Talk:50 States One Israel

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Attendees

Needless to say, there are U.S. and state legislators mixed together here, needs specific titles. GXIndiana (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

@~2026-12472-40:: Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on Reliable Sources. Facebook posts containing photos of other people is not considered a reliable source, because it relies on user-generated content, which is not a proper foundation for an encyclopedia entry. Your recent restoration of biographical information about William Barclay without a reliable source is a violation of WP:BLPSOURCES, as mentioned in the edit summary of the edit that removed him from the table earlier today. Dotyoyo (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Table of attendees WP:DUE?

@FFM784: @Jenkowelten: @~2026-25069-58: On 2026-02-27, a table of conference attendees was removed from this article, citing the policies that Wikipedia is neither a DIRECTORY, nor an INDISCRIMINATE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION. The table was nonetheless been re-added twice:

• first by USER:Jenkowelten, and
• then by temporary User:~2026-25069-58.

Neither appealed to any Wikipedia policy, nor offered any supporting rationale.

Wikipedia has a small group of historic conferences for which listing their attendees is WP:DUE. It doesn't seem that this conference belongs in that list. But if anyone disagrees, feel free to present your viewpoint here. Dotyoyo (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

@FFM784: @Jenkowelten: @~2026-25069-58: If there are no replies in this section, I'll likely conclude that the table is WP:UNDUE and remove it. If it appears again without supporting rationale, I'll likely remove it again and request extended confirmed protection for this article. Dotyoyo (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@FFM784: @Jenkowelten: @~2026-25069-58: Given that I've presented rationale for removing the table of attendees, and no one provided any for keeping it, I'm declaring (by default) that the consensus is for its removal, until someone gets consensus on this talk page that such a table should be included. Dotyoyo (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Assaultim, you may wish to reply here too. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 13:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes thank you, I was considering doing it before my edit, but due to the time of the previous messages I doubted if it would be helpful. Regardless, my arguments for its inclusion are in my edit summaries. Assaultim (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Assaultim: @FFM784: @Jenkowelten: @~2026-25069-58: After a discussion period devoted to reaching consensus, this article's table of attendees was removed once again for not being WP:DUE, based on Wikipedia practice for other conferences. The edit summary warned editors "Consensus on Talk page needed before re-adding table.". User:Assaultim chose to re-add the table without first engaging the Talk page, saying in the edit summary said the table would be "useful". Wikipedia policies are not superseded by whatever an individual editor might find "useful". Should the attendees' email addresses and phone numbers also be added? Would they be "useful"?

I've notified other users of this note, to err on the side of open communication.

Note: I've requested extended confirmed protection for this article in an effort to avoid further disruptive editing.

Dotyoyo (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Dotyoyo, please remember to abide by WP:GF and avoid being sarcastic and aggressive in response to an edit done in good faith. Given the fact this article has barely any revisions and no disruptive editing, I don't think edit protection is necessary. Assaultim (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Assaultim: After the presence of the table was reversed 4 times (twice removed citing WP policies, and twice re-added without edit summary), I started this section on the Talk page to establish a consensus on the matter, to avoid further unproductive thrashing. After pinging possibly interested parties and announcing that goal, I waited, posted another notice, then waited and, and posted a notice that I'd consider the process followed sufficient to have established a working consensus. Your 2026-06-03 edit without prior Talk page discussion demonstrated that those steps were insufficient to ward off further uncommunicative thrashing. Hence the request for increased protection.

Editing doesn't have to be malicious or in "bad faith" in order to be disruptive. Two groups of editors repeatedly reversing each other's edits is something to be avoided, even if done with the best of intentions. Increasing the level of production of a page is one tool to help avoid such thrashing. More experienced editors tend to better understand and more highly value WP policies and communication.

I don't consider a patient recap to be aggressive, nor do I consider two questions clearly intended to illustrate the shortcomings of a course of action to be sarcastic. I hope that settles the matter.

Dotyoyo (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend rereading your initial message to evaluate how you could better communicate to get your point across constructively, thanks. Assaultim (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I would support a strong pruning back and restructuring of this section, particularly removing less reliable or social media sourcings, repeated hyperlinks, but it seems hardly indiscriminate in scope or clear in my opinion what is it that it might be a directory of, despite the length. Boubthebuilder (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)