Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine/Archive 2

1947-48 Palestinian civil war
I have noticed no article on the 1947-48 Palestinian civil war, though the French Wikipedia has a featured article on the subject. Anyone think they would be up to the task of beginning the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twas Now (talk • contribs) 06:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Does this article (1948 Arab-Israeli War) cover it? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone did create such an article recently. See 1947-48 Palestinian civil war.  It was just turned into a redirect because of its lack of development.  I have just done some searches and found a few references and listed them here: Talk:1947-48 Palestinian civil war.  Also Ian Pitchford rated the article as being of High importance, thus it may be something worth revisiting.  --Abnn 22:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello gentlemen,
 * I wrote most of the french version of this article.
 * The article 1948 Arab-Israeli War on the english wikipedia covers indeed that period but there is a pertinence disagreement around this.
 * From my understanding, the
 * 1948 Palestine war is divided into 2 phases:
 * 1947-48 Palestinian civil war
 * 1948 Arab-Israeli war
 * That sounds quite logical : Israel only existed after May 14, 1948 and the conflit started on Nov 30, 1947. Former israeli historiography had forgotten the period in-between and main historians specialized on the subject and (with different sensitivities) name this conflict that way today (eg. Efraim Karsh, Avi Shlaim, fr:Henry Laurens, Ilan Pappe, Eugene Rogan and most palestinian ones. Others such as Benny Morris talks about the 1948 War and Yoav Gelber who used the usual version of 1948 Arab-Israeli War even if the title of his book is Palestine 1948...
 * All of them nevertheless cleary cut the war into 2 periods : a civil war (sic) and a regular war
 * On the French wp, the current compromise is the following :
 * fr:guerre israélo-arabe de 1948 is a disambigation article that explains the matter and that redirect readers to
 * fr:guerre de Palestine de 1948
 * fr:protagonistes de la guerre de Palestine de 1948 (context)
 * fr:guerre civile en Palestine de 1947-1948
 * fr:guerre israélo-arabe de 1948-1949
 * I am not confident that this solution could gather consensus here on the english wikipedia where there is some opposition to that (see talk page of 1948 Arab-Israeli war
 * Alithien 19:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can try to write the article in userspace and bring it up here. Many times even legitimate articles are deleted because they are underdeveloped and in a contentious area.  People tend to assume the worst.  The way to counteract that bias against new articles in contentious areas is to create a relatively fully developed article that makes it blindingly obvious to all that an article on that subject is justified.  It is only the short poorly referenced articles that can easily be deleted or turned into redirects.  Often you don't have time to create a well developed article in mainspace thus you can start in userspace.  Lots of references is key to success.  --Abnn 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Bilateral relations discussion
I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you.  Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 18:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
Every article in the scope of this project requires disputed-status markers, if only for the highly disputed nature of the subject itself. Anyone else agree? Michael Safyan 23:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. It should be done on a case-by-case basis, and only if there is really a dispute going on on the talk page. nadav 00:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, perhaps the talk page deserves disputed status as well? Michael Safyan 03:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? --Haemo 03:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the the best article link for "country" references?

 * Re-posted from Talk:Palestinian territories, as no response provided there yet

I am conscious of POV issues surrounding the name "Palestine", so I'm not trying to stir anything up here, but I would like to know what the best article link is for Wikipedia lists of nations etc. I am asking here purely from an implementation perspective, as I have been doing a lot of work recently for WikiProject Flag Template. There are a lot of articles that contain lists of nations, dependencies, etc. List of countries is perhaps the best example. On those lists, there are flag icons followed by a wikilink to the main article for the nation. (e.g. 🇫🇷 France). What is the most appropriate article link to be used in conjunction with this region? I have seen two articles widely used, namely  Palestinian territories and  Palestinian National Authority. Use of the latter as the wikilinked article seems a bit odd to me, as it refers to the governing organization rather than the region, but perhaps for some NPOV reason, maybe it is the best choice. I don't know - that's why I'm asking here. Is there any consensus on what we should standardize upon for Wikipedia? Andrwsc 18:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Working Plan for starting this project
I think the most efficient way to get this project off the ground is by starting to think where do we want to start? How do we want to do it? I propose that we do this chronologically, what do you think guys? We just have to agree on a starting date and then go from there, we can split into groups and do extensive research on different subjects, we can invite our friends and organize a community that is ready to dedicate some time for Palestine. Zaki Saadeh 00:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We should make sure to collaborate with other WikiProjects, too. Like on something relating to Arab-Israeli conflict we'd work with that wikiproject and also Israel wikiproject.  I agree chronlogical would be great.--Urthogie 12:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed we should collaborate with other Wikiprojects. That would be beneficial to everyone and to the evolution of this project as well. I think to start with this project it is important to first establish a guideline in which every article being created through this project will be guaranteed to maintain a neutral point of view. I expect we are to follow Wikipedia's official guide on this, and we could add more clarifications to it. To access wikipedia's official guide on how to maintain a neutral point of view click on the following link:.
 * Another thing that I will work on is attract more members who are interested in this project. I will create a facebook group to recruit people to join this project. Zaki Saadeh 18:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of the above. As I see it, our main goal should be countering the systematic Zionist bias that dominates far too many Palestine/Israel articles on Wikipedia. They use really underhanded tactics too. Please see my edits on Baruch Marzel. Shuki, openly supporting Marzel, has the cheek to claim I was the one violating NPOV because I put a mug shot of Marzel in an Israel police station after he was arrested. Get that: it was "POV" to add a picture illustrating a fact – that he was arrested. Now the picture has been removed AGAIN and a POV version of the text put back in.


 * We need to counter such nonsense with organized, consistent application of NPOV rules. The Zionist bias on some articles is quite outrageous and they probably do not quite believe they can get away with some of the stuff they do. College of Judea and Samaria article used to say it was "in Israel" and did not even mention the word settlement! AW 09:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Asa, I don't think I was openly supporting Marzel but rather trying to promote some NPOV on that article by countering your open antagonism to the subject which does not help while editing ANY article on WP. On the other issue, you should 'assume good faith' when an editor mentions 'in Israel'. Using 'Israeli college' as opposed to 'college in Israel' seems the same and also NPOV in a direct referral. And seeing the word 'settlement' in a 'West Bank' article amuses me too. But I would asume that you know that while there is an issue of current 'state of Israel', a historic entity of Land of Israel that had larger borders did exist, so '...in Israel' is not a myth either. On the other hand though, can you assure me that there are no 'Palestinian' articles which refer to places in current 'State of Israel' 48-67 territory as '...in Palestine' or do you patrol those sites and promote NPOV there as well? --Shuki 06:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Timeshifter, like I say below, I'm still unfamiliar with a lot of modern Wikipeida conventions. So I'm not allowed to remove the above comment, even though it adds nothing constructive towards building a working plan for WikiProject Palestine, and is clearly an attempt to derail this discussion. Does that mean I'm allowed to go to WikiProject Israel's discussion page, say whatever annoying stuff I want and they can't remove it as long as its not a personal attack or something? Asa 08:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Asa. You can say anything as long as it somewhat concerns the topic that the talk page is for. And as long as it doesn't violate other wikipedia guidelines concerning civility, personal attacks, and talk pages. Talk pages are not political forums, though. It is all covered at Talk page guidelines. I will also put the main guidelines sidebar at the top of this talk page. It has some of the relevant guideline links in one handy location. --Timeshifter 09:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Recruitment for this project
Although I've been part of Wikipedia since almost day one, I am not a very active contributor. Especially, I am not familiar with the increasingly byzantine systems and conventions that Wikipedia seems to operate according to these days.

It seems to me that a good way to get people involved in this project would be to go onto user pages of people who make a lot of Palestine-related edits and invite them to join (maybe with a nice user box, which one of us should create – I would but can't figure out how). Is this considered OK Wikipedia etiquette or not? If it's OK, I will start. Asa 08:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page info
(Note: The above section is titled "Incident report filed for United States military aid to Israel". If it is missing feel free to return by using the revision history. --Timeshifter 14:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC) )

I copied the info in the above section from the incident report. Please comment there, and below. --Timeshifter 08:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik tried to remove the above talk section with this edit comment: "this has nothing to do with Palestinians - please stop canvassing." I returned this talk section with this edit comment: "Revert. Israeli weapon systems have nothing to do with Palestinians? It is against WP:TALK to edit comments of other editors. I will file another WP:ANI report if this continues."

