Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration


Proposed merger of pages within this wikiprojectEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes in last 2 yearsEdit

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

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

ARBPIA articlesEdit

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

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

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

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

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

a. Current three primary articles

b. Naming

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

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

c. Starting date for the conflict

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

  • Neil Caplan (19 September 2011). The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Contested Histories. John Wiley & Sons. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-4443-5786-8.: "A more complex historiographical issue is ones choice of a starting date of the conflict, the selection of its major turning points and its periodization. Some may wish to start with the Biblical antecedents of the conflict (Isaac and Ishmael sons of Abraham, as progenitors of todays Israel and the Arabs)-reflecting a belief that we are dealing with a primordial and eternal clash with supenatural overtones. In the pages that follow we choose instead to begin our examination of the evolving dispute with the first modern Zionist immigrants to and settlements in Ottoman Palestine in 1882 - reflecting the altogether different view that this dispute is a human product of historical and social forces that were unleashed in a particular place and at a particular time. This, indeed, is the timeframe adopted by most historians of the conflict and Part II of this book will unfurl the events of the last 130 years of conflict. It should be noted however that some critics have argued that this choice of periodization unduly sharpens our sense of the antagonism between the parties by ignoring centuries of earlier Jewish-Muslim and Arab-Jewish amity and collaboration, before the divisions and disputes brought about in the age of nationalism and colonialisms.."
  • Paul Scham, Walid Salem, Benjamin Pogrund, eds. (2005). Shared Histories: A Palestinian-Israeli Dialogue. Left Coast Press. p. 298. ISBN 9781598740134.CS1 maint: uses editors parameter (link), page vii, "100-year-long conflict"
  • Morris, Benny. Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist–Arab Conflict, 1881–2001 (Vintage Books, 2001), ISBN 0-679-74475-4
  • Ann Mosely Lesch; Dan Tschirgi (1 January 1998). Origins and Development of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-29970-4., p xiv "The reader will find excerpts from a large number of documents that mark critical moments in the Arab-Israeli conflict. They range from the Basel Declaration at the founding conference of the World Zionist Organization and the Balfour ..."; p5 "The Arab-Israeli conflict originated in the contest among European powers to control the Arab territories of the Ottoman Empire."
  • Gelvin, James L. The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War (Cambridge University Press, 2005), subtitle is "One Hundred Years of War"
  • Bernard Reich (1995). Arab-Israeli conflict and conciliation: a documentary history. Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-29856-1., p1, "The Arab-Israeli conflict... has existed for more than a century"
  • Rubenberg, Cheryl A., ed. Encyclopedia of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2008, P80 of volume 1, entry for "Arab-Palestinian-Israeli Conflict" has 23 sub-entries, of which the first is the 1920 Nebi Musa Riots

d. Other relevant existing articles and wikipedia pages

e. Precedent long term modern conflict articles:

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

f. Relevant sources

g. Recent Discussions

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Terminology questionEdit

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

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

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

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

Palestinian sovereignty questionEdit

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.--Neveselbert 17:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania PostersEdit

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

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

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


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)

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

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)

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

Israeli disengagement from GazaEdit

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

Articles about 1948 warEdit

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

Rushing to AEEdit

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles 3Edit

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

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

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

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

Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articlesEdit

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The general 1RR restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:
Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

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

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

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

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

Important discussionEdit

More opinionsEdit

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

Balfour Declaration 100 - Request for CommentsEdit

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

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

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

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

BDS and antisemitismEdit

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

Marwan BarghoutiEdit

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

Jordan ValleyEdit

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

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

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

Balfour Declaration 100 - Featured Article CandidateEdit

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

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

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

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

More opinions....Edit


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

Your comments are welcome at a move discussionEdit is downEdit

All the links seem to be down for the last few days, the address now redir to

Does anyone know anything about it?

I don't know if intend to get up all the old links...but most of them are, at least, saved on

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

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

Balfour Declaration 100 - Thank youEdit

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

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

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

More views could be neededEdit

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

Jerusalem RfCsEdit

Queer theoryEdit

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

RfC re 1948Edit

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

Siege of Jerusalem (AD 70)Edit

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

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

Vote stacking - monitoring proposalEdit

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

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

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

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

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

Comments here would be appreciated before taking this forward.

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

Suspected by whom ? How do you define an incident? WarKosign 11:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Each to their own. If this is overly prescriptive it will be counterproductive. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Take it to ARBCOM if you want to make such list--Shrike (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, what this place needs is not only some more arcane rules but a list of undesirables as well.
The only way the 500/30 thing can be considered a success is if the point was to limit the number of new editors on the encyclopedia anyone can edit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Shrike and No More Mr Nice Guy: you seem quite defensive about this idea? Onceinawhile (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I defensive about Wikipedia polices what you propose seems to me as violation of WP:POLEMIC that the reason I propose that you ask ARBCOM.--Shrike (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  1. Make it very difficult for new editors to enter a topic area
  2. Create a list of those who make it but disagree with you
  3.  ????
  4. Profit
No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@No More Mr Nice Guy: Do you know something about this topic that I don’t? Since the proposed list is explicitly for all editors to build together, what makes you think that a list of possible votestackers would take one side over another? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I was being too cynical. Could you give a few examples you've seen of new editors vote-stacking in your favor? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Now, isn't this objection suspicions ? Maybe we should consider it an incident and add these two to the list once it's created ? (No, I don't really mean it, just showing how such a list can be easily abused). Shrike is right, there is a guideline in place discouraging such lists. WarKosign 17:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I suspect the list, if created, will contain every user with more than 500 edits and less than 2000 who participated in more than 2 TP in a "votestacking situation" (what happed to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion?). Will certainly be effective in scaring newbies off talk pages, perhaps increasing edit warring, while perhaps building camaraderie among those named in the list which may foster future Israel Palestine Collaboration between named editors.Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


Sorry, Once, I dont think this is a workable idea. Yes: there are some editors (who have fulfilled the 30/500 requirement) who I strongly suspect are socks (Heh, basically anyone who is "learning the ropes" much faster than I did....). But I dont see how we can avoid that. Of course, I would have preferred some honesty ("Hey, I was an ignoramus/idiot/youngster back in ...., please give me a new chance"), etc....but, hey, this is the internet....As long as we allow anon editing, we will have socks.
I think the 30/500 requirement has vastly improved the situation. At least for me! (I haven't had a rape or death threats for months! It hasn't been this quiet since about 2010...)
I would rather look for cases of blatant hypocrisy....say, when editors vote delete on AfD for the articles on dead from "the other side", referring to WP:MEMORIAL...then start a lot of articles which amply fulfil WP:MEMORIAL about dead from "their own side"....etc, etc, etc. Huldra (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Huldra, I think it would be interesting, but someone would have to maintain such an AfD list. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

RSN re Southern SyriaEdit

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)

Translation from FrenchEdit

Two articles needs to be translated from French:

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

Translation from GermanEdit

One article needs to be translated from German:

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

Caption to be checked for Commons image on Palestinian lynchingEdit

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


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

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

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

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

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 ? (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

ARBPIA original author ruleEdit

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

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


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

Please see Template talk:Infobox settlement#Colour changeEdit

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

1948: a bipartisan proposalEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:Legality of Israeli settlementsEdit

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

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

note re projectEdit

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

Return to the project page "WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration".