarcademan123456 (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment – I am a bit confused about this two part RFC. I don't really have a strong opinion on the two specific changes above, but I do strongly agree with Nableezy (mark your calendars!) that the best construction is something more like "Battir came under Jordanian rule following the 1948-1949 Arab-Israel War and was later, in a move not widely recognized internationally, annexed by Jordan in 1950". I don't think we need to wikilink "Jordanian rule" to Jordan because I don't think country names need to be wiki linked in general. I do think "annexed" should be wiki linked to the Jordanian annexation article. The '48 war should be wiki linked also (assuming none of these links are already in the article in question).Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I too can agree with Nableezy's proposal: as long as it is clear that there was "rule" and then "annexation". Debresser (talk)18:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
After some reflection, I think that "administration" would be better than "rule" , the armistice was not signed until April 49 and the annex was then a year after that but preparations for it started well before that (eg Jericho 48). I think that trying to imply some sort of occupation (rule, control) pre-annex is not really accurate.Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I fail to see your point. In any case, as said elsewhere by others, sources call it "rule". I strongly oppose "administration", which sounds as though somebody entrusted the West Bank to them to administer, while in reality they took it by force of arms and ruled it against international law. I might reconsider if Israeli rule of the West Bank were renamed "administration", but can not agree to this two-handed proposal. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
It was just a suggestion, not worth an argument.Selfstudier (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Who was the West Bank taken by force of arms from? Is "ruled against international law" a reference to the attempted annexation, or did you have something else in mind?     ←   ZScarpia   19:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

So...do we agree to do the change nableezy suggested? Is that how this works? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

After some period of time, during which there may be further discussion and other opinions offered, an uninvolved editor will "close" the RFC and make a conclusion about the consensus position.Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: Care needs to be taken using the word 'occupied'. In a legal sense, the West Bank was no more 'occupied' by Jordan than the territory to the west of the Green Line was 'occupied', in whole or in part, by Israel (recognition of Israel internationally tended to be confined to the area within the Partition Plan borders). That does not mean, though, that the territory belonged de jure to those countries, which is why Jordan's annexation of the West Bank (and Israel's of West Jerusalem, I think) were considered illegitimate. The situation was not equivalent to that post-1967, when the Occupied Territories, from the international law perspective, came under occupation by Israel. Therefore, in a legal sense, the statement, "between 1949 and 1950 it was occupied," is factually incorrect, which is why the article currently uses the word 'rule' rather than 'occupation' and why it should stay that way.     ←   ZScarpia   11:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I concede that point. Can we change the RFC to being a referendum on what nableezy proposed:

[insert village name] came under Jordanian rule following the 1948-1949 Arab-Israel War and was later, in a move not widely recognized internationally, annexed by Jordan in 1950. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we start an RFC on what nableezy proposed? Idk how to start one.

[insert village name] came under Jordanian rule following the 1948-1949 Arab-Israel War and was later, in a move not widely recognized internationally, annexed by Jordan in 1950. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This is already part of the Rfc. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought it had to be different, then he for explaining Zarcademan123456 (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the suggested edit, wouldn’t came under Jordanian “occupation” be more accurate, as control/rule/administration can apply to the state of governance under territory that has been annexed or under occupation? Therefore, in order to be accurate, the text should read “occupation” in order to differentiate between the 2 different types of governance? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Transjordan entered (ex-mandate territory of) Palestine 14/15 May 48 and signed an armistice with Israel on 3 April 1949, the Jericho conference was in December 1948 and the annexation statement 24 April 1950. What was the start date of this "occupation" to which you refer?Selfstudier (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Note Eyal Benvenisti (2004). The International Law of Occupation. Princeton University Press. pp. 108–. ISBN 0-691-12130-3. a pro-Israel lawyer who writes "Since 1948 it had been under Jordanian administration and Jordan claimed to have annexed it in 1950".Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Or Anthony H. Cordesman; Jennifer Moravitz (2005). The Israeli-Palestinian War: Escalating to Nowhere. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 243–. ISBN 978-0-275-98758-9. ""the subsequent armistice left the West Bank under Transjordan's administrative control"Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

De facto when occupied by military, de jure at the signing of the armistice, occupation you would argue would end at annexation. It was “occupied” and later “annexed” Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

See also:

King Abdullah of Transjordan occupied the West Bank, allegedly for the protection of unarmed Arabs "against massacres". - United Nations Competence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, Volume 31, Issue 3July 1982 , pp. 426 "Jordan (then Transjordan) occupied the West Bank area", Palestine Peace not Apartheid (review), Mediterranean Quarterly, Volume 18, Number 2, Spring 2007 pp. 136-141 ' the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan occupied the West Bank of the Jordan River". Challenges to Israel-Palestinian Joint Security, SMA White Paper: A Geopolitical and Cognitive Assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian Security Conundrum, p. 57. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

For there to be an occupation, there must be a military administration eg OETA in WW1 or the Israeli Military Governorate. So what was the name of this administration in this case and when was it established? Who was its commander? Note that entering a territory to fight is not the same as establishing a military occupation so "De facto when occupied by military" is not the standard here. Normally a military administration would be established at the conclusion of fighting ie when the occupying army takes full control so in this case that would be after the armistice. However, following the Jericho conference that took place at the end of the previous year eg in February 1949 (pre-armistice) the Jordanian Nationality Law was amended to grant every Palestinian Jordanian citizenship, a civil act that does not square with a military occupation. This and the other preparations for annexation were approved of by the UK and by the USA (and tacitly by the UN as part of a political solution to the Palestine problem) and since they are both veto wielders, there was never any resolution at the UN that refers to the Jordanian rule as an occupation. There is simply no evidence that there was ever an occupation. Your sources are using the word "occupation" in the physical sense not in the sense of a military occupation (many sources do this, there is nothing wrong with it, they are just not referring to a military occupation). So, to reiterate, if you can provide me with the usual details consequent upon a military occupation, start date, name, commander and so on, then we can set up an article called "Jordanian occupation of the West Bank" to cover it.Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
For there to be an occupation, there must be a military administration eg OETA in WW1 or the Israeli Military Governorate.- this is simply incorrect, and is the source of much of your confusion and edit-warring on this topic. A military occupation exists as soon as a territory comes under the effective control of a foreign army, ad there is no requirement whatsoever for a formal military administrative organization to be set up. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
An occupation administration is prima facie evidence of occupation, it is the usual procedure to set one up although I accept it is not an absolute requirement. If there is no prima facie or other obvious evidence of occupation then it is necessary to show such an occupation by some other method which no-one has managed to do until now, whereas I have provided evidence that flatly contradicts the notion of occupation (granting of citizenship is a civil matter, there are other things besides but that alone is sufficient). This issue has now been debated several times by a large number of editors and there is no consensus for calling the Jordanian rule an occupation. "occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised" is the correct wording per Convention (IV) Art 42 of the Hague regulations so you should stop making stuff up and instead demonstrate that that is the case as well as telling me when it was achieved (from what date) and who was in charge (ie giving the orders in respect of this supposed occupation).Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You make some very salient points. In that case, can we make a new guideline to use the word “occupation” in regards to governance, and not in regards to the physical action of “occupying [a territory]”? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

PleSe see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamization_of_East_Jerusalem_under_Jordanian_occupation#Requested_move_2_May_2020, as it has relevant information pertaining to this debate Zarcademan123456 (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank#Requested_move_2_May_2020 supports the view that between the end of the war and annexation was, not many how one may disguise it, an occupation Zarcademan123456 (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, stop misleading people. That RFC is the third attempt to try and shoehorn occupation into it and each of the three attempts, your effort being the latest of those, has failed to get consensus. If you think there was an occupation then create the appropriate article at the same time as asking yourself why it hasn't been created until now. You should also remember that this RFC was opened on your behalf to discuss your proposed additions to WB village articles but instead you are spending all this time discussing an unrelated (and quite dead) issue and preventing the RFC from being closed.Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

