Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:41, 16 June 2010 editEpeefleche (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers150,049 edits →Battleground returning? Please no.: r← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:20, 12 December 2024 edit undoByVarying (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,481 edits →Requested move at Talk:Antisemitism during the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 12 December 2024: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{tmbox|type=style|text='''Note: Some old subpages of this wikiproject (older than 2010) are now archived at ]'''}}
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
==Archives==
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
{{archive box|]<br>] <br>] <br>]}}
}}
{{Press
| subject = WikiProject
| author = Jimmy Wales (opinion)
| title = Misplaced Pages’s strength is in collaboration – as we’ve proved over 15 years
| org = The Guardian
| url = http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/15/wikipedia-israel-palestine-15-years-encyclopedia
| date = 15 January 2016
| quote = It seems counterintuitive that Misplaced Pages, a website open for anyone in the world to edit, could be a reliable source of information for one of the world’s deeply contested issues. And it is true that finding neutrality – a cornerstone policy of Misplaced Pages – under these circumstances is a serious challenge. And yet, WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration is working to make Misplaced Pages the most balanced reference point for anyone seeking information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while breaking down barriers in the process. The project aims to engage people in building bridges and weaving together viewpoints from both sides in an effort to create a “truly bilateral” narrative. As the world’s primary free and open reference on the issue, Misplaced Pages has taken on the role of a sort of digital truth and reconciliation commission.
}}
{{Archive box
| search = yes
| collapsible = yes
| collapsed = no
| root = Wikipedia_talk:{{PAGENAME}} |'''Old article discussions'''<br>
]<br>] <br>] <br>] <br>] <br>] <br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>
'''Old discussions by topic:'''<br>] <br>]<br>
'''Old project discussions'''
*2008 ] ] ]
*2009 ]
*2010 ]
*2011 ]
*2012–2014 ]<br>
'''Combined talk discussions'''
*2015 ]
*2016 - June 2023 ]
}}


== "Al-Aqsa is in danger" ==
==Note==
{|cellpadding=20 cellspacing=0 style="float:center;text-align:center; border:solid 1px black; background:rgb(255,255,100);margin=5"
|align="center" width="100%"|<b>'''This talk page is <u>only for the discussion of how to organize</u> WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Please use:''' <br>
*'''] to LIST Current Articles Issues.'''<br>
*''' ] to DISCUSS Current Articles Issues.'''
|}
=='''Project Talk Page Guidelines'''==
*
*About Moderators: Our discussions are moderated and ] and other problematic postings will be deleted. Moderators will move any Current Article Issues topics posted here to that section. They also will archive resolved or dated discussions.
*Moderators will be chosen by: 1) Nomination by a project member and 2) Consensus of members, which means that there are no reasonable objections. ''NOMINATIONS OR VOLUNTEERS WELCOME!''
*The following members have been appointed as moderators: '''HG''', '''Carolmooredc'''


Hello, I'm sure you're all very busy at the moment, but am looking for third-party input on something. An editor made a very large addition to the small page ] which appears to me to seriously skew the article's tone and compromise its NPOV. It seemed relatively good and neutral (if short) before, but certainly the additions appear very much to push it in one direction. I've laid out what I think are the problems on ] and on the ], but have gotten no response. To avoid an edit war, would appreciate if someone (or multiple someones) would take a look. Thanks! ] (]) 10:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
<big>'''To Do List'''</big><br>
*Decide what to do about ] and ] which haven't been used, at least until they are made more workable and/or used
*What to do about articles of disputed relevance like ], ], ]
-----
__TOC__
-----
==Possible issues with three new main page sections==
Looking carefully at these, I thought there might be some minor concerns, especially with last one, since they were not passed by this page first. Others have an opinion?
* ]: The additional language is fine, but setting up a new page - ] - that could be used to cherry pick articles may or may not be problematic. Possible solution to that??
* ]: Really should be part of Members statements and there is only one person on the list. If others want to join it, then perhaps it's not a problem. I guess I should join myself ;-) though I have been avoiding the issue a lot lately except on a few pages where already invested a lot of time.
* ]: First, it duplicates the new "Articles We Edit" page and of course has the same problems. So at very least these should be merged. ] (]) 15:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


== Nakba denial ==
I agree that we should merge the 2 sections about articles we like. As the person who started the page "Articles We Edit", I'd also like to mention that articles about seemingly unrelated topics may actually be key to getting this collaboration working. For example, Al-Azhar Mosque (an article on which several IPCOLL editors have worked together) is in Egypt, and "science" articles about the flora, fauna and geology of the area are probably within the scope of IPCOLL. I don't see how the articles would be cherry-picked if all editors are welcome to contribute to the list. Or, perhaps IPCOLL could have a "Collaboration of the Month"/"Collaboration of the Year" to encourage its editors to focus their efforts on working together, and encourage suggestions about articles and topics?


I have created a page on the subject of ] - a topic of some weight in literature on the historiography of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I have barely scratched the surface of the available source, having prioritized the most readily accessible ones. There may very well be some gaping gaps, not least in that I don't have access to any of the best Ilan Pappé material, so haven't been able to directly quote him. More eyes welcome. ] (]) 19:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Also, the columns in the Members table would definitely be a bit narrow if we ask members to add more information such as a commitment to welcoming new users. My own concern with the Members table is that requiring editors to express their commitment to the project in Table format intimidates all but the most experienced. It's certainly an unusual way for a WikiProject to have Users sign up. For example, the ] encourages people to add a short statement after their names, which I think would accomplish much the same as this Table. Anyway, I think the visuals and format of this WikiProject need work in general. --]] 08:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
:Thanks for commenting.
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — ]] 15:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
:*Agree on unrelated topics, just want to make sure what should be included (i.e., where there was successful collaboration) is clear so people don't start adding articles where there actually is a strong POV for whatever reason. So maybe a section called something like "Articles where there has been successful collaboration" would be a good name for the merged sections. Of course given drift in any article over time as editors come and go, it might be better to make it a short term section as you suggest. Longer than a month - a year? And cross fingers it doesn't get gutted in interim? Or maybe link to the version that was really good when people where happy with it - which gives people who suspect a POV has crept in a chance to go back and look? Sooner the better for changing that, if you want to go for it. Otherwise getting a second agreement on a fairly obvious point, I'll do it :-)
:*I don't see example in ]. But I agree tables can be frustrating even after using them a few times. However, I think we'd have to get more input before changing it, given all the people who were comfortable with that format. Maybe an intro telling people what info to add and then format like this:
::#''']''' ''Roles'': ( include text) ''Pledges'': (include text if relevant) ''Comments'': ( include text)
::#''']''' ''Roles'': ( include text) ''Pledges'': (include text if relevant) ''Comments'': ( include text)
::# etc
:*Re: ''Wikipedians interested in welcoming other users to this project'' - why not advertise it on the ] and encourage people to list themselves. I myself still ambivalent until I actually start doing it. ] (]) 16:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
:I agree with making the collaborations "collaborations of the year." Perhaps there could be several articles per year listed as collaborations, and about a variety of topics? --]] 23:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
::"Recent Collaborations" would be better since it doesn't infer that some are better than others, and allows for possibility a nice collaborative set of edits that lasted six months won't be permanently gutted in the seventh. In any case, we should do something to correct current messiness. Unfortunately for wikipedia (if not rest of my life), it's become a fairly low priority with me of late. ] (]) 00:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
==We need a hit list==
Hey all. I know this is going to be a bit of an extreme suggestion, so feel free to shout it down, but I wanted to know if anyone would second my proposal for an "Extremist Hit List". The basic idea is this; I think the real issue plaguing I/P articles on wikipedia are extremists on both sides of the debate. There is always going to be disagreement, but problems arise when people start shouting and demonstrating no willingness to compromise.
I suggest extremists of this nature are '''directly''' oppossed to the spirit of IPCOLL's mission. As such, I think we should make some effort to identify them, so that they might be neutralized/opposed. I suggest making a list with 2 categories - '''Editors who in IPCOLL's opinion cannot edit I/P articles with NPOV''' and a slightly lesser '''Editors who in IPCOLL's opinion have difficulty editting I/P articles with NPOV'''.
If through consensus we put editors in the first category, we should actively watch thier edit historys and be ready to pursue topic-bans if appropriate.
I know this might sound a bit cabal like, but I'm really desperate to find means of bringing down the tone of the debate on wikipedia. ] (]) 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
:Well, I don't know about a ''hit list'', but I certainly do believe that we need to be able to identify the editors who might be eligible for one. I have that we have a venue for small slights and problems, so that we can have more eyes on them and hopefully resolve them before they have chance to escalate. This could then serve as the basis for seeing if there are repeat issues or mannerisms viewed as problematic by the community. ] (]) 16:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I've seen the likes of that on ]--discussions about particular editors who may be POV pushers. In my view, many of these are overreactions to Users whose edits, as far as the encyclopedia is concerned, are "hit or miss"--but that is what collaborative editing is for. Furthermore, they add a certain unpleasantness to WP Judaism that I think would be even more undesirable over here, given that these articles are even more contentious. A "small slights" noticeboard for general Misplaced Pages is a good idea, but if we make a "hit list" part of IPCOLL I am concerned this would be yet another source of disagreement, as not everyone would agree about whether particular people go there. --]] 20:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
::] recommends how to deal with contentious editors through established processes. While it is less than perfect, and sometimes innocent editors are punished with guilty ones, it is the procedure we are using now. ] (]) 08:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
:::The problem with the current processes is that it is unsuitable for minor things. Lets say that you believe that another editor is ignoring your argument without providing a rationale or is misrepresenting your actions. Currently WQA is the only place to take such single instance issues, afaik. In the course of waiting to collect enough evidence to be able to reasonably open an RFAE too much disruption and tit-for-tat behavior could have transpired to make it possible for the AE admin to be able to make a clear judgement. I strongly believe that we need a place for perceived infractions where the result is not sanctions but simple community admonishment. We could easily have editors among us who disagree on what constitutes desirable behavior and if so, we should try to modify it as soon as possible. ] (]) 09:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
==We need to close ranks==
]
Following on from my thoughts above; would it be possible to restrict who can join this project? I think editors should be able to demonstrate some degree of neutrality and willingness to compromise to be able to join. Otherwise being a member of the project is sort of meaningless. I suggest we ask editors who want to join to "Provide examples of several edits/comments where you demonstrate NPOV or willingness to compromise" then poll on whether that editor should be allowed to join.
An editor has requested that ] be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You &#32;are invited to participate in ].<!-- from Template:RM notice--> ] (]) 20:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Of the editors I'm familiar with on the current member list, I don't see anyone yet who I don't think wold be able to pass this test.
Again, I know this suggestion may be a bit radical. Feel free to shout it down. ] (]) 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
:Everyone has a POV. IMO, IPCOLL (like almost any other WikiProject) works best when editors with different POVs find a common place to stand. These articles just get more POV pushers than articles about other topics, which is why so many people are too frustrated to join IPCOLL in the first place. In addition, the extremists may have a tendency to push the moderates apart and shatter the co-operative spirit some of us are trying to create. I've been on IPCOLL for some months now, and the main problem tends to be a few editors who don't listen to other people and engage in edit warring and disruptive editing. In my experience, these editors are eventually blocked by admins after many warnings for their behavior, or quit out of frustration. Whether or not they've signed up for IPCOLL is a moot point, IMO--the damage tends to be caused by their editing of articles and Talk pages, not their editing of IPCOLL. But I agree with you that asking people for "examples of several edits/comments where you demonstrate NPOV or willingness to compromise" might be a good idea. It helps people get to know one another in a way that would make them appreciate each other. Your post makes me wonder: In its overall goal, is IPCOLL actually a category-specific subproject of the ]? --]] 19:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
::"these editors are eventually blocked by admins after many warnings for their behavior" - Some of them yes, but I think I can point to some examples of accounts that seem to exist solely to POV-push in an uncivil manner.
::"moderates apart and shatter the co-operative spirit some of us are trying to create" - Couldn't agree more.
::"not their editing of IPCOLL" - I guess what I'm trying to suggest here, is that we might be able to create a group, where members can lay claim to some degree of NPOV by virtue of the fact that they belong to the group. I think we made somekind of process for vetting potential members of IPCOLL would make. If this is something you think sounds viable, I will sandbox a "potential membership page" for review. What I'm curious about is whether there is precedent for people setting up exclusive groups on wikipedia?
::Re ] - I think IPCOLL's goal is to prevent hate rather than spread peace and love. Perhaps these goals are ultimately the same. ] (]) 20:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
A few things:
*"accounts that seem to exist solely to POV-push in an uncivil manner"--the ones that come to my mind were allowed to continue editing for a time, but eventually got blocked after the admins realized what game those editors were playing or how they had a pattern of just not knowing how to behave. It can take time to realize what someone is up to and what someone is all about. BTW, most of the people in question didn't end up doing very much damage to articles, even if some of them may have built up bad energy amongst other editors of those articles. And I'm also talking about editors that had nothing to do with IPCOLL but were working on other parts of the encyclopedia. Do you know of any "bad" editors that no one seems to be taking action against?<br>
*"a group, where members can lay claim to some degree of NPOV by virtue of the fact that they belong to the group." Why not make it positive--e.g., "meritorious editors of IPCOLL" who have distinguished themselves by their willingness to cross the aisle, rather than negative? I think there is everything to gain and nothing to lose by doing things that way.
*"whether there is precedent for people setting up exclusive groups on wikipedia?" All administrative positions involve some type of vetting, e.g., there are elections for custodianship where people who have worked with these editors comment on how they've behaved. I've voted and commented in some of these elections, and actually, I'm up for election right now as a custodian of our sister project ]. Have you been involved with selecting any of our administrators? IMO, that might be something to look at re: identification of IPCOLL's best editors.
*"Re ] - I think IPCOLL's goal is to prevent hate rather than spread peace and love. Perhaps these goals are ultimately the same." I agree that they are ultimately the same. IMO, the best thing we can do to prevent hatred is to make as potent a bomb of WikiLove as we can and drop it right in the middle of Israel-Palestine. Why stop at "prevent hate" if we can just as easily aim for something much better? --]] 21:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
::Self-selecting and insular groups are often frowned upon, and I think for good reason. I think that we as a whole just need to highlight and seek to modify behavior which is problematic. The biggest problem, as I see it, with "bad" editors is that they can sometimes succeed in setting off a domino effect where people respond in kind and makes it difficult for admins and other editors to pinpoint who started and who is continuing disruption. I would like to see IPCOLL being both a wikilove campaign and also a force for behavior modification when necessary. ] (]) 21:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
:::It's hard to define who is and isn't contentious, since we all have different sensitivity levels on different topics. I've certainly been very contentious on issues of interest to me while being quite moderate on others where others are battling it out.
:::Obviously editors do post to these talk pages to continue their battles in an uncollaborative fashion, but unless it becomes disruptive to these talk pages, not much we can/should? As a moderator I've asked others to take long contentious debates back to original article talk pages once or twice. Again best to seek sanctions under ]. Singling people out - much as I'd like to do it myself in a few cases - too controversial and disruptive of the project. ] (]) 09:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
::::Well, imagine if we had a WQA style board where we can nip these things in the bud? It wouldn't be a one sided singling out, it would simply be a way for us as a community to agree on what behavior is and isn't acceptable as it happens. ] (]) 09:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::I think that's what ] is for - to get other editors to come on over and help correct the problem. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Which would be same on list you suggest. ] (]) 14:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