I would appreciate some other project supporters commenting on the obvious relevance so that Tewfik stops deleting this section. Here is the diff of his deletion. --Timeshifter 09:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff of Tewfik's second deletion.

Tewfik will soon be approaching a 3RR violation. --Timeshifter 14:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that "canvassing" can be used to describe inviting people to discuss an issue on WP:ANI, particularly since it's not a vote. I don't really understand why Tewfik is so adamant against this being posted here. It would be nice if he could articulate rather than edit summary explain and revert. Tiamut 14:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the diff for Tewfik's 3rd deletion.


 * Thanks Tiamut for pointing out the obvious in your edit summary "rv to timeshifter - it's not canvassing to post a notice regarding an administrator's board notice - that's not a vote, it's a discussion and of course the article is related to Palestine project". --Timeshifter 15:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Deir al-Balah stub
Hi I've recently helped construct the article of Deir el-Balah, it is still quite small but I want to know whether it is considered a stub or not. I also need to know if this site - http://www.palestineremembered.com/ is a reliable source for destroyed villages and towns articles. Thanks, User: Al Ameer son 4:14 May 8 2007

Dear Al Ameer son. PalestineRemembered is a reliable source. You can read about the sources they have used to compile the tables in more detail here:. There are some editors who might try to dispute your right to use it as a source, but that is based on a faulty interpretation of WP:RS or WP:ATT, often (quite unfortunately) influenced by a strong opposing POV. I did look at the article and think it could still use some expansion. In my mind, the line between a stub and a start level article is hard to place definitively. It's a great start though. Good work! Tiamut 20:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PalestineRemembered can be helpful as it presents certain sourced information in an accessible manner. If and when information on the website is attributed to Morris or Khalidi (or whoever), then there is no reason not to cite the actual source. If information is not attributed to a such an RS, then I'm sure you would agree that it shouldn't be cited.  Tewfik Talk 00:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the link provided Tewfik. The sources and what they are used for is listed there. The tables provided are aggregate charts based on those sources as specified. They are all reliable sources. Tiamut 00:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I did read the link, and my comments were specifically directed to what you said. To rephrase, for information sourced to RS, we should attribute the RS directly. For information not sourced to RS, we should obviously not include it.  Tewfik Talk 02:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly is not a reliable source there Tewfik? Tiamut 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is happening, but all I said is that any RS cited by it can be cited directly. If there is information not cited to RS, then we wouldn't reference it whether it appears here or anywhere else...  Tewfik Talk 02:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The misunderstanding is that the link I gave you very clearly states that it does not cite the specific source out of those listed for each item of information. This would make it very difficult to locate the originals for every piece of information, unless we have copies of all the books they use. Is there a particular source amongst those listed that you have a problem with because they all seem to be reliable sources to me. Tiamut 03:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but we can't treat everything on this personal website as sourced without the ability to check the specific bits of information. I agree that it is a resource inasmuch as it can direct further research into these sources, but it shouldn't be used directly unless it modifies its policy and tells us what information can be found where.  Tewfik Talk 06:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree this could be "stub" or "start". I have added a little more material. Additional information on the interesting archaeological sites in this area would be a boon. With regard to depopulated villages I have two of the main academic works "All That Remains" and "Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problems Revisited" and can help with references. --Ian Pitchford 21:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a History section. It's by no means comprehensive but it's what available to me from the book cited. Those with other sources are encouraged to add more. Tiamut 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian refugees & refugee camps template?
Why not a template that brings together all the Palestinian refugee topics including the full listing of camps organized by region? It seems like a logical thing to "template-ize". --Abnn 21:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a great idea. What template design do you think would be good for that? We already have Template:Palestinians but it might be good for that to link to lots of different template on sub-categories, like a template of the camps, template for destroyed villages, etc, etc. Tiamut 22:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems like the most logical way to go about things. Also, we really need pictures for these refugee camps and destroyed villages, in fact there is an overall dearth of photos in most Palestine related articles.  We need to find someone who recently took a vacation over there and upload their photos or  find someone who is planning to take a trip and have them take a lot of photos of these places.  Does anyone know anyone associated with the UN refugee association that operates in this area?  They might have some photos we could use.  We literally could use a hundred or more photos.  --Abnn 22:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * List of Palestinian refugee camps has some good information to start, but it's not comprehensive. I know there are about 20 more camps in addition to the 12 listed for Lebanon for example. I'll try to update that page before we get the template going, because if we dealing with a huge number, a template might not be the way to go. (My suggestion for the destroyed villages might be impossible to incorporate in a template for example.) About pictures, I'll see what I can do. I know I have a few of Nazareth, but I'll check what else I can scrounge up too. Tiamut 22:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Template:Palestinian refugee camps. I just copied another template.  I'm not totally happy with the organization, but it will due for now.  --Abnn 01:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles needing attention
The project page should be almost static and the section for articles needing attention is redundant to Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics. The effort should not be split between two pages. --Shuki 22:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True but the current arrangement is relatively harmless. Lots of crud on the other page that needs to be cleaned up and archived, but there is no rush.  --Abnn 23:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've archived the majority of the material. I incorporated a lot of the material into other pages where appropriate.  It's probably easier to transition to the noticeboard now than it was before.  I haven't yet moved the stuff from the project page over to the notice board where it belongs.  --Abnn 23:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I also removed from the noticeboard the list of contributors to the Palestine topic area. I was thinking of adding them to the project member list but that isn't really accurate.  Thus instead I sent all the contributors listed on the noticeboard who have recently been active invites to the project.  --Abnn 01:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Geography of the West Bank and Gaza Strip
Tewfik deleted this article. See diff.

On the article talk page I don't see any discussion of this deletion. Was there an official AfD (Article for Deletion) process for this deletion? If there were, then it would normally be under this name:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geography_of_the_West_Bank_and_Gaza_Strip

There is nothing there. Was there another location for an AfD for this article? Talk page history shows nothing was discussed on the talk page about this deletion and redirect:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geography_of_the_West_Bank_and_Gaza_Strip&action=history

Does anybody know anything about this? I would like to know before this gets reported by me or others to WP:ANI. For more info see Guide to deletion. --Timeshifter 23:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have restored the article. The contents of the article are basically identical to the contents of the "Political geography" section of the Geography of Israel article, thus there is precedent for keeping it around.  I am confused as to why Tewfik got rid of the article in the fashion that he did, it doesn't make much sense given that he didn't actually merge any of the information anywhere.  --Abnn 01:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) That is not accurate at all. I didn't delete anything (nor do I have the ability to), but reversed a merge which doesn't at all fit with naming convention. There was always a link to Geography of the West Bank on its main entry, West Bank, and I added a similar link to Geography of the Gaza Strip to its main entry, Gaza Strip. I also added both to Palestinians. I'm frankly a bit taken aback by the accusations here; a minimal amount of research, or at least an attempt to contact me would've been in order.  Tewfik Talk 01:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that you have created two new Geography articles one for the West Bank and one for the Gaza Strip, that's better than just getting rid of the article. Part of the issue is you didn't explain yourself to those who had the page on their watchlist.  Also the redirect didn't led directly to the articles you created as a replacement, which is sort of strange one has to admit.  Also in your reply above, you say that you "reversed a merge which doesn't at all fit with naming convention."  Can you show me which merge you reversed?  --Abnn 01:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a choice of names for this article:
 * Geography of the Palestinian territories
 * Geography of the Palestinian National Authority
 * Geography of the West Bank and Gaza Strip
 * Geography of the West Bank and Geography of the Gaza Strip
 * Additionally we have other articles in the same general pattern:
 * Demographics of the Palestinian territories
 * Category:Economy of the Palestinian territories
 * Category:Transport in the Palestinian territories
 * Category:Education in the Palestinian territories
 * (And a few more if Humus sapiens renaming takes places)
 * To me the logical name would be Geography of the Palestinian territories as it isn't disputed that Gaza Strip and the West Bank form the territories and one article is easier to maintain than two. Also this fits with the general naming scheme proposed above.  The minor squabbles about what exactly is the Palestinian territories in these two areas (because of the wall, seam zone and other stuff) is still going to be contentious whether it is in one article or two.  Also, I do want to apologize for jumping on this issue Tewfik, as it is clear that you didn't just redirect its contents out of existence (and BTW the contents are directly copied from the CIA Factbook with very little polish on top.)  --Abnn 01:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see how someone might have been confused had they seen only the one edit, but a reaction assuming good faith would have been to ask me what my rationale was, and not to assume that I was nefariously sabotaging, the reasoning behind which I can't even really construct (was I scarred by a deathly boring Geography instructor in grade-school perhaps?). AN/I no less. The redirects, by the same user, appear in the history. As for what to call it, since it deals with an issue of geography, I believe the previous names make the most sense, especially per the categorisation above.  Tewfik Talk 01:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are almost year-old redirects, Tewfik. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Both you in May 2007 and User:Robin Hood 1212 in July 2006 broke wikipedia guidelines by deleting pages and putting the info elsewhere without asking first on the talk pages. If you do it again, I will report you to WP:ANI. Wikipedia guidelines ask that people be warned before going to noticeboards. So that is why I warn. You have also tried to speedy-delete map categories with the name "Palestinian Territories" in them, after trying to depopulate the categories of the map images. See: Category talk:Maps of the Palestinian territories.