My statements are completely relevant, as it determines whether text will say:

“[village name] came under Jordanian rule following the 1948-1949 Arab-Israel War and was later, in a move not widely recognized internationally, annexed by Jordan in 1950.” Or: “Battir came under Jordanian occupation following the 1948-1949 Arab-Israel War and was later, in a move not widely recognized internationally, annexed by Jordan in 1950.” If we say “rule” here, we must say “rule” regarding east Jerusalem governance since annexation. I am merely pointing out inconsistencies in order to highlight what issues will arise should we use the innocuous term “rule”.

Furthermore, in the ruling on the closed RFC it states: “Given this, the current title is succinct and covers the content, as the occupation is clearly presented as a step that led to annexation.” notice use of term “occupation” Zarcademan123456 (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The "ruling" is at the top of the PM "The result of the move request was: not moved".Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree. However, the term “occupation” was used regarding the period of Jordanian governance that occurred before annexation Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose the use of "Jordanian occupation" in this context. I do not know if this RFC is still alive. Anyway, this period has to be described for what it is, not in interpretation of what the post-1967 period is. Contributors raising the comparison with the situation west of the Green Line during the same era have a valid point, and we would jot describe it as an occupation. Place Clichy (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: Name of article: Jordanian West Bank?

Perhaps related to the above, there's now an RfC on renaming the article that discusses the Jordanian annexation into "Jordanian West "Bank" - here -Talk:Jordanian annexation of the West Bank#RFC:_Name_of_article:_Jordanian_West_Bank? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Blocked SockSelfstudier (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Jewish_Virtual_Library, regarding our community's view on the reliability of the Jewish Virtual Library (as had been documented at WP:RSPS). Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Kindly comment at the requested move below.

Talk:Islamization_of_East_Jerusalem_under_Jordanian_occupation#Requested_move_2_May_2020 -> rule not occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs)

Is Ain Jalut relevant to Wikiproject Israel Palestine Collaboration?

Two editors have removed Ain Jalut from this Wikiproject by repeatedly reverting the addition of the project tag. Am I the only one here that considers Ain Jalut to be relevant to both Israeli and Palestinian history (see Battle of Ain Jalut)? Onceinawhile (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

On the basis that Tell Dothan is relevant to Israel, Ayn Jalut is relevant to Palestine.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Bolter21, The difference there is no other WP:COMMONNAME place there in Ain Jalut there is Shrike (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Names are not a reason to include or exclude articles from the scope of different projects, nor from arbitration cases for that matter. This place played a role in the Zionist story when 9 Arab families were evicted from there when the land they worked was purchased. Earlier it played a key role in the Islamic history of Palestine as the location of the Battle of Ain Jalut. It is quite impossible to argue that it is irrelevant to this project. Zerotalk 11:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
It played such a major "role in the Zionist story " that not single word about it is mentioned in the article. And needless to say, the 13C Islamic history of the region is not relevant to the current Israel-Palestine relationship, as was noted by the admin who closed the relevant discussion at AN/I JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)Blocked SockSelfstudier (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image for Mtanes Shehadeh

Some input would be appreciated at Talk:Mtanes Shehadeh#Image regarding the use/removal of an image of the MK in the article's infobox (posting here as nobody responded to a request at WT:Israel. Thanks. Number 57 19:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Please comment on Merge proposal

Here (merge Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation to Islamization of Jerusalem).

Thank you.

Selfstudier (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Please comment on the RFC re Jordanian rule or occupation?

Here. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hebraization of Palestinian place names

There are several issues raised on talk page are you welcome to give your input --Shrike (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedic standardization

Please see

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Moreh#confiscated_source_in_lead Zarcademan123456 (talk) 06:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hebron Area C enclave?

The Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron has an oddly shaped enclave of Area C within H2. It is at 31°32′25″N 35°06′27″E / 31.5403°N 35.1076°E / 31.5403; 35.1076 (also at [11]). Any idea what this could be? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It is the headquarters of Magav in Hebron.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Terrible place to visit as a Palestinians and Israeli infantrymen.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Bolter21. I wonder why that couldn't have been designated as part of H2. There was obviously a conscious decision to carve it into Area C. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, the Israeli outposts in H2 are just Israeli outposts that deal with Hebron itself. The Magav HQ deals with all of the Hebron area, so I guess it has nothing to do with the Hebron Protocol. A way of saying "this is not Hebron".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Extracting segments of historical maps with CropTool

For those who like to use extracts of historical maps in articles, can I recommend Commons:CropTool. If the full original image is on commons, if you select "upload as new file" at the end it is superbly efficient. This is an example of one I just ran - I pressed the button and the rest was done. It even adds an "extracted image" tag on the page of the original image.[12] Onceinawhile (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Some particularly good maps are now at Survey_of_Palestine#1:20,000_maps_–_Earliest_available and Survey_of_Israel#Early_detailed_maps_(1950s)_in_1:20,000_scale. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Update on historical maps

A series of historical map comparisons have now been added to just over 400 Mandatory Palestine villages using Template:Historical map series. It will be rolled out to further locations across Israel/Palestine in due course. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing File:West Bank & Gaza Map 2007 (Settlements).png from articles

2018 OCHA OpT map West Bank (cropped)

I want to notify the project members that I am removing this map () from all articles in the English Wikipedia. It provides a false depiction of Areas A and B, showing them as a contiguous bloc. There is a long list of sources but none of them actually supports this depiction. I've seen this map used online by respected sources and it is about time someone will remove it. I tried to remake the map in the past but my mapping skills failed me. This doesn't justify the usage of this false and misleading map anyway, so I am not bothering to replace it. The only place where there must be a substitute is Israeli–Palestinian conflict, as I remove the map from the infobox.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Bolter21, the maps at Commons:Category:OCHAoPt are better. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
It is anyway difficult to keep track of a moving target.Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Bolter21: see map on the right - this is the latest available. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the reliability of MEMRI

There is an ongoing RfC at the RS noticeboard about the reliability of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Your participation would be appreciated, kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing

Some opinions by an editor here probably ought to be on this page if the editor wants to avoid the impression he is canvassing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#Gush_Etzion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs)

UAE agreement move discussion

See Talk:Israel–United_Arab_Emirates_peace_agreement#Requested_move_14_August_2020. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Map in Infobox

This is a relisting of a proposal I posted about a week ago on Gaza City's talkpage. Although I debated relisting it at Ramallah's talkpage, it looks like there's very little traffic there too, while State of Palestine's talkpage would not be the correct avenue either.

I know this is a very delicate and sensitive issue. But I have been wondering - should the infobox map for the locations of Palestine related articles be changed to this; cropped to show only the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Or should the current map (appropriately titled "Palestine location map wide.png") cropped to only show the 1967 borders claimed by the de jure state? This is solely to align with other country maps which depict the nation in question within a reasonable map limit.

To further clarify, if you look at Gaza City's info map, it shows the entirety of Israel's modern boundaries (including the Golan), that doesn't seem right.

I would like to reiterate I have no opinion on the matter, and just wish to raise a point. Opinions favouring the retaining of the current map showing all of historic Palestine with valid counterpoints to my proposal are welcome. Seloloving (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Haaretz access for your interest

Wanted to notify users here that I have complete access to Haaretz both in English and Hebrew. If someone needs access to some articles behind a paywall I can help.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Dispute at Steven Salaita page

There's currently a mild dispute over at the Steven Salaita over whether it is POV to say he was unhired due to tweets which some considered antisemitic (which is attested to in multiple extremely reliable sources including Haaretz, NYTimes, Washington Post, The Guardian) or whether the article should say he was fired over anti-Israel tweets. Presently, it says the latter, although the attributed sources state the former. The page is not that well trafficked, so any one who wishes to give their opinion is welcome. Drsmoo (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans. Jr8825 • Talk 18:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Please join in on the discussion about the above mentioned article. ImTheIP (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:History of Israel