== ] ==
==Templates section==
Looking at WikiProject banner section, I realized the "promotional language" I wrote up last year was so confusing I couldn't understand it. Also, it looks like there are two templates and I just realized there is another one - an actual warning about sanctions - which someone just used on a page and which should be included. (See .) Maybe we do need a promotional language section, but will have to make it more user friendly than previous language. ] (]) 21:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


I'm spinning this off the main article because it's taking up quite a lot of space and almost certainly will continue to expand with an Israeli ground incursion into Gaza. You're welcome to help me get this ready for the mainspace. --] ] 01:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
== Reward for good editors? ==


== ] ==
I've been a little bit involved in the editing spree at {{la|Gaza flotilla raid}}, and I must say, I'm impressed by how many editors really are there to improve the article, not just push one or the other opinion. I noticed in particular {{user|Ai 00}}, {{user|ValenShephard}}, and {{user|ReneJohnsen}}, but there are several others. (As a disclaimer, I didn't look at all their contributions.) What do people think; should we give such good editors some reward, like the ]? I would like to "Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive". &mdash; ] 18:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:: I followed the edits some more, and I now found a couple edits by the above editors that I do not approve of: , , . However, by and large their edits are still good; it is really hard to always keep a cool head in a hot article like this. See also my comment below. &mdash; ] 21:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


An editor has started an RfC asking "Should ] by Hamas be included in the ]?" at ]. Interested editors are invited to participate. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
:I'd second the giving of some kind of award. Perhaps we should generate an IPColl Barnstar? Whatever we do, I'd suggest that ] get one! ] (]) 19:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


== Limiting or merging single-event stubs (in war navbox) ==
:: Yes, Nosfartu certainly cares about the article! I also now would add {{user|Zuchinni one}}. Also, per what I said above, I think we should also honor those who are partisan, but by and large do a good job of keeping their edits neutral. The following editors come to mind: {{user|Prodego}} (but against community decision ]) and {{user|Licory}} (but - edit warring over attribution). &mdash; ] 21:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Seb, I reviewed the edits you offered looking at them, here's my opinion.
:::{{user|Ai 00}} - - This seemed like a mostly NPOV edit, offering POVs from both sides. Poor english though. -I agree this is a most awkward edit. Poorly worded at best. At worst an attempt to insert somekind of POV material (though I can't figure out what).
:::{{user|ValenShephard}} - - This seems relatively harmless, though I can certainly see how this could raise POV concerns.
:::I've reviewed some of {{user|Zuchinni one}}'s contribs and can see no reason to object to his nomination. ] (]) 14:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
::::An award or barnster could be a source of contention in such an already contentious area, as even above discussion shows. ] (]) 20:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
::::: I agree completely 100% with carolmooredc. --] (]) 20:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::: "Completely 100%"? As oppossed to completely 99%? (chuckle) - Ok. Perhaps true. However, it would be nice if a bipartisan body such as ours did something ot acknowledge editors who did good ] work on contentious I/P issues. ] (]) 21:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


I've been seeing a lot of minor war events getting their own articles, which are 90% navboxes and background and 'see also' links to war lists. They often draw on twitter posts or less reputable sources. They are also rapidly added to the navboxes (which are on a lot of high-traffic pages), making those much less useful and perhaps confusing readers who click through a few serious articles and then end up on a dodgy, thinly sourced stub.
:::::: Of course the I/P conflict is contentious; we all know that. That's precisely why we're here! "''The purpose of this collaboration project is to create a more hospitable editing environment for Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict related topics''". I believe that if we're serious about creating a hospitable editing environment, we have to show support for those who actively contribute to it, and not allow a vague fear to discourage us from our purpose.
:::::: Is there anything specific you are afraid of? The only thing you mention, the discussion between NickCT and me, does not contain anything that even remotely makes me afraid. &mdash; ] 21:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::: <small>P.S.: Other than the edit conflict I just experienced. :-)</small>&mdash; ] 21:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::: The only thing we have to fear is fear itself! (and edit conflicts of course) ] (]) 21:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::: Exactly! I'd like to add another benefit I see in a project award: An award will appear on a user page and advertizes our project to exactly those people who we want to recruit per our ]. &mdash; ] 21:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I think somekind of image similar to would be appropriate for a barnstar. ] (]) 21:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::: Not sure if they have copyright on that one. How about this one: ]? (The disadvantage of that is that it's already widely used here.) &mdash; ] 02:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::'''1)'''What does the text say?, '''2)''' In keeping with traditional practices on wikipedia, do you think we could potentially build it into somekind of barnstar? ] (]) 14:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
<backdent>Oops, just noticed all these replies. Anyway, maybe if people are nominated on either this talk page or the articles one and then there being no objections they get one. g. :-) But do Barnsters usually need group approval, or is it flexible?<Br>
The problem is more that editors might be really good on 6 article and then there's that one article that pushes their buttons and they end up with people coming by and objecting. (And there are people like me who would prefer not to be nominated because we might have been good on one article, but we may have been naughty on others, even if never sanctioned, and would prefer not to hear the criticism from the partisan peanut gallery.)<br>
As for the image, I'd suggest a dove with the flags small and not touching. I suppose it could be a trial project, but I'm not enthusiastic. ] (]) 13:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
:Or just make it a purely private thing, announce it from time to time on this and/or the articles issues talk page so it's not official, and then any contention is segregated to the individual's talk page where it can be quickly deleted/archived. ] (]) 13:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
::'''@CarolMoore''' - Re "But do Barnsters usually need group approval, or is it flexible?" - Flexible. But I think there is value in some semi-official IPCOLL barnstar. People can where it as a badge of bipartisanship in this issue. Currently, I don't think anything like that exists.
::If you have another suggestion for artwork, do you think you could link to it or offer it? ] (]) 13:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Why not put together a short and specific proposal here for comment and then run it by ] where there are more (and more contentious] editors, just to see what happens. Meanwhile a . ] (]) 13:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Isn't that the same image Sebastian suggested? We need to adapt it to a barnstar before putting the proposal forth. I'd agree there should definately be somekind of poll before we move forward with it. ] (]) 15:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::Yes, same image. I think I read it all in draft form and missed it. ] (]) 19:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


I made routine merges of the Daraghmeh + KY articles, which were reverted; the former now somewhat inefficiently sitting through AfD, the latter a draft. What's a smooth way to set a style guideline for what gets a navbox-level article / what should be developed in draft-space?
(unindent) Sorry, I've been absent for a while. I still would like to go ahead with this soon. Carol, I am grateful to the people in this world who do good things without talking about them (and I won't comment on the good things I've seen from you), but people are different. I think most people appreciate getting a barnstar for something they spent a lot of effort on. And if that barnstar results from an open, public discussion between people of both sides of a conflict, can it get any better than that?! If people disagree with a proposal then they need to speak up at this very page. This is the hub of the project; if some people don't watch it, it's their decision. If they grumble about that, no neutral editor will take them seriously. I understand your concern about the occasional pushed button, but a barnstar is not a sanctification; we're all human and may make mistakes. For me, that's just one reason why we need barnstars: To strengthen the good in people. If someone does 5 good deeds, and never hears even a "thank you", then the temptation to do something nasty becomes harder to resist. At least I'm wired that way, and I think I'm not alone.


