Talk:Palestinians/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Fewer pictures

There are too many pictures on this page. Many contribute nothing. Some are politicized. Several have errors. I'm gonna take off that picture of "Palestinian Arab family of Ramallah" and the Palestinian Bedouin. Both pictures have captions that can not be verified. We don't know how those people described themselves. I'm gonna leave Arafat with the girl, thats adorable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.162 (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

wrong

the article of the palestinian people have an error on it and i dont know how to fix it can someone else fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.121.52 (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you point out the specific error? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian diplomacy

"Over 130 nations recognize Palestine as a state" Can we say that? It seems to me like many countries recognize the "State of Palestine" but that number is less that 130. A lot of the countries recognize the PLO or a government-in-exile but in some way have reservations about a full recognition. But the article makes it seem like there isn't any confusion.

Someone changed the number from 100 to 130. Good on them if thats the case, but I think the statement needs to be qualified more. The reference that this number, 130, comes from is a blatantly biased, non-journalistic website called "War is Crime."

I think it is obvious that the website is being flippant with its words. Lets not let the article do the same.

How about saying "Over a hundred nations recognize a Palestinian state in some form" or "Most nations recognize an independant Palestinian state, but many, like the United States, do not extend full recognition."

Either way, that reference has got to go. If a reliable reference can't be found, a general statement must be used instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.147 (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Source distortions - writing out Palestine and Palestinians

Reading this article after a long wikibreak, I was surprised by some of the terminology and emphases that have been introduced over the last many months. Doing a comparison with the last time I edited it, to see what changes had since been made [5], I noticed a pattern whereby "Palestinian" has been replaced with "Arab", "Palestine" has been evaded, and material sourced to high quality sources and relevant to the subject at hand removed with no valid reasoning provided. I will be restoring some of what was lost and reworking the article as time permits over the next little while. Heads up. Tiamut^talk 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if you're going to use Arab at all, you should at least say Palestinian Arab. For the other stuff, idk and I am biased ofc. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some Palestinians are not Arabs. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of that fact, but it appears the Arab thing was about the Palestinians that are Arabs (unless someone was saying that all Palestinians are Arabs, but I am going to stick with the idea they just meant the Palestinians that are Arabs), hence my suggestion of the designation of Palestinian Arab, or does Arab Palestinian work? That sounds like it conveys the idea of ethnically Arab members of Palestinian society better. Thoughts? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it depends, if the text is exclusively about the Palestinians who happen to be Arabs, and not about the non-Arab Palestinians, and their is a reason in the text to point out ethnicity, then "Palestinian Arabs" can be used, but otherwise, just "Palestinian" should be used. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if it is about the Arab ones specifically (to the exclusion of other groups), then you gotta point it ouf of course. =p That makes the most sense, ya, if it is about a group, say the group if about all, say Palestinian. Still, which is better? Palestinian Arab or Arab Palestinian? Palestinian Arab seems to have some connotation to it that I cannot put my finger on (like the usage of that term itself). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We are all biased, though we try not to let it overrule policy. That you admit it means you are better off than most editors here. Cheers. Tiamut^talk 08:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I try not to either, but I am not sure that my own knowledge on the subject would clash with what is needed for the article, and I don't want to put in any WP:OR as I would not remember what source I had learned the info from or if it would be helpful here. =( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Tiamut, please stop calling yourself unbiased when you most certainly are.

I understand you have passionate beliefs, but your passion doesn't make your beliefs fact.

I changed "Palestinian" to "Arab" in many cases because the sources they were quoting were refering to Arabs. There is a genetic study that talks about Arabs, but is quoted in the article and twisted around to make an untrue statement about Palestinians. Did you just do a bunch of revision without reviewing why?

The reference to the PLO as a supporter of political violence is valid. We can't call it just a diplomatic organ, it is both. The US and EU both call it a terror org.

Your widespread edits reverting other peoples good works to conform to your nationalist ideas is highly innappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.169 (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Aloha, I'm going to try and stay out of this coming mess, but I do want to point out that he or she didn't say that he or she was unbiased, in fact he or she said, "::We are all biased, though we try not to let it overrule policy. That you admit it means you are better off than most editors here. Cheers. Tiamut^talk 08:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)" Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying my comment above Flinders Petrie. I think you understand what i meant.

To IP 132 ... the source cited did not support characterizing the PLO as a group that engages in pollitical violence (at least not presently). The EU and US most certainly do not categorize the PLO as a terrorist group. the organization currently represents Palestinians under the name of "Palestine" at the UN. If you need sources for that, you can find them at the pages on State of Palestine and PLO.

Both sources cited in the article for information on genetics in the introduction use the term "Palestinians" or "Palestinian Arabs". The second source, a newspaper article on the genetic study also uses the term "Arab", but if you read the study itself you will see the population examined were Palestinians.

Finally, please comment on content, not contributors. It helps to keep the discussion focused. Tiamut^talk 07:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As much as I dislike the PLO (though I prefer them over Hamas as they do not currently fire rockets at my girlfriend) and acknowledge that they play some role in the violenc, Tiamut is correct that they are not on the list. Here is the official list from the United States State Department. [6] Here is the harder to find EU one, which I couldn't find on an official site [7], never heard of Kach before, but they're too extreme (and kharedi for that matter) for me (more land (within reason), yes, but expulsion of all Arabs, khalactic law, etc, hell no). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Both lists contain organizations that fall under the umbrella of the PLO. In order to negotiate with them, the US and EU have to pretend that the snorting mud-rascals in the PLO aren't a bunch of pigs. Don't use loopholes to drive political trucks through.

It is wrong to mention the PLO as ONLY a diplomatic organization. It needs to be cited as both, or not at all. We are using the euphemism of political violence, why don't you want to mention that? Do you want to say they participate in the struggle by any means necessary?

As for the genetic info used in error, I was talking about 18. That study, of "Jews and Arabs," was used to say something about Palestinians. I changed Pally to Arab because thats what the sourced study was citing.

The one you are talking about, 17, is another bad source. The abstract is quoted and generalizations are drawn from it. That sounds like bad editing to me. Just because it looks sciency doesn't mean its legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.43.101 (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletions

25,000+ bytes on nazis

I deleted a huge section recently added to the article by a new user [8]. I did this because it has nothing to do with the subject of this article - at all. Could others please review the diff and offer their thoughts on what might be salvaged, if anything? (NB. splitting into two sections for discussion purposes) Tiamut^talk 18:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that perhaps the section is too big. but to say "it has nothing to do with the subject of this article - at all" is almost ridiculous. the section is located in the "history" part of the article. it is essential part of Palestinian people history, without understanding it, it's impossible to understand any of the events that are taking place from 1948 war until now. if someone want to propose a shorter edit, then it's ok with me. if not , i will need to put it beck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs) 07:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan, the section you keep trying to add has WP:UNDUE weight - you must gain consensus for its inclusion first. As you consider whether this topic really is highly relevant to an understanding of the Palestinian people, please also consider why there is not a similar section covering Haavara Agreement, Rudolf_Kastner#Negotiations and Lehi_(group)#Contact_with_Nazi_Germany in the wikipedia article Jews. If you are really interested in the topic, can I suggest you start a new NPOV article describing both Zionist and Arab contacts with Nazi Germany. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

these topics that you mentions are interesting and would be strange not to include them in Israeli people history or israel history articles. But to have the section about haj amin al husseini in palestinian people history section is way more relevant. if there weren't any history section in palestinian people article , then I would agree it's not the place for ww2 history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs) 10:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