Template:History of Israel has been nominated for merging with Template:History of Palestine. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Your input on the section about "Hyenas" in this article would be much appreciated! ImTheIP (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Location module

Since Module:Location map/data/Palestine is a redirect to Module:Location map/data/Palestinian territories, what name should we use on infoboxes for localities in the Palestinian Territories? I am asking because I recently was involved in a silly edit war about this. Personally, I think that "Palestinian territories" is the better term, since it is clear to everybody what is meant by Palestinian territories, while "Palestine" is an ambiguous term for several reasons, as is indicated also in the fact that Palestine is a disambiguation page. Debresser (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That is a bit disingenuous. Palestine may be ambiguous, "State of Palestine" is however very much not. Maybe dont use strawmans even if they are easier to knock down. nableezy - 16:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The Palestinian territories article doesn't get much edits now, this term only really used now by some lazy newsorgs, probably should be merged with State of Palestine article at some point.Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Nableezy However, "State of Palestine" is not an existing module. In case any editors here (cough cough) hadn't noticed. Debresser (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Selfstudier An unrelated comment if ever I saw one. And not likely to ever happen. Debresser (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Just saying, most of the things linked prior to Palestinian territories are now linked instead to State of Palestine. Makes more sense.Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
In view of 1. the limited recognition of the State of Palestine, 2. the doubtfulness of Gaza being a part of that state, 3. the fact that the name "State of Palestine" completely ignores the reality of Israeli de facto rule over large parts of that area, which is prominently mentioned in our articles, and rightfully so, IMHO there can be no doubt that "Palestinian territories" is the only clear and correct description. Which brings me back to my proposal to use only "Palestinian territories" module. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
"the limited recognition of the State of Palestine" - "As of 31 July 2019, 138 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states and two non-member states have recognised it. Furthermore, Palestine has been a non-member observer state of the UN since November 2012." And it really does not look good to use this page on Israel Palestine Collaboration to conduct an argument on the non-existence of Palestine. RolandR (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
The doubtfulness of Gaza being a part of that state, Im sorry where are you pulling this stuff from lol. Using a short form of the name in the module when it pretty clearly uses a map of the state and claiming it makes it ambiguous is pulled from likely the same place. Across a huge range of articles we have for several years now used "Palestine" as the short form and linked to "State of Palestine". See for example Bethlehem, or Ramallah. Your out there thoughts on recognition and Gaza dont seem to be a reason to disturb that well settled consensus. nableezy - 16:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
RolandR "non-member observer state of the UN" says it all. And please, cut the "conduct an argument on the non-existence of Palestine" crap. Nowhere did I say what you attribute to me. Or do you have a problem understanding what "limited recognition" means? Debresser (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
lol it says it is a state that isnt a full member of the UN. nableezy - 19:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
lolol, List of states with limited recognition includes Israel. Who'd ha thought? Selfstudier (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Nableezy No need to try and hide well known facts: The Gaza Strip is not governed by the same people that govern the West Bank. I hope you can read the lead of Gaza Strip for yourself: "Gaza is a self-governing Palestinian territory", "Gaza and the West Bank ... Both fell under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, but Gaza has since June 2007 been governed by Hamas". Debresser (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Um, ok? That has literally nothing to do with whether or not it is a part of the State of Palestine, but ok? Please dont continue making wild assertions that quite literally appear in no reliable source. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 19:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Pretty sure Oslo mentions "indivisible territorial unit", some UN resolutions saying similar thing.Selfstudier (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I see much sarcasm, few arguments, and no realism. In any case, I gave three arguments why we should always use "Palestinian territories", and none have been refuted. Now, perhaps you guys will allow other editors to reply. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
lol, you got 3 replies, all opposed to your view and because you dislike that there is so far unanimous consensus against your position try to denigrate everybody elses view. Good luck with that one. nableezy - 22:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
In this you have been a good teacher to me. In addition, these are all editors who habitually disagree with me (agreement being the welcome exception). I have yet to see a reaction from other editors. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Good luck with that. As it stands there is consensus against your position. Your disliking that is not a surprise but also not all that important. nableezy - 22:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
After you and others posted this wall of text, that certainly is a deterrent for other editors to participate. Two interesting things to be noted: 1. you basically have nothing to say about my most important point (or, to be more precise, you have what to say, but nothing to the point), 2. your opinion is not really relevant to this discussion, since the question is whether we should always use "Palestinian territories" or not, rather than "Palestine". The question is not whether the State of Palestine does or does not exist, which territories can reasonably be considered to be a part of it, and in how far it is recognized. This is about Wikipedia, not about politics. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
You not liking the responses you get is what is not really relevant to the discussion. Your question has been answered by three users, all of whom disagree with you. Get over it. nableezy - 14:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a wiz on these things, just change the redirect? Or change the module name with redirects to. Same like we do for fixing incorrectly linked Palestine links. Notice these days that when people put "Palestine" they rarely, if ever, mean "Palestinian territories".Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Nableezy My problem is not WP:LIKE. My problem is that you ignore my arguments, and focus on politics instead. Also, I am not happy with the absence of comments by editors who are not know to disagree with me at every possible junction, but are willing to actually think about the arguments. Where are other editors who have been active on this project page, like Bolter21 or Shrike. Debresser (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh, so now you want to WP:CANVASS what you think are likeminded editors lol. I have responded to your argument, you just dont like that response. Try not to violate WP:NPA in your next response, would be great. nableezy - 23:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
This is the Israel Palestine collaboration page. So far I have seen only one part of this collaboration. It is only reasonable to allert other active participants of this project to this discussion.
Says the biggest WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violator I met on Wikipedia who still hasn't been blocked, for unclear reasons. Debresser (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Im not going to respond to personal attacks with further personal attacks, I'll just caution you that this remains a WikiProject dedicated to collaboration and it is unwise to continue violating core behavioral policies here. Please comment on content, not the contributor. If you dont like what I have to say then you are free to attack my arguments, but you may not make such attacks as you continue to be doing here. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. nableezy - 02:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
I started this thread with arguments. You started with politics and sneers. You reap what you sow. I have no bone to pick with you personally, as long as you behave to me as you should behave to fellow editors. I am willing to assume good faith, but you have a real unpleasant tone in your posts, which maybe you are not aware of. But okay, let bygones be bygones. Debresser (talk) 12:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Again, please restrict your comments to content and not on the contributors. Thank you. nableezy - 01:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Again, I will do so as soon as said editors don't provoke that by doing the same. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I dont think Ive made a single personal attack in this section. Thats all come from one person here. nableezy - 07:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

After a swing around the houses and learning more about WP internals than I want to, it seems that when you put Palestine in the infobox, it redirects to Palestinian territories, which returns (fetches) the SoP map, duh. Presumably it was done this way for a reason or its a fudge of some sort.Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

As a rule I hold we should remove redirects, and mention the final target in the article. Debresser (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

NoCal100

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100. No comment here on the particular case itself, but I wanted to draw editors' attention to the summary I have put there of NoCal100's focus. The sockmaster seems extremely focused on the noticeboards of AE, ANI and ANEW. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Should the article History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict be merged into the article Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict?

To my surprise, this long standing article that provides expanded information on a very notable subject, and has 3 interwikis, was "merged" two months ago, while no discussion was held on this matter (because "there were no objections"), and the actual merge ommited most of the content. I belive that if such a move should be done, a proper discussion must be held. Please share you opinion on this matter in this discussion to prevent the discussion on this matter from splitting. WikiJunkie (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

East Jerusalem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#East_Jerusalem Categories discussion here.Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Nakba category

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_4#Category:Nakba Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Another discussion here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_17#Category:Nakba. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Mass move request for timelines of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

I proposed to rename pages from "Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, YYYY" to "YYYY in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict". Discussion is here. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

ARCA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Motion:_Palestine-Israel_articles_4 --Shrike (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Seconded.Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

We should add to the main page on the palestinian israeli conflict a few things.