'''Examples''':
So, the following editors have been proposed so far; if there is no objection against awarding any of them then I will do so in three days:
These 3 all started out quoting unreliable pro-military sources; nothing notable + no details
* {{user|Ai 00}}
*] - pending deletion, edit war over merge
* {{user|ValenShephard}}
*] - hardly mentioned
* {{user|ReneJohnsen}}
*] (]) - very minor, edit war over merge
* {{user|Nosfartu}}
* {{user|Zuchinni one}}
* {{user|Prodego}}
* {{user|Licory}}
As it has been almost 2 weeks since I first proposed this, and I have been absent for a week, things may have changed; maybe I should add some sort of a disclaimer that these may be outdated. Are there any others that deserve recognition?


These simply don't need their own article:
As for the graphic: I looked at the usage, and (contrary to what I said) it's not widely used, but it has been claimed by supporters of the ]. If that is a problem, we could just use some nice graphic variant of the words "سلام - שלום". &mdash; ] 18:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
*] - not notable; maybe eventually part of notable pattern. not obviously part of this conflict
*] - odd title, minor
*] - minor


These might be kept if improved :
:As I wrote above: Why not put together a short and specific proposal here for comment and then run it by ] where there are more (and more contentious] editors, just to see what happens. Also, the following editors are your proposal or did I miss something above? ] (]) 01:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
*] - only one of these major enough to potentially have an article
*] - terrible naming + list convention started w/ the Russian invasion of Ukraine
<span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;]]</span> 03:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


:Glad someone is trying to tackle this thorny issue. A few minutes after (some event) happens, odds are good that someone will try to make an article out of it. Criteria would be good, but do you mean only for AI/IP articles? ] (]) 17:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:: This ''is'' the proposal! I read your suggestion, and I when I wrote "This is the hub of the project; if some people don't watch it, it's their decision", it was meant as a reply. Moreover, more people are watching this page (80) than the current article issues page (48), and it doesn't belong on that page because barnstars are no current article issues. &mdash; ] 03:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
:: Wars are one of the few events that generate such a proliferation of stubs and nav-links, and attract editors who fight over them rather than merging into a few informative articles. This war and the Russian invasion of Ukraine are the recent examples I've seen. We ideally could point people on navbox talk pages to standard guidelines for how to keep them useful. <span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;]]</span> 06:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


== Discussion at ] ==
:::Sorry, not clear where proposal begins. Could you put it in a box or otherwise more clearly demarc it? Also, I was thinking in terms of language that could be inserted in the actual ''WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration'' mainpage with explanation and instructions and the graphic. Also, I was just guessing at how many people watching and did not know there's a page to read how many are tracking an article. How does one find it? ] (]) 17:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


You are invited to join the discussion at ]. Your contributions would be appreciated. ] (]) 17:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
== Cease fire? ==
Radical idea: what if all willing regular editors in the I-P area pledge the following: for the next month, ending at midnight July 17 GMT, all editors refrain from:


== ] ==
#Opening arbcom cases against other I-P editors or commenting negatively in an arbcase about them
#Requesting AE enforcement against other I-P editors
#Filing 3rr against other I-P editors (very polite warnings okay)
#Posting complaints on any admin board against other I-P editors
#Insulting other I-P editors, or reporting same to WQA


Experienced editors are invited to look at the recent work at this article. ] (]) 10:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
and make a good faith effort to:


== ]: Methodology & Translations ==
#Adhere to voluntary 1rr (except true vandalism and outright BLP vios) on all articles, broadly construed, in the topic area.
#Give a heartfelt, sincere olive branch to at least one editor who has wronged you/you may have wronged in the past (you don't have to specify which!).


Having concluded my sabbatical, and having found this project, I'm ready to dive in again where angels fear to dive. Currently I'm taking a more narrow focus, working backwards as events become clearer in retrospect (the historiography will come later); too, reliable sources have begun to assemble their own timelines. If anyone wants to undertake massive improvements large or small, feel free!
It seems to me that there is a knee-jerk reaction in the air to simply ban everyone who makes good contributions to this area, on both "sides." It's a horrible idea, but showing we can work in peace might help put a graphite rod in that emotional response to our editing. What say you all? After a month, if it's been too painful to go without, everyone can go back to ]ing. (PS: I notified everyone I could think of off the top of my head, but please feel free to notify more people if you can think of anyone else.) <font color="green">]</font> 23:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


For reference, these have been my sources to date: Al Jazeera, BBC, The Forward, The Guardian, Times of Israel, Haaretz, Middle East Eye, NYT, and to an extent the think tank ].
===Yes, sounds like a good idea, sign me up===
# I'll try. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
# Well done for trying to cool things down IronDuke. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 20:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


Secondly, the first translation was into Chinese. There are now six. Although I'm a monoglot, I can tell that the French was, at least initially, a straight up translation whereas the German is definitely its own creature. The most recent, surprisingly, is Arabic. Just as surprisingly, Hebrew has yet to appear! Is anyone more knowledgeable keeping an eye on these narratives?
===No thanks: here's why===
#I think that as draft it would be harmful, for the reasons I reflect below. Limit activity by ''disruptive'' editors? Worth considering. Limit activity by ''non-disruptive'' editors? Harmful to the project (though I imagine it might gain some traction with editors previously found to be disruptive--It will be interesting to note, therefore, how the "previously blocked for Arab/Pal-Israel conflict edit violations" editors vote). This rec, unfortunately, bolsters disruptive editors, while hamstringing non-disruptive editors.--] (]) 01:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
#Really, you must be kidding. What you propose is basically that the POV-warriors have a free reign because what you propose is not enforce normal editing. What about
##if all editors ever blocked for edit warring etc stop editing for a month and will only comment on the talk pages?
##if editors within the same side of the dispute would actually control their own, instead of piling up on each other against the other side.
#: -- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


] (]) 13:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
===General discussion===
*'''Comment.''' We have a definitional issue. Which is, how does one define who is a "regular editor in the I-P area." Furthermore, why would we wish to chill continued input from helpful editors in that area?


: Welcome to the project, ]. Thank you in particular for your focus on RS. I agree that all of those you list meet ]. ◅&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 08:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
How about we change that to something along the lines of "Editors who have been sanctioned for violations in the I-P area, which sanctions have not been reversed as unfounded". Or, "Editors who have been subjected to topic bans in the I-P area, which bans have not been reversed as unfounded".


