Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  17:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Hello to all Wikipedia users. Im copying the reasons for deleting this article from it's talk page: "A second deletion proposal

This article is "copied from 'Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs'" and has already caused confusion among Wikiusers. It's editing history hard to access, it doesn't link to any other Wikipedia and it's also unclear to what conflict does it cover. We already have a B-class Mandatory Palestine article with a wide politics section in it. For understanding the wide scope of relations between the zionist movement and arab region We have the Arab–Israeli conflict and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It's clear this article doesn't add anything but messing with Wikipedia. It was already up for a delete and i suggest either to do so or merge its relevant content with the above mentioned articles.Mateo (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, The previous deletion proposal was voted 5-2 in favor of delete, and even the keep voters stated this article needs heavy editing. This article remained incoherent with Wikipedias content, style of writing or editing, and has no sense keeping it as it is.Mateo (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)" 19:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Mateo (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)"
 * A link to the previous deletion discussion, which actually indicates there was a third deletion proposal that was also close voted (9-9 not counting the author of the article). The reasoning of both sides seems quite superficial, with everybody focusing on the title. This led to keeping a bad article, but adding an title that's incoherent with it's content. While the second proposal leaned towards a deletion, the result was changing a title once more, to an even less related title. Strange how not a word being said about the "Intercommunal" conflict between the families of al-Husayni and Nashashibi, nor the conflict between Jewish militias or the relations between them and the Druze or the Negev Bedouin. It's clear this article wish to fix a feeling of bias, but i think Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. So with no improvement in it's content, let's not settle with changing the name again.Mateo (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The deletion proposal your are referring to was originally made on this article under its previous name - "Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs". This article wasn't copied from there, but it in fact the same article renamed.GreyShark (dibra) 15:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your wrong. I actually quoted the user who copied it. He wrote it black on white: "copied from 'Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs'; see talk) (thank)" It is now hard to trace edits the previous article because of the way the the name was changed. This article is problematical in so many ways, and actually ads almost nothing of importance to the subject it should cover. Best thing to do with it is delete it, but heavy editing is also of consideration.Mateo (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I have not read this article, so I have no idea which side is trying to fix which bias. AFter looking it over the outline of this article, I do think that this article fulfills a purpose that is not fulfilled by any of the other related articles (which are listed in the "See also" section) by detailing the Mandatory roots of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in more detail than would have been appropriate in the Mandatory Palestine article. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Half the article deals with the years prior to the mandate era. As i said, the name have changed twice but it's content is still "Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs", which imply heavy POV and original research. The article is trying to fix a bias by the statement of it's own author, that said he wrote it because "the article on Zionism had no space". So this is actually not an article about mandatory palestine but a critical POV on Zionism that is written in pseudonym. The fact you also got mislead by it clearly points that it's a harmful article. Of course i think we should fix that.Mateo (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - though originally this article was somewhat unclear, its rename made it to cover a very important chapter of the conflicts in the Levant - the sectarian conflict between Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs, which is the background to the Arab-Israeli and the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts later on.GreyShark (dibra) 15:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - we already have additional articles and categories to fit with this topic, so we are not talking about some "invention". For instance: Timeline of intercommunal violence in Mandatory Palestine, Category:Riots and civil disorder in Mandatory Palestine etc.GreyShark (dibra) 16:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The articles you speak of were written by you after this one, in false relation to this one, and while they also refer to a conflict that was never separated then the Arab israeli conflict, they do add something of importance. That's why they should stay (but be renamed) while this one should just go.Mateo (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong delete --ChaDaniNa3echak (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - During the Mandate of Palestine period, Jewish (Zionist) and Arab communities fought against each other. That started 30 years before the First Arab-Israeli War and the establishment of the State of Israel. That's maybe the most important period to understand the root of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflit. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. The fighting between "communities" in the region did not start 30 years before the First Arab-Israeli War.
 * 2. There were fights inside those communities as well.
 * 3. There were a lot more then just "zionist" and "arabs" in that region
 * 4. You did states some important things, BUT ALL OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS ALREADY EXIST IN OTHER WIKIPEDIA ARTICLS
 * 5. It appears not a lot of voters actually read the article before voting, and thats very disappointing. Just a glance at the article will make it clear for you that it does not focuses on 1919-1948 and tries to detail the communities of mandatory Palestine, but it is actually a straight forward POV trying to show that the Israelis seek to transfer the Arabs from the land. Now this is a legitimate argument but it is highly controversial and definitely not right for an article named "Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine".
 * 6. Furthermore, this term "Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine" is a complete made up term that is not explained in the article itself nor anywhere else. It is an original research that does not suit an encyclopedia and can confuse readers with lack of knowledge in the subject.