 * I hope we can come to some kind of more-permanent resolution of these naming issues concerning West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Territories.


 * The above talk links show that no discussion occurred before the article name changes, redirects, moves, deletions, etc.. --Timeshifter 08:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Only admins can delete articles. I'm not an admin. Please refrain from further WP:CIVIL violating falsehoods. Is there any other article content you wish to discuss?  Tewfik Talk 02:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not uncivil to point out that you deleted the article by redirecting it, and then not merging the info into the article you redirected it to. All without discussion. Please stop wikilawyering. See: WikiLawyering. The page you redirected it too, West Bank and Gaza Strip, did not have the info that was deleted. One had to make more clicks among multiple choices to find the info. Merges and redirects are supposed to be discussed first also. Please see the wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter 12:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Only admins can delete articles. I am not an admin. Talk pages are for the discussion of article content, not other editors. Do you have any article content issues you wish to discuss?  Tewfik Talk 03:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Me and Tewfik have been discussing these divisions of the region again on our talk pages. I do agree with Tewfik in a fashion, in that these divisions, Gaza Strip and the West Bank, can be covered in separate articles as he has done.  What I didn't agree with is the way that joint article was turned into a redirect that didn't go anywhere that useful with regards to geography.  To rectify the situation, I have created a Geography of the Palestinian territories article as the main landing pad for people interested in the general geography of this non-country or whatever it is with the hope that it can be expanded with a joint summary or overview of the territories geography while giving people the option to go to the specific geography pages on the Gaza Strip and the West Bank if they want more details.  I think this is a pretty decent solution.  --Abnn 08:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am happy with the result of your discussions. --Timeshifter 22:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A beautiful map from Lebanon project
Maybe at some point I'll figure out how they created this beautiful map and create one for the West Bank and another for the Gaza Strip. --Abnn 02:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * More information available here: Template:Lebanon_Labelled_Map. It doesn't look that hard, just time consuming.  --Abnn 02:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know it was possible to do anything like that. Most impressive! --Ian Pitchford 06:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)--- I had a go at making one:

--Ian Pitchford 13:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I updated the background map to one without integrated labels and with similar coloring as the Lebanon and readjusted the coordinates. --Abnn 15:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's much better. --Ian Pitchford 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The map looks great, now we need one for the Gaza Strip and then I think we should add it the Palestinian territories and Governorates of the Palestinian National Authority – Al Ameer son May 30, 2007 12:44 (UTC)

Final products
I think they are pretty decent. Although maybe some light contextual information in the maps would be useful, such as were is Israel, Jordan, and Egypt as well as the Mediterranean and Dead seas. --Abnn 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)