:: It helps that whatever the editorial stance, they're dealing with brute fact. ] (]) 13:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I think we want to distinguish between editors who have edited disruptively in the area, and editors who have simply edited in the area (whose continued input should be encouraged).--] (]) 00:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
:I totally understand where you're coming from, but I don't want to make any such distinction. WP will not asplode merely because a disruptive editor is watched a bit less closely. I don't want to get too bogged down in rigid definitions; I'm not looking for another opportunity to fuss and nitpick. I think if we all really adhere to the spirit of this, good will come of it. <font color="green">]</font> 00:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
::Well then, I certainly can't support the rec. I can see the project being improved by limiting further disruption by ''disruptive'' editors.


== Declarations of War ==
::At the same time, I see the project being hurt--and hurt needlessly--by limiting the contributions of ''non-disruptive'' editors. As your suggestion would have that effect, I believe it would be deleterious to the project.


I've been casting about for the formal Israeli declaration of war by invocation of Article 40A –the actual Knesset/Security Cabinet paperwork– as well as a transcription of ]'s announcement in full. All I'm finding are bits and pieces. ] (]) 13:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::In short, the projected is ''bettered'' by ''non-disruptive'' editors opening arbcom cases against disruptive I-P editors and commenting in an arbcase about them, requesting AE enforcement against disruptive I-P editors, filing 3rr against disruptive I-P editors, posting complaints against disruptive I-P editors, reporting disruptive editors to WQA, etc. This suggestion is IMHO analogous to Obama saying "let's try a month with good law-abiding citizens ''not'' reporting suspicions of terrorism to Homeland Security -- wouldn't that be a nifty way to address terrorism?" That's somehow not intuitive to me.


== ] ==
::I can't support a harmful suggestion (though I imagine my emendation would not be supported by disruptive editors either).--] (]) 01:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


Does this have merit as an article? Happy for anyone to contribute :) ] (]) 14:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''—I think it would be more helpful if the editors in question just stayed away from controversial articles, or at least from making controversial edits (any edit that they believe might potentially be reverted for any reason). In any case, I don't like to think that I'm "at war" with another Wikipedian and need a "ceasefire", but if this wording will help your initiative, then I support, because anything that reduces the amount of time wasted on mutual dirt-throwing is positive, IMO. —] <sup>(])</sup> 01:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
:The editors in question = all of us. I'm not talking about good actors versus bad actors, just an across the board chilling out of all the regulars. It may not ultimately do good, but I can't see harm -- and it just ''might'' lead to something positive. <font color="green">]</font> 01:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
::Again, I support the idea in principle, but it's not helpful that editors who were never problematic to begin with are dragged into an agreement which would place them on a list with many problematic editors (i.e. Epeefleche has a point). Personally, I believe that everyone in I–P should adhere to voluntary 1RR anyway. —] <sup>(])</sup> 02:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


:It does. Eventually a proposal will get traction... ] (]) 01:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
== Battleground returning? Please no. ==
::On second thought, now that as of this writing an inaugural ceasefire is holding, ceasefires are the salient matter. Calls for ceasefires are a matter for our coverage of protests and such, methinks. ] (]) 14:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


== ] ==
Two issues here: Nableezy and terminology. Nableezy has just returned from a topic ban and we are now being threatened with a return to the battleground which has certainly calmed down over the past two months in his absence. Instead of taking the opportunity to make constructive edits on Palestinian / Arab pages, some of his first edits today return to the exact same attitude of jumping on the 'Israeli' pages at ], ], ], ] and ], with rehashes of claims that have never been finalized with a community consensus. He (and SupremeDeliciousness jumping in as well) claim UNDUE, but the real mature issue is whether the political term is used before the municipal description on these and similar localities and associated pages, about 200+ articles. I have suggested over the past several months a status quo 'ceasefire', since the alternating wording ratio currently seems half:half, until such a consensus can be reached across the I-P project by reasonable members of the community. --] (]) 21:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

*Hmmm. Maybe we need someone to start working on limitations of those who have been topic banned from this area. It does seem that most problems emanate from such individuals. Slowing them down would also encourage productive editors, who would not otherwise be dismayed by the edits they confront. --] (]) 22:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The page ] is a disaster of a piece of content at present. It's almost wholly unsourced, could potentially be a personal essay, and the only sources are some op-eds, not scholarship. It's so dysfunctional that it borders on a ] case, but I thought it might be worth flagging it as a doer-upper first. ] (]) 22:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

:This isn't within our ambit, or at least not yet. Let's wait for the ] to happen before we have our own ]. And not to put too fine a point on it, the last item on the Post-Zionism's talk page is dated 27 June 2013, so no controversy there. (] 11 March 2022 likewise). ] (]) 14:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

== Proposed mergers at ] ==
Editors have proposed merging the articles ] and ] into ], which are of interest to this WikiProject.

You are invited join the discussions at {{slink|Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis#Proposed merger}} and {{slink|Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis#Proposed merger 2}}.—] 17:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

== Article idea: Israeli settler organizations ==

It may be worth creating ], covering orgs that support settlements, like ], ], Nahalat Shimon International, Hashomer Yosh, and Israel Land Fund, and nonprofits that financially support those orgs like Friends of Ir David and the ] . We have articles on some of the individual orgs but no overarching article. ] (]) 08:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

== Renewed calls for a two-state solution ==
I've been trying to find a suitable place in Misplaced Pages for mentions of items such as Thomas Friedman's 14 Nov 2023 in the NYT or the 14 Dec 2023 from 27 Jewish leaders to President Biden, both calling for a two-state solution. Is there an existing article which would be an appropriate home for such items? If not, should we create a new article? Thanks ] (]) 14:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

:Please could someone respond to my question. Another relevant piece has come to my attention, called "", by Michael Koplow and Shira Efron. ] (]) 15:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
::] fits the bill. ] (]) 18:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
:::I was hesitant about adding such items to that article as there doesn't seem to be a suitable place in the article's structure. But if that's the best article to use, then I/we will need to tweak the structure. Any suggestions? Should I/we create a new top-level section after section "Public opinion in Israel and Palestine"? And what would be a good name for such a section? Thanks ] (]) 19:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
::::I've created a section titled "Renewed focus on two-state solution". Your input and comments are very much welcome. ] (]) 23:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
:Perhaps ]. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 00:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
::Or would ] be a better fit? ] (]) 00:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 13:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 19:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

== Looking for Project volunteers to answer some questions ==

I am writing an article for ], Misplaced Pages's internal newspaper and am looking for 2-4 WP:Israel Palestine Collaboration volunteers, both longer term and newer members. Feel free to directly add your answers on ] and let me know if you any questions/comments. ~ 🦝 ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 22:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 21:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 06:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 06:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 10:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 07:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

== Articles wanted ==

I think we've all noticed the (unsurprising) recent proliferation in new articles that quickly get AFD'd or merged. Meanwhile, there are still articles that have not yet been written but would easily pass GNG as stand-alones. I thought for editors who are interested in making new articles in this topic area, it might be useful to gather some redlinks and greenlinks to turn blue. Here are my suggestions (and GScholar searches for convenience):
* ]
* ] (or ])
* ] (1948-1966 in Israel, 1967-... in occupied territories)
* ] or ] or ] (includes looting of homes, archives, antiquities, etc., compare with ], ])
* ]
Other suggestions welcome, unless this was the wrong place to post this, in which case, sorry! ] (]) 07:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

:] in case anyone wants to work on that. ] (]) 17:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 11:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

== Please help improve the following articles ==

Requesting collaboration to improve the articles ], ], and ] , which are all currently being considered for deletion, in order to make sure that these articles align with Misplaced Pages guidelines. I believe that all the major issues brought up in the deletion request could be addressed and fixed if we work to improve these articles collaboratively, especially considering the precedent of ]. Your expertise and contributions are highly valued. ] (]) 14:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 09:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

== ] ==

Dear all

I've just created an article for ], any additions are very welcome.

Thanks very much

] (]) 11:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

:Hi all, I'd appreciate some help with it, someone has added what appears to be government propaganda trying to discredit the organisation by pretending the symbol they use celebrates a lynching. ] (]) 00:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

== ] ==

Thoughts on this newly-created article? ] (]) 13:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

:I have just read it and feel very depressed for human kind. A well written article though. ] (]) 17:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi everyone, I've started a new article on the topic of ]. It's not comprehensive but hopefully gives an overview of the topic. Any edits or suggestions are of course welcome. ] (]) 17:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 21:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 00:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

== IRC Channel: on Liberal and not on Freenode ==

Hi, a minor nit:

The page mentions that the IRC channel is on ] (that makes no sense. Surely there's no Misplaced Pages activity there). The link to the Webchat sends to a channel on ]. For now, the channel there is dormant and does not seem to be registered. Should I register it? ] (]) 11:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==

There is a requested move at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 23:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

== depopulated Palestinian villages ==

Hello, the entries mentioned in ], ] and ] and other articles also in other languages do not have unified/appropriate properties in wikidata, , others are left as instances of "human settelment", "village" or "former human settlement", and with inconsistent (or non-existing property for) location, country ...etc, and a few have the properties relating to the timeframe of their depopulation. wikidata is still lacking/behind in some "technical" level such as describing the former population. But those still require consistency and inclusion of missing properties.

Adding apropriatly consistent properties to the remaining hundreds of items as this is disregarded/underacknowledged information is vital for any general attempt for reflection/contextualization that is genuine. ] (]) 12:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 09:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 05:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

== RM Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples#RFC: Palestinian genocide accusations ==

May be of interest. ] (]) 18:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 15:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The section is "]".
] (]) 10:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

== ] ==

] Translation suggestion / request.

I'm not sure if there is a last I'm supposed to add it to?

] (]) 15:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. '''<span style="background:#FFBE98;border:1px solid #FFF8E7;border-radius:18px;padding:4px">] • </span>]]</span>''' 22:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

== An RFC of interest ==

Please see ]. ] (]) 12:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

== ] ==

There are two discussion occurring at ] and ] discussing whether the article should be edited to further cover the opinions of ]. Editors are invited to participate. '']''<sup>]</sup> 07:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

== An RFC of interest ==

Please see ]. ] (]) 13:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

== Merge proposal ] ] ==

About 5 years ago, I expanded ] with its pre-Jewish history -there was a village called Mulabbis there. A few months ago an editor -without consulting anyone- removed all the pre-Jewish history from ] and put it in an article called ]. This is a relatively small article. I have now started a formal discussion about a merge, see ], cheers, ] (]) 21:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. '']''<sup>]</sup> 04:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
* The RM has been closed. ''']] (])''' 00:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

== ] RfC ==

There's a discussion at ] about whether specific prose attributed to Benny Morris should be added to ]. Editors are invited to participate. '']''<sup>]</sup> 07:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

== Writing about the 69 destroyed cultural heritage in Gaza ==

At ''']''', we have a table based on a ] list published 5 days ago, showing the 69 main cultural sites destroyed in Gaza. Many do not yet have articles about them.

Please help in creating articles about these destroyed sites.

] (]) 09:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

== Discussion on the reliability of the Jewish Chronicle ==

There is a discussion at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard about the reliability of the Jewish Chronicle, interested editors can see the discussion here ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --] ] 22:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

== Referring to Member statements section ==

The red field in the ] says: "This project page can be edited by all members. To become a member, please write a short message in the Member statements section" but the Member statements were removed to Archive. Maybe someone more experienced can remove that sentence and then remove this discussion topic ~ ] (]) 10:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

:Hi. Where are the member statements in the archive? Can you post the link here? Thanks, ] | ] 15:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Archive_3#h-Member_statements-2008-01-16T17:09:00.000Z ~ ] (]) 15:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks. How about if the member statements are moved to a subpage, so that participants can add new statements there? ] | ] 15:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

== Reference to Nakba missing in description of Israeli settlement history ==

''Note: Decisions on this topic affect all pages about Israeli settlements''

On this page https://en.wikipedia.org/Kfar_Chabad about an Israeli settlement established in 1949, I noticed that there is no mention of destroying a Palestinian settlement or expelling people. The only reference is that it was a "depopulated" Palestinian village. By not mentioning the circumstances surrounding the establishment of the settlement but mentioning the "Terrorist attack on the vocational school" the story becomes one-sided.

My suggestion is to add at least one sentence about the Nakba, referring to the Nakba page. This probably applies to most pages about Israeli municipalities/settlements. To avoid having to create a specific description for each municipality/settlement, my suggestion is to use this generic sentence if possible: "During the ], Zionist militias forcibly expelled about half of the inhabitants of Palestine from their homes." ] (]) 11:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) ] 01:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

== RfC: should ] -article be linked from the ]-article? ==

See:], cheers, ] (]) 22:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

== Shalom Nagar ==

I'd welcome more eyes, and corrections, on this ] of Adolf Eichmann's executioner. The "later years" section, especially parts cited from ], covers areas of interest to this wikiproject that I want to make sure I've covered fairly. ] (]) 16:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at ] ==

Thanks for any comments, ] &#124; ] 18:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:20, 12 December 2024

Note: Some old subpages of this wikiproject (older than 2010) are now archived at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Old subpages
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration
Media mentionThis WikiProject has been mentioned by a media organization:
  • Jimmy Wales (opinion) (15 January 2016). "Misplaced Pages's strength is in collaboration – as we've proved over 15 years". The Guardian. It seems counterintuitive that Misplaced Pages, a website open for anyone in the world to edit, could be a reliable source of information for one of the world's deeply contested issues. And it is true that finding neutrality – a cornerstone policy of Misplaced Pages – under these circumstances is a serious challenge. And yet, WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration is working to make Misplaced Pages the most balanced reference point for anyone seeking information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while breaking down barriers in the process. The project aims to engage people in building bridges and weaving together viewpoints from both sides in an effort to create a "truly bilateral" narrative. As the world's primary free and open reference on the issue, Misplaced Pages has taken on the role of a sort of digital truth and reconciliation commission.
Archiving icon
Archives

Old article discussions
1: 2008 former "Community Lounge" page
2: January-August 2008
3: Sept-December 2008
4: January-June 2009
5: July-December 2009
6: January-June 2010
7:July-December 2010
8:January-December 2011
9:January-December 2012
10:January-December 2013
11: January 2014 - April 2015
Old discussions by topic:
Outside organizing of editing
Legality of Israeli settlements
Old project discussions

Combined talk discussions


"Al-Aqsa is in danger"