 * 7. As someone how studied this matter, i urge you to read the article and reconsider your vote. I recommend to everybody to do the same.Mateo (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Mateo,
 * The intercommunal conflict (which doesn't mean armed conflict) started in 1917 at the anniversary of the Balfour declaration and each year after. The Arab population manifested against Zionism and Jewish immigration. In 1920 this evolved in riots which made a tenth of deads and again in 1921. The years after the were huge political conflict with Mandatory authorities. In 1929, new riots all around the country made more than hundred deaths. The years after Arab gangs organised step by step and this evolved in a 3 years civil war (some historians refer to this has the lost Arab Palestinian War of Independence). That war where Arabs fought Jews and the British authorities made more than 5000 deads among Arabs and hundreds among the others. The IZL and the LHI answered to this Arab revolt in using terrorism and Zionists claimed for their own independence. WWII was a truce period but as soon as 1944, the Zionists movements started their independence war (military and politically). This lead to the 1947 partition vote and a civil war (intercommunal war) in Mandatory Palestine between Jews and Arabs and that made around 9000 deaths in 6 months (ie more than 50 per day on a population of 2,000,000 people). All this occured before the 14 May 1948. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wont argue with the things you wrote, tough i reccomend you to take a second look at your numbers. What is important for me to clarify once more is that THE ARTICE WE DISCUSS HERE do not deal with the relations between communities in the mandate era! It's a self-described copy of a controversial article named "zionist attitues towards palestinian arabs". This alone should be a cause for deletion. Please read the article. From top to bottom It's a push for a once-sided legitimate but non-encyclopedian POV while using a pseudonym. it causes confusion among users just by using a fringe term to describe the politics in British mandate (that no one would argue were a lot more complex than just Jews VS Arabs), not to mention it's tendentiousness content that focuses solely on the a idea of transfer. But above all the article is edited in a way it's hard if not impossible to see its origins. This bundle of distortions leads to an article that does not explain it's own title, while it's content deals with a totally different subject. There were a lot more then just Zionist and Arabs in Mandatory Palestine, and these two groups were hardly monolithic.
 * But as i said the discussion here is not about what happened, rater if this article contribute to Wikipedia or causes confusion and mistakes. Unfortunetley until now every user had put forth his own opinion on the relations in the region but NO ONE ADDRESSES THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE ARTICE! While this is strange, it got to show you this article can't be defended and is of no positive use. Most of the things you wrote, for example, are already written clearly in the Politics section of the british mandate artice. While it's importnat to expand that section, this article that's up for deletion does not add much to it and it's history and effect demonstrate the need to edit it heavily or delete it alltogether. Mateo (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the current content doesn't fit the title of the article. Anyway, contents issues are not solved by AfD. They are solved in modifying the content.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When it's a regular case you are right, but in front of us is an article that already got renamed twice. Do you suggest on renaming it again? Plus this article already causes serious mix up at the subject it should cover, and all of it's important content (which is very little) you can merge with the Politics section of the british mandate article. If you suggest keeping this article and EDIT it so it will explain it's title, you need to start from scratch. You can either vote to DELETE it or you can just set this article it's original name back and edit it's controversial content. In both of this alternatives you would be better using the Politics section of the british mandate article as a basis for an article about the communities of the mandate. But it's either Naming it back so it's title would fit it's content or Deleting it due to it's history and serious problems. What do you think is better?02:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)


 * Comment - Can be nice to actually find one argument to keep this article that involves the content of the article. Yes, it has a pretty name, but it's an invented pseudonym to cover up a POV. Just read it, please.Mateo (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Strong delete Per nominator.--Opdire657 (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOTOPINION This lengthy article, which I have just read in full, is effectively a personal essay, filled with cherrypicked quotes to comprise an idiosyncratic POV on topics (Zionism, Mandatory Palestine) that are already covered on Wikipedia. As such it is a violation of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable, and there is scope for expansion. It could use some clean up but this is no reason for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh really, you think a clean up would be enough? can you mention in specifics what parts need to be cleaned up??Mateo (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't think this is a content fork, as some editors have suggested. In any case, improvement should always be favored above deletion (per WP:ATD). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "fork" means in this context, but have you read the content? Have you read any books or articles on the British mandate of Palestine before reading the article? Seriously what do you know on the issue, to vote Keep?


 * Keep -- This is certainly the appropriate title. Conflict certainly did exist.  Zionist attitudes and Arab attitudes would be concerned with one side or the other.  This should produce a NPOV article.  The problem is that this is a highly polarized subject where editors have strong POVs, so that ending off with a NPOV article may be difficult, but that does not mean we should not try.  The subject is certainly notable, so we should have had an article.  To the objection about conflict before, I would say that there were only a few Jews in Palestine before the Balfour declaration and the area was under Ottoman control.  However, if necessary we could have an article about conflict between Zionists and others in the Ottoman Empire.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no conflict involving Zionists prior to 1921, except maybe the spillover of the Franco-Syrian War in 1920 (but that is another topic).GreyShark (dibra) 06:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To say that the inter-communal politics in mandatory palestine were focused on the relations between a groups of "Zionist" and a group of "Arabs" is bigoted towards both sides and a simplistic POV at best. But to have an encyclopedic article that says that is a damn shame. Can you please address the facts of the matter, rather than the inner politics? As i said, the term "Intercommunial conflict" related to mandatory Palestine is a fringe term, hardly used be historians. Perhaps that's why there is no resource for the articles name, and it actually doesn't appear again in the article itself. How can you defend that? In addition, there were many types of Arab identities in the the region, having major differences along geographical lines and many different families that had complex relations with one another, many types of Zionist, other Jews that were not Zionists, some Jews that were part of the old population and more than a few co-operations between religions even by the time of the British occupation. So there is almost no connection between the name of the article and it's content. This is the reason it should be deleted, way before we say one word about the obviously biased approach of the articles author, that clearly said that this is an expansion of the "Zionism" article. I would like you to reconsider your vote, or at least share a comment on that, as I am quite surprised to find out how many voters here didnt read the article.07:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Mateo,
 * As far as I am concerned, I would agree with an important "cleaning" of this article. I agree that too much undue:weight is given to the mutual "attitudes" (and even in the attitude of Zionist towards Arabs) when this is just a (small) part of the context.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And that's because this article is still "Zionist attitudes..." as it was from the get go, just under pseudonym. It was a mistake to think that changing it's name over and over again would urge users to edit it accordingly. This led to a very confusing article that can't stay as it is. Cleaning it, as you suggested, would mean start from scratch. From start to finish, the article doesn't detail events that happoned under the british rule, rather focuses on zionist actions and the responses others. In mass, more than one third of it doesn't even deal with the years of the mandate! That's why there is zero coverage of the 40's, as the article wrongly claims "From the beginning of the forties the Zionist movement stopped paying attention to the 'Arab question'." This claim, like many others, is an unsourced claim, which is still better than the many misquotes and sometimes utter distortions you can find of historians like Yosef Gorny. The more you will go through this salad you will find it's impossible to clean it without deleting it first. But we do have two other alternatives:
 * 1.We can go back to it's original name and edit it's biased approach towards Zionism. When referring to "Zionist attitudes" in plural one must look at the full context of Zionism and should consider the attitudes of important Zionist leaders like Hagana's general Sneh and Tel Aviv founder Chelouche. This would still leave a one sided article in wikipedia but at least would be in proportion with reality.
 * 2. We can heavily edit it and merge it's useful content with the "politics" and "demography" sections of the main "mandate article". Maybe this is the best idea, if we aim this article to detail the social atmosphere under colonial rule.
 * 3. We can recognize that this article has so many flaws, regarding it's controversial history and POV content, that it would be very hard to work on it as it is. We can recognize this was and still is a one person's work. We all know how hard it is to edit an original research. Because it is doing damage to Wikipedia and confusing users, i still think we should Delete it, turn a new page and open a modest and accurate article that would discuss the important issue.
 * Tell me what you think is the best option, as i would be happy to go either way. 07:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)
 * Actually i would have been agreeing with you, if the article still was in its original form (Zionist attitudes). However, with some significant changes, like adding the Arab perspective and the conflict timeline, this certainly warrants for a standalone article. Improvement still needed of course.GreyShark (dibra) 22:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My friend, i know you yourself have put a lot of effort to make this article reasonable and more balanced, and i even know that ironically some of your edits got deleted for pushing a POV that would damage the articles narrative. Trust me, I did my research before proposing this deletion. Alas, your hard work, as respected it may be, is like cleaning a wrecked car. It may look nicer but it is not in any more safer to drive. In fact it is now used as a cover up for a very harmful article. Indeed you and other editors added some Arab responses to those "Zionist attitudes", but it didn't made the article any more to deal with the communities in the British mandate, and their relation to one another. This article is still miles apart from it's title, and therefore it should be changed in according to one of the options mentioned above. This doesn't mean we should delete the timeline, by the way. In fact the timeline just shows again that this title is not appropriate, as it also starts from the end of the 19th century. It also deals with many events outside mandatory Palestine, so why don't we change it's name to "timeline of the Arab-Israeli conflict", so we can delete this article without tampering timeline? 06:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC) 06:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)~


 * I still say, keep -- The original complaint was that the article was duplicating another. That is a legitimate complaint, but we ought to have an article with this title.  If the content is not matching the title, it requires editing, not deletion.  There was certainly much conflict during the mandate: at some periods, the British (who were, I think, merely trying to maintain order) found it necessary to support Arabs against Zionists; at other times the other way around.  Arguments over the proper content should be resolved on the talk pages, not through an AFD.  This is a topic on which views are polarised.  Unless we can find an academic who is capable of standing back sufficiently to take a balanced view, it is almost inevitable that we will get a lot of POV statements in it - POV from both sides.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So you are saying we basically delete all of the content and leave the title? Fine, but what about the fact that this is an invented title, Wikipedia original, that has no resource in academic literature and therefore no translation in any other Wikipedia? Face it, this article is dent. It's completely dent. I agree that a separate article on Israelis and Palestinians is needed, but a good Wikipedia article on the inner politics under the British mandate should start from the politics section of the main article. So would you agree and reconsider your vote? 02:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.