![]() | This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2015 - June 2023. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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:
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
|
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:
Any input would be appreciated. Edwardx ( talk) 17:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
Please see a draft poster for Italy Wikimania at [1].
Oncenawhile ( talk) 23:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The general 1RR restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
...now, on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, Huldra ( talk) 09:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
...are needed on Talk:2017 Umm al-Hiran attack, Huldra ( talk) 23:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Please see the discussion on the talkpage here about the scope of the article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion is here. “ WarKosign ” 07:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
More opinions are needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Reuven Shmerling. Thank you. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 19:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Talk:State of Palestine#Requested move 23 October 2017 “ WarKosign ” 06:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
..on the latest Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, Huldra ( talk) 20:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Onceinawhile ( talk) 07:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thoughts at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Princeton_PhD_re_Southern_Syria would be appreciated.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Jabel_Mukaber#RFC, Huldra ( talk) 21:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
..is taking place on Mistake in infobox, and follow up on wikidata, here, Huldra ( talk) 21:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Please see [2] -- Shrike ( talk) 14:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Infobox settlement#Colour change, Huldra ( talk) 23:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
glad to see this project continuing. will try to view more often. thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 18:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Isn’t it arbitrary to discount Israel’s view? Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 15:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
Thanks y’all for information Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 15:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
@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 Bank
It 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)
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````
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See here: Talk:Naharayim#Requested_move_4_April_2020, Huldra ( talk) 20:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
*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 Sock
Selfstudier (
talk)
17:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
* Support per reasons mentioned above.--
Bolter21 (
talk to me)
21:02, 14 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)
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)
I don’t know how to support, that is why
Zarcademan123456 (
talk)
16:23, 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)
So...do we agree to do the change nableezy suggested? Is that how this works? Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 15:29, 16 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Sock
Selfstudier (
talk)
17:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
Talk:Islamization_of_East_Jerusalem_under_Jordanian_occupation#Requested_move_2_May_2020 -> rule not occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier ( talk • contribs)
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)
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 5 7 19:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Here (merge Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation to Islamization of Jerusalem).
Thank you.
Selfstudier ( talk) 14:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Here. Thank you. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
There are several issues raised on talk page are you welcome to give your input -- Shrike ( talk) 16:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Please see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Moreh#confiscated_source_in_lead Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 06:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
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 (also at [11]). Any idea what this could be? Onceinawhile ( talk) 15:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Some opinions by an editor here probably ought to be on this page if the editor wants to avoid the impression he is canvassing. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#Gush_Etzion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier ( talk • contribs)
See Talk:Israel–United_Arab_Emirates_peace_agreement#Requested_move_14_August_2020. Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#East_Jerusalem Categories discussion here. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_4#Category:Nakba Selfstudier ( talk) 18:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Motion:_Palestine-Israel_articles_4 -- Shrike ( talk) 16:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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 "[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.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
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)
Please see Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy#Discussion Selfstudier ( talk) 10:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2015 - June 2023. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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:
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
|
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:
Any input would be appreciated. Edwardx ( talk) 17:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
Please see a draft poster for Italy Wikimania at [1].
Oncenawhile ( talk) 23:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The general 1RR restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
...now, on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, Huldra ( talk) 09:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
...are needed on Talk:2017 Umm al-Hiran attack, Huldra ( talk) 23:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Please see the discussion on the talkpage here about the scope of the article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion is here. “ WarKosign ” 07:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
More opinions are needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Reuven Shmerling. Thank you. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 19:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Talk:State of Palestine#Requested move 23 October 2017 “ WarKosign ” 06:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
..on the latest Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, Huldra ( talk) 20:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Onceinawhile ( talk) 07:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thoughts at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Princeton_PhD_re_Southern_Syria would be appreciated.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Jabel_Mukaber#RFC, Huldra ( talk) 21:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
..is taking place on Mistake in infobox, and follow up on wikidata, here, Huldra ( talk) 21:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Please see [2] -- Shrike ( talk) 14:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Infobox settlement#Colour change, Huldra ( talk) 23:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
glad to see this project continuing. will try to view more often. thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 18:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Isn’t it arbitrary to discount Israel’s view? Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 15:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
Thanks y’all for information Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 15:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
@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 Bank
It 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)
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````
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See here: Talk:Naharayim#Requested_move_4_April_2020, Huldra ( talk) 20:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
*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 Sock
Selfstudier (
talk)
17:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
* Support per reasons mentioned above.--
Bolter21 (
talk to me)
21:02, 14 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)
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)
I don’t know how to support, that is why
Zarcademan123456 (
talk)
16:23, 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)
So...do we agree to do the change nableezy suggested? Is that how this works? Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 15:29, 16 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Sock
Selfstudier (
talk)
17:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
Talk:Islamization_of_East_Jerusalem_under_Jordanian_occupation#Requested_move_2_May_2020 -> rule not occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier ( talk • contribs)
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)
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 5 7 19:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Here (merge Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation to Islamization of Jerusalem).
Thank you.
Selfstudier ( talk) 14:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Here. Thank you. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
There are several issues raised on talk page are you welcome to give your input -- Shrike ( talk) 16:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Please see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Moreh#confiscated_source_in_lead Zarcademan123456 ( talk) 06:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
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 (also at [11]). Any idea what this could be? Onceinawhile ( talk) 15:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Some opinions by an editor here probably ought to be on this page if the editor wants to avoid the impression he is canvassing. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#Gush_Etzion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier ( talk • contribs)
See Talk:Israel–United_Arab_Emirates_peace_agreement#Requested_move_14_August_2020. Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#East_Jerusalem Categories discussion here. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_4#Category:Nakba Selfstudier ( talk) 18:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Motion:_Palestine-Israel_articles_4 -- Shrike ( talk) 16:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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 "[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.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
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)
Please see Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy#Discussion Selfstudier ( talk) 10:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)