Hello, I'm sure you're all very busy at the moment, but am looking for third-party input on something. An editor made a very large addition to the small page Al-Aqsa is in danger which appears to me to seriously skew the article's tone and compromise its NPOV. It seemed relatively good and neutral (if short) before, but certainly the additions appear very much to push it in one direction. I've laid out what I think are the problems on the talk page and on the relevant user's talk page, but have gotten no response. To avoid an edit war, would appreciate if someone (or multiple someones) would take a look. Thanks! AntiDionysius (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Nakba denial

I have created a page on the subject of Nakba denial - a topic of some weight in literature on the historiography of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I have barely scratched the surface of the available source, having prioritized the most readily accessible ones. There may very well be some gaping gaps, not least in that I don't have access to any of the best Ilan Pappé material, so haven't been able to directly quote him. More eyes welcome. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:March 2010 Israel–Gaza clashes#Requested move 13 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:March 2010 Israel–Gaza clashes#Requested move 13 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — MaterialWorks 15:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Israeli permit regime in the West Bank

An editor has requested that Israeli permit regime in the West Bank be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

I'm spinning this off the main article because it's taking up quite a lot of space and almost certainly will continue to expand with an Israeli ground incursion into Gaza. You're welcome to help me get this ready for the mainspace. --Jprg1966 01:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?

An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath 23:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Limiting or merging single-event stubs (in war navbox)

I've been seeing a lot of minor war events getting their own articles, which are 90% navboxes and background and 'see also' links to war lists. They often draw on twitter posts or less reputable sources. They are also rapidly added to the navboxes (which are on a lot of high-traffic pages), making those much less useful and perhaps confusing readers who click through a few serious articles and then end up on a dodgy, thinly sourced stub.

I made routine merges of the Daraghmeh + KY articles, which were reverted; the former now somewhat inefficiently sitting through AfD, the latter a draft. What's a smooth way to set a style guideline for what gets a navbox-level article / what should be developed in draft-space?

Examples: These 3 all started out quoting unreliable pro-military sources; nothing notable + no details

These simply don't need their own article:

These might be kept if improved :

– SJ + 03:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Glad someone is trying to tackle this thorny issue. A few minutes after (some event) happens, odds are good that someone will try to make an article out of it. Criteria would be good, but do you mean only for AI/IP articles? Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Wars are one of the few events that generate such a proliferation of stubs and nav-links, and attract editors who fight over them rather than merging into a few informative articles. This war and the Russian invasion of Ukraine are the recent examples I've seen. We ideally could point people on navbox talk pages to standard guidelines for how to keep them useful. – SJ + 06:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/21

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/21. Your contributions would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

From the river to the sea

Experienced editors are invited to look at the recent work at this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war: Methodology & Translations

Having concluded my sabbatical, and having found this project, I'm ready to dive in again where angels fear to dive. Currently I'm taking a more narrow focus, working backwards as events become clearer in retrospect (the historiography will come later); too, reliable sources have begun to assemble their own timelines. If anyone wants to undertake massive improvements large or small, feel free!

For reference, these have been my sources to date: Al Jazeera, BBC, The Forward, The Guardian, Times of Israel, Haaretz, Middle East Eye, NYT, and to an extent the think tank Institute for the Study of War.

Secondly, the first translation was into Chinese. There are now six. Although I'm a monoglot, I can tell that the French was, at least initially, a straight up translation whereas the German is definitely its own creature. The most recent, surprisingly, is Arabic. Just as surprisingly, Hebrew has yet to appear! Is anyone more knowledgeable keeping an eye on these narratives?

kencf0618 (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the project, Ken. Thank you in particular for your focus on RS. I agree that all of those you list meet WP:RS. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 08:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
It helps that whatever the editorial stance, they're dealing with brute fact. kencf0618 (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Declarations of War

I've been casting about for the formal Israeli declaration of war by invocation of Article 40A –the actual Knesset/Security Cabinet paperwork– as well as a transcription of Mohammed Deif's announcement in full. All I'm finding are bits and pieces. kencf0618 (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Calls for a ceasefire during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Does this have merit as an article? Happy for anyone to contribute :) Neegzistuoja (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It does. Eventually a proposal will get traction... kencf0618 (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
On second thought, now that as of this writing an inaugural ceasefire is holding, ceasefires are the salient matter. Calls for ceasefires are a matter for our coverage of protests and such, methinks. kencf0618 (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Post-Zionism

The page Post-Zionism is a disaster of a piece of content at present. It's almost wholly unsourced, could potentially be a personal essay, and the only sources are some op-eds, not scholarship. It's so dysfunctional that it borders on a WP:TNT case, but I thought it might be worth flagging it as a doer-upper first. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This isn't within our ambit, or at least not yet. Let's wait for the historiography to happen before we have our own Historikerstreit. And not to put too fine a point on it, the last item on the Post-Zionism's talk page is dated 27 June 2013, so no controversy there. (New Historians 11 March 2022 likewise). kencf0618 (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed mergers at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis

Editors have proposed merging the articles Kidnapping of Hersh Goldberg-Polin and Kidnapping of Noa Argamani into 2023 Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis, which are of interest to this WikiProject.

You are invited join the discussions at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis § Proposed merger and Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis § Proposed merger 2.—Alalch E. 17:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Article idea: Israeli settler organizations

It may be worth creating Israeli settler organizations, covering orgs that support settlements, like Regavim, Ateret Cohanim, Nahalat Shimon International, Hashomer Yosh, and Israel Land Fund, and nonprofits that financially support those orgs like Friends of Ir David and the Central Fund of Israel . We have articles on some of the individual orgs but no overarching article. DFlhb (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Renewed calls for a two-state solution

I've been trying to find a suitable place in Misplaced Pages for mentions of items such as Thomas Friedman's 14 Nov 2023 opinion piece in the NYT or the 14 Dec 2023 letter from 27 Jewish leaders to President Biden, both calling for a two-state solution. Is there an existing article which would be an appropriate home for such items? If not, should we create a new article? Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Please could someone respond to my question. Another relevant piece has come to my attention, called "Starting From the Ground Up: U.S. Policy Options for Post-Hamas Gaza", by Michael Koplow and Shira Efron. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Two state solution fits the bill. kencf0618 (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I was hesitant about adding such items to that article as there doesn't seem to be a suitable place in the article's structure. But if that's the best article to use, then I/we will need to tweak the structure. Any suggestions? Should I/we create a new top-level section after section "Public opinion in Israel and Palestine"? And what would be a good name for such a section? Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I've created a section titled "Renewed focus on two-state solution". Your input and comments are very much welcome. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps this article. RolandR (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Or would this one be a better fit? Misha Wolf (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Re'im music festival massacre#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Re'im music festival massacre#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Siege of Gaza City#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Siege of Gaza City#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking for Project volunteers to answer some questions

I am writing an article for WP:SIGNPOST, Misplaced Pages's internal newspaper and am looking for 2-4 WP:Israel Palestine Collaboration volunteers, both longer term and newer members. Feel free to directly add your answers on Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report and let me know if you any questions/comments. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel#Requested move 8 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel#Requested move 8 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Holit massacre#Requested move 10 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Holit massacre#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nir Yitzhak massacre#Requested move 10 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nir Yitzhak massacre#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 12 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 12 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip#Requested move 26 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip#Requested move 26 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Articles wanted