First of all it doesnt mention that when offered to divide Israel into to parts an arab state and jewish state the jews said yes the arabs said from the river to the see we want it all. I realize this edit sounds very biased but it is an important fact in the conflict that the arabs could have had half of israel and the jews were happy with it. If you would offer suggestions on how this can be added to sound as unbias as possible please say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuster123 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

UN resolution 181 is mentioned in the background parahraph of Israeli–Palestinian conflict and links to United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Perhaps a sentense can be added stating who accepted and who rejected the plan, currently it says "On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted Resolution 181(II)[31] recommending the adoption and implementation of a plan to partition Palestine into an Arab state, a Jewish state and the City of Jerusalem.[32] On the next day, Palestine was already swept by violence". “WarKosign” 06:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Any editor may file an edit request at any page they think needs amending.Selfstudier (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Wars on the Israel-Palestine Conflict...please fill out my survey?

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas I'm researching Wikipedia Questions? 17:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Debate

I am looking forward to helping in this project but to do so I need to hear both sides of the argument I personally am on the Israeli side but I know there are a lot of smart people on the other side and I want to know what they think to help me have a greater understanding of the argument and to help me help this project. I don't want any insults just a friendly debate. Shuster123 (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC).

Requested move at Talk:Palestinian citizens of Israel#Requested move 26 November 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Palestinian citizens of Israel#Requested move 26 November 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Article for deletion Tala Halawa

Hi folks, Last week I nominated the article for deletion, but it has hardly generated any discussion, so I'm hoping that the people with the right interests/knowledge will be reached here. The premise of my AfD request is that the subject is a low-profile living person notable for a single incident. This goes against the biography of living person guidelines (WP:BLP1E). I do not believe my nomination is controversial, and would think any reasonable person here would see how this "article" does not look like a biography, and reads more like something you'd read in a newspaper. --Fjmustak (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Photos for Rachel's Tomb and Joseph's Tomb

Soliciting assistance to update the photos of Rachel's Tomb and Joseph's Tomb. Any help would be appreciated. Drsmoo (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Presently, I've updated the photo for Joseph's Tomb using a photo from Wikipedia Commons. Drsmoo (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Split discussion

There is a discussion taking place about splitting the article Israel and the apartheid analogy. Input welcome.Selfstudier (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Selfstudier, I think you are right pointing out this discussion. What is your opinion on the matter? --~~~~ Maartjevos (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Name change discussion of Israel and the apartheid analogy to Israel and apartheid

Please see Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy#Discussion Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

State of Palestine Existence as Absolute Fact

In my opinion, it is POV to write of the State of Palestine's existence as fact. There are many reliable sources which either don't recognize the State of Palestine, whether because they support the Israeli right or consider the West Bank and Gaza Strip territories that Palestinians aspire to create a future state upon while supporting the aspiration.

The Palestinian Authority, the power internationally recognized by most countries as the sovereign over those territories has no control over the Gaza Strip and is not sovereign over the West Bank due to Israel's frequent military activity there. Unlike Ukraine, the State of Palestine was neversovereign over those territories and does not have the near-unanimous recognition that Ukraine does over the Russian-occupied territories.

On the other hand, the State of Israel clearly exists. They are soverign over their territory. Any country that doesn't officially recognize it typically calls for its destruction or secretly engages with it. That's why it's not POV to state Israel exists - it's a fact anyone can verify.

This assertion of the existence of the State of Palestine as absolute fact is POV and rampant throughout Wikipedia. At least that’s what I think. I’m looking forward to engaging with my dissenters about this. RomanHannibal (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Editor has not commented at State of Palestine (quote line 1, "Palestine....is a state..."), despite advice to do so, given the many similar discussions of this that have taken place there (most recently). The editor's personal opinion is of no interest, WP runs by sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
That’s what I did. See you there. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Archive_9&oldid=1184022182"