These topics are all part of history and of the horrific events of WWII, but they are not central tenets of the description of a people, whether Palestinian Arabs or Jews (note pre-1948 the term Israeli was not used). Have a look at the single reference to Hitler in the article on Germans. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that in germans there should be more about hitler and it's a shame that there is so little. but keep in mined that the history section in germans starts at the iron age , about 2000 yrs ago, while palestinian history is much shorter , to say the least. also , this by no mean explain how come palestinian involvement in ww2 have no clue in a history section. it's also a matter of context. anything involving palestinian is by definition closely connected to Jewish and Israeli matters, since the arab-Palestinian "history or nationality is defined as a contrast to the jewish-Palestinian identity . as I said, I am willing to accept that there is a need to shorter the section, but there is no reason to keep it as it is. if you will accept this principle , I will be willing to make a revise to a shorter version that will be proportionate to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs) 12:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You say "palestinian history is much shorter" - you should read the "Ancestral origins" section of this article and the "Nationalism" section of the Germans article. I know what you are trying to say, but german civilisation is much shorter while german national identity is only a century older.

Either way, Husayni is hardly relevant to the topic of this article - the identity of the Palestinian people - and there is not enough room to cover all the prominent Palestinians. This topic therefore has no place in this article. I would accept one sentence maximum as a compromise. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Onceinawhile ... the First Intifada, a popular uprising that last five years in which a large part of the Palestinian people participated gets one sentence in this article. I think he/she is being generous in offering to include even one sentence on this subject. I think it would be appropriate to include a sentence on Haj Amin al-Husayni's leadership of the Higher Arab Committee after 1948. Those interested in exploring his links to the Nazis further can do that on his page. It has nothing to do with the Palestinian people as a whole. Tiamut^talk 17:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Al-Husayni was elected to the presidency of the National Palestinian Council in 1948 . he was the leader of Arab-palestinians, the major part of the first half of 20th century. to have only one sentence about him in the "history" section is a preposterous. as I said, I am willing to approach you with this issue of bytes quantity and agree it was too large, but you need to be reasonable and fair, otherwise this article looks like some political propaganda.--Jonathango 19:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs)

Please stop vandalising this article. I suspect no one here is under any illusions what you think you are doing, but just in case please see here for an independent source summarising your POV "The Israel lobby is now using Husseini’s former leadership role in Palestinian society to try to blacken Palestinians so that they never have the right to self-determination."

This article is about the identity of 11 million people - not about the history of 1 person which you want to highlight. Instead of trying to denigrate the Palestinians, why don't you spend some time learning about them? You might even learn to respect 10,999,999 of them. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Three comments on this JonathanGo:

• (1) The user is running the same spurious argument on Talk:Palestinian nationalism
• (2) The user's account is new and appears to have been used for this single debate
• (3) The user just violated WP:1RR

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

to Oncenawhile you really think that inventing fictional history and nationality is doing any good to 11m people? you think you are honouring them by that? and what does this darshowits article prove? --Jonathango 19:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs)

Jonathan, I suggest you read Historiography and nationalism and then spend some time critiquing your own national story. Only when you fully understand your own identity will you be mature enough to contribute to articles about those of other people. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand what are you trying to imply. this is very strange to let Arab nationalist to rewrite history on wikipedia. if you don't find a way to add my notes into the article I will need to revert it again.--Jonathango 18:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs)

I realise you don't understand - that's why you keep pushing this. One day you will understand, and you will realise how ridiculous what you are currently trying to do is. You need to learn this yourself - maturity is not something that can be imparted on a talk page like this. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan, I recommend that you dial it down a notch. Nobody responds well to threats and name-calling.

You still haven't explained what the material you want to add has to do with the Palestinian people. It's analogous to adding information about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky in People of the United States. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

UN charter details

I also deleted this paragraph from the section 1948-1967:

The establishment of the United Nations did not alter the international legal status of the Palestinian people. Palestine was the sole remaining Class A mandate. Article 80 was introduced and incorporated into the UN Charter with the specific intention of protecting the interests of the Palestinian people. Religious and minority rights had been declared matters of international concern and placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations. The General Assembly incorporated a religious and minority rights protection system into the partition plan, and placed it under the guarantee of the United Nations.

References

I think it is simply too detailed to be included here, though I may be wrong. Thoughts? Tiamut^talk 18:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Eric Hobsbawn's views

I also deleted this:

The British historian Eric Hobsbawn says there is some justness in the outsider view that is sceptical and dismissive of the propriety of using the term 'nation' for peoples like the Palestinians: such language arises often as the rhetoric of an evolved minority out of touch with the larger community that lacks this modern sense of national belonging. But at the same time, he argues, this outsider perspective has tended to "overlook the rise of mass national identification when it did occur, as Zionist and Israeli Jews notably did in the case of the Palestinian Arabs."

References

It was in the section 1967-present and I don't see its relevance there. Identity issues are already discussed in a huge section that doesn't need another opinion, but instead needs to be summarized and farmed out to another page. Any ideas on where this and other quotes from the already long identity section might go? Any objections to this removal? Tiamut^talk 19:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Textbooks

Finally, I deleted this: From 1948 through until the 1980s, according to Eli Podeh, professor at Hebrew University, the textbooks used in Israeli schools tried to disavow a unique Palestinian identity, referring to 'the Arabs of the land of Israel' instead of 'Palestinians.' Israeli textbooks now widely use the term 'Palestinians.' Podeh believes that Palestinian textbooks of today resemble those from the early years of the Israeli state.

References

Perhaps it could be moved to Textbooks in Israel and Palestinian textbooks. Does anyone feel it should stay here? How and where? Tiamut^talk 19:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Japan and Palestinian nationality

I also removed this;

In October 2007 the Japanese Justice Ministry recognized Palestinian nationality. The decision followed a recommendation by a ruling party panel on nationality that Palestinians should no longer be treated as stateless.

References

I think this belongs in a sub-article on this page, though I'm not sure which one. Thoughts? I also moved an extended description of the ICJ 2004 opinion to a footnote. Its directly relevant to the subject at hand, but too detailed for what is supposed to be an overview article. Perhaps we need a new article on International Law and the Palestinian People? It could be easily written by farming out much of the information here. Tiamut^talk 19:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Careless editing

Tiamut, I wasn't attacking you, I was attacking this tactic of acting like your opinions are gold. You have made widesweeping changes without talking about them first. Much of your actions are simple reverts without investigating the history and previous discussions. The PLO is world famous for terrorism. See me and Malik's conversation about this earlier. "Widespread" is a weasel word. You can't say "lots of Palestinians were using this word before WWI." Try for slow progress towards a NPOV article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.162 (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I opened multiple sections above prior to or after making edits to encourage discussion. I've asked for feedback about specific issues there. With the price of gold being what it is, and my opinions being offered for free and bookended with requests for people to disagree to elaborate, I don't think your characterization is fair.

I cannot find your discussion with Malik (Shabazz?) in the archives. Could you provide a link?

"Widespread" is not a weasel word and the source cited uses "widely used", so its supported by the sources. I engaged in discussion to introduce those changes many years ago [9]. They were removed only in the last few months ( by you? did you discuss? please provide the link? ).

I always strive to write an NPOV article. Sometimes, I do manage it, sometimes not. You will find though, that I am open to changing my position when high quality sources are brought forward that indicate that a reevaluation is necessary, or when a good argument is made by editor as how a text can better represent a subject in line with our policies and guidelines. If you are interested in such discussions on those bases, please begin. Tiamut^talk 17:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You should open discussion, wait for responses, and then edit. Unless something is obviously trying to push a conclusion into reader's heads. Consider the following...

The history of a distinct Palestinian national identity is a disputed issue amongst scholars with some arguing that it can be traced to the 1834 Arab revolt in Palestine while others argue that it didn't emerge until after the Mandate Palestine period.[19] The prevailing view is that Palestinian identity orginated in the early decades of the twentieth century.

Is this good encyclopedia material? We present two views, and then say "but most people think it started in the Early Twentieth." I don't think that is the prevailing notion. I think a lot of Palestinians will trace themselves further back, sometimes centuries or more. Some, like myself, don't see the modern term "Palestinian" being used like it is today until 1948, at least.

So there is not a prevailing view for the early decades of the twentieth. That is just a compromise position that few actually hold. This paragraph is OR, so I am going to delete it and also streamline the reference to this failed notion in the lead. The source that holds this up is a book by a Jew. If a Jew says something that Palestinian nationalists can use, does that mean this is an ironclad source? No, its just one source. We can't make summaries of world opinion because we linked a statement to a book, even if its by a Jew. "Widespread" is a weasel word in the context it was used in. The statement, paraphrased from another online encyclopedia, makes the claim that Arabs commonly called themselves Palestinian in the early twentieth. It can't be disproven, because widespread can mean anything.

Now about that Palestinian political violence. The PLO is mostly known as a terrorist organization/political violence group. They do diplomacy too, but to not mention the many lively armed groups that constitute the PLO would be biased. I'll admit Palestinian political violence is an awkward phrase, and we shouldn't contribute to the untrue stereotype that every Palestinian is a terrorist. But the PLO is not just a diplomatic organ. It is an umbrella group for terror organizations. I'm going to say that the PLO has a history connected to Pally political violence. That doesn't need a source. It doesn't make a suggestion about whether or not the group is STILL connected to terror. But its past is indisputable.

Replacing a POV statement with an opposite POV statement is not progress. I try to change material into something better, instead of just more palatable to my ideas. Look at the pictures on this page and tell me that you and other editors aren't trying to create sympathy for the abused fellahin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.43.101 (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop removing material supported by reliable sources. Stop removing things because you personally disagree with them. The material you are removing is precisely supported by the sources cited. I know because I added it. If you would like to add more material based on reliable sources go ahead. Your editing is disruptive. That is a very bad idea on an article covered by discretionary sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't removed anything supported by reliable sources. Only poor sources. I've never added an opinion into this article. Stop trying to be a bully. My edits are always towards the NPOV, unlike the shamlessly political rantings that I am trying to keep to a minimum on this page. If you would look at my edits objectively, you will see that it is YOU who doesn't like his opinion tampered with. I have explained my edits on this talk page again and again and all you do is throw mud. So I'm gonna keep on being a constructive editor. I hope you will begin discussion on this talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.159 (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't help but to feel glad I didn't get involved in this crap and instead focused on uniwork. Does anyone who feels they can actually edit in an unbiased manner want to help out with this article? Palestinian National Initiative It currently reads a bit like propoganda and needs some reworking (I have tagged the hell out of it and made one or two minor edits, but left it at that). It looks somewhat important, or at least the members do. I left a little thing about it on the talk page as well. I know this should probably go under something more related politics, but eh, more editors here. Anyone want to give it a go? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You could try posting a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues too. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I could, but I'm sure someone else will do it now. That's a good thing about the collaborative nature of the project. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You should probably work on the basis that the immense amount of ongoing productive collaboration in the Israel-Palestine wiki-world probably leaves little time available for editors to do that for you... Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

split Culture section to Culture of Palestine?

Culture of Palestine currently redirects here. there is enough there for a stand alone article. questions comments? Slowking4 (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The culture section of this article is full of fluff. It is a political move, see above. Does every ethnic group have a culture page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.156 (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

kinda like Secular Jewish culture, good template for a split. Slowking4 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure it should be "Culture of Palestine?" That would be ambiguous. Are you going to include the Jews, Druze etc? How about Culture of the Palestinian Territories, or Palestinian Culture?

Or just don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.161 (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

When I added the culture section, I did so by using the Armenian people article as template. Their experience is close to that Palestinians and I checked their for tips on how to cover the subject here. I think it would be worthwhile having a longer Culture of Palestine article as well. What we have here is a skeleton summary. I think it should be retained here and copied into a sandbox for further expansion before debuting as a stand-alone article. Even when that happens, I think its appropriate to keep a summary here something along the lines of what we have, and improved drawing upon some of what the other article develops as well. Tiamut^talk 18:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

yes, i would start with a copy of what is here, (User:Slowking4/Culture of Palestine) and then adding to that article and paring down here. this the the normal evolution, when articles get too big as we have here. Slowking4 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

those first two paragraphs seem to me to belong under Origins as a subsection "prehistory", "ethnography"? so start culture section with sentence "Palestinian culture is closely related to those of the nearby Levantine countries..." Slowking4 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you could start it that way. But I think the two paragraphs could be included in a "Background section". Reviewing it now, its going to need a lot of work to make it a decent article. I'll try to do what I can, though my wiki time is very limited these days. Perhaps posting a notice at WP:PALESTINE about it might help bring in more editors. Tiamut^talk 17:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

Currently, it reads:

[...] are an Arabic-speaking Levantine people with origins in Palestine.

Based on the source cited and the information in the article, I would like to change this to read:

[...]are an Arabic-speaking people indigenous to Palestine.

References

Objections? Suggestions on alternatives? Tiamut^talk 20:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There should be a similar qualifier in Jews then to keep all things even. Why did you take out Levantine btw? I might not respond to any reply until late tomorrow EST/EDT (whatever we are using) btw. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't edit Jews and I don't think making tit for tat edits across articles to introduce "balance" is a good idea (edits should be done based on sources). That said, you are free to take that issue up there.

I took out "Levantine" because I don't think its supported by sources and I know its not how Palestinians identify themselves. ("Levantine" is a very European concept; if anything, Palestinians might say they were part of the peoples of Bilad al-Sham). Anyway, their relationship to other peoples of the Levant is discussed in the second paragraph, so there's no need to stress it here too (particularly since its not really the way its discussed in sources, when it is). I brought it up with User:Lazyfoxx who first introduced it and keeps restoring it on his/her talk page, but they have yet to respond to my request for a source that uses that terminology or description. Tiamut^talk 16:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I only suggest the "tit for tat edit" in accordance with this idea: Wikipedia:Drama#The_Principle_of_Least_Drama in case people start getting all huffy over it. Finding sources for it would be rather easy. I don't really see the need to put indigenous in though when it says that they have origins in Palestine, and this is what is being changed. It basically means the same thing, but with slightly different wording that might have other meanings to non-native English speakers (whatever those different meanings might be, idk, it depends on how they learned English). Bilad al-Sham, Greater Syria, aka the Levant? =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

palestinians in el salvador

i think el salvador should be added to the list (of where they live), there are around 70000 palestinians there, including the previous president —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.69.64 (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find a reliable source for that number, pop it in right before Kuwait (need to keep it alphabetical when you have the same number ofc.) =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Retracted journal article

Earlier today I removed a sentence from the article because the source, a medical journal article, had been retracted by its publisher. OhioStandard has brought to my attention the fact that the retraction itself has been controversial. See this discussion.

(If anybody is interested in seeing the original paper, it has been preserved here. That copy, however, is hosted on a "rogue" website that cannot be considered a WP:RS.)

Anyway, I'm posting this here in the interest of involving more editors in the discussion of how we should handle this. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is best to avoid sources whose publication is controversial. Zero^talk 05:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A retracted publication would not meet WP:RS. But there has been so much coverage of the retraction that there is a wealth of sources that could be used to discuss the retraction itself. I wouldn't be surprised if someone came up with an edit along these lines for this article here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source that supports the same conclusion as the retracted paper can be used in its place, but I don't think the controversy over the paper belongs on this page. Zero^talk 12:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a list of the 130 states which recognize the state of Palestine?

So far the only source I see is from a clearly pro-Palestinian website which doesn't provide any list either. I will wait a while and if no such list is supplied I'll delete that sentence. TFighterPilot (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Pie chart contradicts the infobox (which has the correct figure)

This graph right here [10] shows the Palestinians in the Americas as being at 216.000. Now it's one thing to lack periods or commas, but there are 500.000 Palestinians in Chile alone. I know this is sort of for commons, but the graph is a part of this article (and this article is the only place it is used). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So, does anyone mind if I remove it? The funny thing is that there is a table directly over it and that has better numbers, but they contradict each other in the same section.... It's right in the Demographics section. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Went ahead and removed it. I know there's no deadline, but it still looked kind of silly as at least a million people were not accounted for. =p If the guy who uploaded it could update it (if he's still around) that would be just peachy. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A leaner article would be a better article.

I oppose the addition of the Family in Ramallah, Palestinian Coffeehouse, and Bedoiun Woman pictures. They each are problematic in their captions and redundant to other pictures around them.

Plus, I think it's fair to say the pictures are used in a misleading way. There are plenty of historic and contemporary Palestinians on this page without the three pictures. It allows us to better see those cute goofballs in Nazareth standing infront of closed-down stores. Lutrinae (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Two of the three are featured pictures, of the quality and cultural significance one would expect to see in e.g National Geographic or the Smithsonian magazine. Your edit summary said they convey no true information. They show period dress, facial characteristics, and they personalize the article which is about, after all Palestinian people. That's the information that one expects high quality pictures to show. Short of photos with everyone holding up slates that list their demographics I don't know what more one could hope for. If you disapprove of the captions, then say so directly, and that can be a new topic for discussion. I've reinstated them.  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, they are very high quality, and the coffeehouse one is especially important as coffeehouses are a central part of Arab culture iirc. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I think understand. Lutrinae's objection appears to me to have nothing to do with article length, despite the heading of "A leaner article would be a better article" with which he created this section. Based on his earlier edit summaries here, e.g.

Removing POV material from fringe historians Sodek and Khalidi. Their quotes are both used to imply Palestinians are "ancient" inhabitants of the land. Weasel words, Mr. Roland, look it up. "longing for a lost homeland" is inappropriate.

his objection to the three photos of early Arab inhabitants of Palestine appears to me to be politically motivated. There may be perfectly valid reasons to discuss the political implication that he evidently sees in the photos, but I would suggest that in the future he should use section titles that ingenuously state his motivation or objection. Doing so will cultivate trust with editors whose political opinions differ in this sharply disputed topic area. Absent such trust, the whole topic area just inevitably becomes a battleground.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

So you agree that these are pictures of Arabs in Palestine? Yet they are presented to imply that they are Palestinians. I am attempting to remove politically-motivated POV material. I'm not the one pushing an agenda here.

There are numerous other pictures like the Palestinian Christians, the Two Girls of Bethlehem, the Kamenjah, and Al-Qassam that show historical dress. "Facial characteristics?" You are doing original research if you think linking historic pictures to modern racial groups can be done. There is a large number of contemporary Palestinians, especially children, on this article.

The pictures on this page are highly emotional. You haven't refuted that, or their redundancy.

There is far too much "personalization" going on here. Isn't that another word for "gathering sympathy? I used the section title above to show that I want to create an encyclopedic article, not one bogged down with emotion. If you need to see what I mean, look at the Culture section. Lutrinae (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thinking a picture is good is not a reason to put it on a page. It has to contribute to the article, so says the guidelines. Despite the pictures being high-quality, they aren't helping the article and I'm gonna delete them. Lutrinae (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of Palestinian people are entirely appropriate for an article about the Palestinian people, just as pictures of people of any ethnic group are used to illustrate those articles. Please stop your disruptive editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is firmly for keeping the images. There is no justifiable reason for you to go against the consensus, Lutrinae. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

@Lutrinae: You've had two three editors here tell you the pictures belong in the article, and you've made it clear that, despite the somewhat uncandid section title you chose here, your objection is primarily politically motivated and has little or nothing to do with article length. As an aside, if you won't ingenuously express your reasons for attempting to delete content you disapprove of, you give your fellow editors cause to question or doubt everything else you say, which hardly contributes to a productive collaboration. On the contrary, it fosters a battleground mentality, so please be sure to state your motives directly and candidly in the future.