I think we've all noticed the (unsurprising) recent proliferation in new articles that quickly get AFD'd or merged. Meanwhile, there are still articles that have not yet been written but would easily pass GNG as stand-alones. I thought for editors who are interested in making new articles in this topic area, it might be useful to gather some redlinks and greenlinks to turn blue. Here are my suggestions (and GScholar searches for convenience):

Other suggestions welcome, unless this was the wrong place to post this, in which case, sorry! Levivich (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Palestinian cultural genocide in case anyone wants to work on that. Levivich (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Jewish exodus from the Muslim world#Requested move 26 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jewish exodus from the Muslim world#Requested move 26 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Please help improve the following articles

Requesting collaboration to improve the articles List of terrorist incidents in the Palestinian territories, List of terrorist incidents in Israel in 2022, and List of terrorist incidents in Israel in 2024 , which are all currently being considered for deletion, in order to make sure that these articles align with Misplaced Pages guidelines. I believe that all the major issues brought up in the deletion request could be addressed and fixed if we work to improve these articles collaboratively, especially considering the precedent of similar articles existing for various other countries on the English Misplaced Pages. Your expertise and contributions are highly valued. WikiJunkie (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident#Requested move 29 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident#Requested move 29 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Artists4Ceasefire

Dear all

I've just created an article for Artists4Ceasefire, any additions are very welcome.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, I'd appreciate some help with it, someone has added what appears to be government propaganda trying to discredit the organisation by pretending the symbol they use celebrates a lynching. John Cummings (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Animal stereotypes of Palestinians in Israeli discourse

Thoughts on this newly-created article? AusLondonder (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I have just read it and feel very depressed for human kind. A well written article though. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israel–Hamas war

Hi everyone, I've started a new article on the topic of destruction of cultural heritage during the Israel–Hamas war. It's not comprehensive but hopefully gives an overview of the topic. Any edits or suggestions are of course welcome. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Iranian Strikes in Israel#Requested move 13 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Iranian Strikes in Israel#Requested move 13 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel#Requested move 14 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel#Requested move 14 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2023 Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip#Requested move 11 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip#Requested move 11 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

IRC Channel: on Liberal and not on Freenode

Hi, a minor nit:

The page mentions that the IRC channel is on Freenode (that makes no sense. Surely there's no Misplaced Pages activity there). The link to the Webchat sends to a channel on Libera Chat. For now, the channel there is dormant and does not seem to be registered. Should I register it? Tzafrir (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Weaponization of antisemitism

There is a requested move at Weaponization of antisemitism that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Mistamystery (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

depopulated Palestinian villages

Hello, the entries mentioned in List of towns and villages depopulated during the 1947–1949 Palestine war, List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict and Category:Villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict and other articles also in other languages do not have unified/appropriate properties in wikidata, about 20 out of the 600~ depopulated villages are clearly marked as such in wikidata, others are left as instances of "human settelment", "village" or "former human settlement", and with inconsistent (or non-existing property for) location, country ...etc, and a few have the properties relating to the timeframe of their depopulation. wikidata is still lacking/behind in some "technical" level such as describing the former population. But those still require consistency and inclusion of missing properties.

Adding apropriatly consistent properties to the remaining hundreds of items as this is disregarded/underacknowledged information is vital for any general attempt for reflection/contextualization that is genuine. Uwe a (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Requested move 3 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Requested move 3 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tel al-Sultan airstikes#Requested move 27 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tel al-Sultan airstikes#Requested move 27 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

RM Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples#RFC: Palestinian genocide accusations

May be of interest. Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel#Requested move 4 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel#Requested move 4 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Requested move 3 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Requested move 3 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The section is "Three options".

FortunateSons (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

he:תצפיתנית

he:תצפיתנית Translation suggestion / request.

I'm not sure if there is a last I'm supposed to add it to?

MWQs (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:University of Texas at Austin stabbing#Requested move 14 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:University of Texas at Austin stabbing#Requested move 14 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • 22:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

An RFC of interest

Please see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#RFC - Gaza Health Ministry qualifier. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight

There are two discussion occurring at Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Haifa and Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Unconditional surrender at Haifa: gross misrepresentation discussing whether the article should be edited to further cover the opinions of Benny Morris. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath 07:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

An RFC of interest

Please see Talk:List of genocides#RFC - Inclusion of Gaza genocide. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal Petah Tikva Mulabbes

About 5 years ago, I expanded Petah Tikva with its pre-Jewish history -there was a village called Mulabbis there. A few months ago an editor -without consulting anyone- removed all the pre-Jewish history from Petah Tikva and put it in an article called Mulabbes. This is a relatively small article. I have now started a formal discussion about a merge, see Talk:Petah_Tikva#Merge_proposal, cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 5#Requested move 7 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 5#Requested move 7 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath 04:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight RfC

There's a discussion at Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#RfC_–_In_the_article_section_about_"Haifa",_should_the_following_paragraph_be_added? about whether specific prose attributed to Benny Morris should be added to 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath 07:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Writing about the 69 destroyed cultural heritage in Gaza

At Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip#List of sites, we have a table based on a UNESCO list published 5 days ago, showing the 69 main cultural sites destroyed in Gaza. Many do not yet have articles about them.

Please help in creating articles about these destroyed sites.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on the reliability of the Jewish Chronicle

There is a discussion at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard about the reliability of the Jewish Chronicle, interested editors can see the discussion here WP:RSN#RFC Jewish Chronicle. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH 22:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Referring to Member statements section

The red field in the WikiProject's header says: "This project page can be edited by all members. To become a member, please write a short message in the Member statements section" but the Member statements were removed to Archive. Maybe someone more experienced can remove that sentence and then remove this discussion topic ~ VanderlekD (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Where are the member statements in the archive? Can you post the link here? Thanks, HG1 | Talk 15:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Archive_3#h-Member_statements-2008-01-16T17:09:00.000Z ~ VanderlekD (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. How about if the member statements are moved to a subpage, so that participants can add new statements there? HG1 | Talk 15:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Reference to Nakba missing in description of Israeli settlement history

Note: Decisions on this topic affect all pages about Israeli settlements

On this page https://en.wikipedia.org/Kfar_Chabad about an Israeli settlement established in 1949, I noticed that there is no mention of destroying a Palestinian settlement or expelling people. The only reference is that it was a "depopulated" Palestinian village. By not mentioning the circumstances surrounding the establishment of the settlement but mentioning the "Terrorist attack on the vocational school" the story becomes one-sided.

My suggestion is to add at least one sentence about the Nakba, referring to the Nakba page. This probably applies to most pages about Israeli municipalities/settlements. To avoid having to create a specific description for each municipality/settlement, my suggestion is to use this generic sentence if possible: "During the Nakba, Zionist militias forcibly expelled about half of the inhabitants of Palestine from their homes." VanderlekD (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)#Requested move 6 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)#Requested move 6 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC: should Gaza genocide -article be linked from the Israel-article?

See:Talk:Israel#RfC, cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Shalom Nagar

I'd welcome more eyes, and corrections, on this newly created biography of Adolf Eichmann's executioner. The "later years" section, especially parts cited from The Forward, covers areas of interest to this wikiproject that I want to make sure I've covered fairly. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Antisemitism during the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 12 December 2024

Thanks for any comments, ByVarying | talk 18:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: