All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.
Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
Reports of editors violating any of these restrictions should be made to either the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Violations of 1RR should be made to the edit warring noticeboards.
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I agree that this needs to be clarified. Obviously it is in what Israel considers its national park which is located on the West Bsnk. If Israel controls it we can say that while pointing out the implications of its geographical location. I'm not sure how to word that. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I've deactivated the template for now. The article is about the historical site and not about Israel or the Palestinian territories. It looks like the current article deals with this issue by referring to Kayla consistently as a settlement; referring to the location as Kayla, West Bank; and labeling the map to indicate that the site falls in that political boundary. Possibly we could go on to describe Kayla in the lead as "near the Israeli settlement and kibbutz of Kalya, within the West Bank Palestinian territory." The sources talk about the park and I think trying to remove mention of the park is a bit Orwellian. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Older and ... well older you and others interested might want to look at the material added to my talk page last night. We are making some progress. Dougweller (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Qumran is located in the Westbank, which under International Law is considered illegally occupied by Israel. Even though Qumran is not in Israel, it, like the rest of the Westbank is controlled by the Israeli military, and since Qumran holds important historical Jewish treasures has been put under the administration of the Israeli Qumran National Park authority. The aim is to claim this historical site as Jewish, both physically as well in the minds of visitors to Qumran. Often treasures from Qumran are also illegally transported to West-Jerusalem, and placed in the Israeli Museum.
Declined request edit rationale: 1. Not at all clear what sort of edits are desired. Specific changes to text allow for analysis & discussion. 2. Request edit now stale, over 3 months old. 3. Wikipedia (#5 in list) is not an acceptable source. 4. Is there really a Conflict of Interest? This request duplicates the earlier edit semi-protected request above. 5. So, please revise and resubmit so that discussion and consensus can develop. – S. Rich (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)