Talk:Israel Palestine conflict

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 May 2016. The result of the discussion was redirect to Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

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

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

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

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

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

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

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

Links

Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Greyshark09 what is your objection to this arrangement? The RFC related to the creation of a detailed new article. It seemed noone wanted more duplication of these topics, so a new article with duplicative content has not been created.

This disambiguation page is simply here to tidy the situation up and make it easier for people to navigate.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is a blatant violation of community consensus and your POV-pushing may require WP:ARBPIA action! GreyShark (dibra) 14:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Greyshark09 if you wish to discuss this in any forum, please do. If you read the RFC properly, you will see that this arrangement is different from that proposal and perhaps better. If you wish to state your views on this arrangement in a manner that can be constructively discussed, that would be good. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Greyshark09: please could you comment further? We cannot progress without discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm nominating this WP:SYNTH page for deletion and asking previous commenters to discuss.GreyShark (dibra) 13:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Greyshark09: You went for a PROD, which can be removed by any objecting editor. Since you feel strongly, I suggest you open a full WP:AFD discussion instead. You will need a rationale in line with the basic requirements. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Hertz1888: please could you share your thoughts on this question? There was a recent discussion here, which did not get a great deal of focus, but in essence concluded that there was no appetite for a new article. There was recognition of the confusing nature of the existing situation of our major articles here, so I am trying to find another way to fix the problem. Any ideas would be appreciated.

To comment briefly on your edit comments:

"First phase or forerunner?" => The "intercommunal conflict" phase included the massacres and riots of 1929, the King David bombing, and Deir Yassin. It is very core to the story, and is treated as such by all scholars
"which is wider than the other is debatable" => that is true for israeli-palestinian vs. arab-israeii; but "israel palestine" refers simply to the land being fought over, not to the people

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Not my point. The Israeli–Palestinian conflict article dates the conflict from the mid-20th century. Asserting that earlier events, pre-Israeli statehood, represented a first phase of it is simply inconsistent and anachronistic verbally. I suggested "forerunner" as a more consistent wording.
Hardly likely to be clear to the general readership. Such fine distinctions should either be explained better or omitted.

I am pleased to see there is at least a "recognition of the confusing nature of the existing situation" in the multiple articles. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Hertz1888: on your first point, your diff removed the words "Israel Palestine conflict", not "Israeli-Palestinian conflict". The concept here is that Israel and Palestine are names for the land that were used by the parties involved throughout the whole period, so are applicable pre and post statehood.

I agree there is a risk that this is too subtle a point. I am convinced there must be a way to solve it, I just haven't figured it out yet. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic