Wikipedia editors decided to place a one-year moratorium barring anyone from editing or discussing the controversial sentence in the lead of the Zionism Wikipedia page: “Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.”
Middle East historian Asaf Romirowsky, who heads Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and the Association for Study in the Middle East and North Africa, has previously told me that this sentence in the Wikipedia page is “false” because “there are [an] abundance of diplomatic correspondents of looking to find ways for coexistence and the fact of the matter is that all those Arabs who stayed in the land and became the Arab Israelis … they became naturalized citizens because of that earlier desire for coexistence between the population of the land.” My previous reporting highlighted how the sentence resulted from anti-Israel editors primarily citing anti-Zionist historians and appearing to take a passage from one of renowned Israeli historian Benny Morris’ books out of context.
The moratorium was implemented on Feb. 21; a recent report from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) cited the moratorium as an example of Wikipedia’s anti-Israel bias. The moratorium came about after the editor “Bob drobbs” started a discussion on the Zionism talk page on Jan. 27 suggesting alternative phrasings to the sentence to make it more neutral. Bob drobbs was immediately met with opposition from anti-Israel editors who noted that a Request for Comment (RfC) — a formal discussion in which a closer (an uninvolved Wikipedian in good standing) renders a verdict on the discussion based on numbers and strength of the arguments as they pertain to site policy — had been closed on Jan. 4 finding that the sentence, as written, adhered to Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV) policy and should remain in the article. These editors argued that while Wikipedia policy acknowledges that consensus can change, it was too soon to launch a new discussion on the matter and is thus considered “disruptive.” Bob drobbs contended that the previous RfC left wiggle room for improvements to the sentence to be discussed, while anti-Israel editors claimed that Bob drobbs’ suggestions would have broken the consensus derived from the previous RfC.
Others pointed out that the previous RfC had been dominated by two anti-Israel editors who have since been topic-banned, but the editors in favor of keeping the sentence argued that even without those two editors (and one pro-Israel editor since topic banned), the numbers would have come out in favor of not changing the sentence. These editors also argued that bringing up the fact that those editors were topic banned would be “gravedancing,” Wikipedia argot that is defined as “insults/accusations/other behavior directed at editors who are now blocked or banned,” or “behaving as though a consensus is no longer valid simply because a blocked or banned editor contributed to it” or “nominating articles for deletion based solely on a blocked/banned/retired editor being the one who started them or contributed to them.” The essay defining gravedancing explains that “the work of a blocked, banned or retired editor should be treated respectfully as it may still have some value.”
Two days after drobbs initiated the discussion, “Lf8u2” launched an RfC on if editors supported a moratorium lasting three months, six months or 12 months; no moratorium at all was also an option. “While consensus can change over time, there is no indication that it has shifted to such an extent in such a short time,” Lf8u2 wrote. “Regurgitating the same discussion in hopes of a different outcome is both disruptive and a waste of time. I also notice that this particular change has been discussed extensively outside of wiki.”
On Feb. 21, “Chetsford,” an administrator, concluded that there was consensus in favor of a 12-month moratorium, as 19 editors supported “a moratorium of some length” while only four were opposed. “All discussion about editing, removing, or replacing (the sentence) should end immediately and not be resurfaced until February 21, 2026,” Chetsford wrote. “The existence of a moratorium should be clearly recorded on the Talk page in such a way that innocent transgressors can be notified on such occasions when the topic is accidentally reopened.”
Chetsford added that discussion on the sentence could resume earlier if there are at least two reliable sources published on Feb. 22 or after that provide new information on the matter, though Chetsford qualified that their view here is “non-binding.” An editor explained to me that this means that “something substantively new needs to happen, as measured by two sources … I guess it could just be the publication of a new study or paper.”
One editor who grew disillusioned with Wikipedia after making thousands of edits told me that they had never heard of a moratorium being implemented before, and that doing so goes against Wikipedia policy stating that consensus can change. Regarding the part of Chetsford’s close stating that discussion could resume earlier if two recent sources provided new information, the editor called this “extra stupid, even for Wikipedia. What ‘new information’ is going to come to light? We’re talking about stuff that happened 100 years ago. This sentence is already an exemplar of an NPOV violation. You don’t need ‘new information.’ All you need is to open any history book not written by [anti-Israel historians] Ilan Pappe or Rashid Khalidi.” This editor also called the gravedancing argument “bulls—.” “There are editors who spend half their time pointing out and removing stuff from socks and other banned editors,” the editor said. “I would have removed it and said that whoever wants to take responsibility for it should put it back in the article.”
(The moratorium) is “extra stupid, even for Wikipedia. What ‘new information’ is going to come to light? We’re talking about stuff that happened 100 years ago. This sentence is already an exemplar of an NPOV violation. You don’t need ‘new information.’ All you need is to open any history book not written by [anti-Israel historians]. – former Wikipedia editor
Another editor told me that “moratoria are not unheard of, but are slightly drastic/unusual and undoubtedly according to the admins, they are a justifiably drastic measure to deal with ‘extreme’ disruption in the topic area.” This editor believes that the moratorium here is “heavy-handed and unnecessary. I think, largely, discussion is the purpose of talk pages and repeated relitigations are not inherently disruptive.” Regarding the gravedancing argument, the editor contended that “I would not call it gravedancing, and that is not really an argument, more like a social norm. I also do not think it makes the old RfC moot. I think there can be a new discussion. But their topic ban is not a reason why and not helpful to bring up.”
Administrator Tamzin Hadasa Kelly told me that moratoria are “rare” and are “not a well-defined concept on Wikipedia,” though she pointed out that the moratorium could be overturned by the community. “You can think of this sort of like how, in a parliamentary system where constitutional law is passed by the same majorities as regular statutes, a parliament forbidding itself from something is more normative than binding,” Kelly said. “The same is true here: What a talk page self-imposing a moratorium means is less ‘there’s some hard-and-fast policy against discussing this’ and more ‘if you try to discuss this, expect it to be shut down much more aggressively than usual.’ So in theory at least, if a page’s contributors agreed to a six-month moratorium, but then two months later everyone suddenly realized they did want to talk about it, they could overturn themselves and just have another discussion. The community could also overturn a local consensus for a moratorium. I can’t recall ever seeing either of those things happen, though.”
Given how skewed the numbers were in favor of the moratorium, don’t expect the “as few as Palestinian Arabs as possible” sentence to change anytime soon.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.