That said, I see you've once again removed the three pictures, evidently because they interfere with your political opinion that the Palestinian people have no legitimate or historically-based right to their homeland. That is not a valid reason for their removal, and I observe that another editor, Malik Shabazz, has now reinstated them. Please don't repeat your removal a third time without broad-based support for doing so on this talk page, as I believe doing so would reasonably be construed as edit warring, despite your being technically within the 1rr restriction for this article on each of your previous two deletions of the pictures. Thank you. – OhioStandard (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Read the guidelines. Pictures are there to back up content, not to be decoration. If they are redundant, then they should be removed. I was trying to make a leaner article by removing the bad pictures (bad, in this context, means unnecessary). Ya'lls want to keep them because they're pretty, right?Lutrinae (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The pictures do back up the content and are reasonable. Since you have no support for your deletions, you should desist. Zero^talk 03:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Misinai hypothesis that Palestinians ancestors were Jews

Chesdovi just added this:

Several Palestinian families and tribes quietly acknowledge their Jewish background.

An opening passage in the article is, "Tsvi Misinai, a retired computer expert and pioneer of Israel's IT sector, reveals the burning vision that has consumed him for years." His "burning vision" is, essentially, that modern Palestinians' ancestors were Jews. I see this article contains a tremendous amount of content to try to show that, too. Anyway, Misinai's hypothesis is already present in the article. ( search for his name in it. ) So perhaps this ref could find a home there, if it's not already in use.

Since the hypothesis is disputed, though, we need to decide what, if anything we're going to quote from the Time's article. For example, we could quote any of the following, instead of, or in addition to, the sentence Chesdovi chose,

Doubts about the project were aired even by Ariella Oppenheim, one of the doctors who investigated the similarities between the Y chromosomes of Palestinian and Jewish men. “Tsvi Misinai has his optimistic ideas that this is going to help, but I'm less optimistic,” she said at Ein Kere hospital in Jerusalem. She denied that there is any such thing as a “Jewish gene”. Rather, she said, genetic studies pointed to the geographical origins of a population.

Indeed, for some it smacks of identity theft, similar to Turkey's claim in the last century that its large Kurdish minority were simply “mountain Turks who have forgotten their language. “The famous story of Zionism is that this was a land without a people for a people without a land, and it's back to that,” said Dr Boutros Dali, a veteran Arab-Israeli scholar.

Some ultra-religious Jewish settler leaders welcome the idea with open arms, since they believe that once all the biblical land of Israeli is populated with Jews, a new era of peace on Earth will be ushered in.

In this part of the world, however, nothing is simple. Dov Stein, secretary of the Sanhedrin council of rabbis, is a supporter of Misinai's theory, but rules out accepting Muslims into the country on the grounds that it would be a violation of the Jewish people's covenant with God, enshrined in the Torah scripture. “We can't ignore the fact that these communities of ‘Arabs' were forced [to convert], they are the children of the children of forced families,” he said. “It's obvious that we want them back, but also obvious, not at any price. If the price should be that they see themselves as Muslims, we won't receive them. And they remain enemies. They have to give up Islam.”

Anyway, It's a fascinating hypothesis, and I'm not averse to including content from the article, although I personally find the whole "who was here first" (i.e. 2000 or 3000 years ago) debate to be ludicrous. But we need to discuss what content from the article we emphasize; what to leave in, what to leave out. So Chedovi was bold, I've reverted, now let's discuss that: What, if anything, do we include from this source in our article?  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop the disruption

Text in Lead

The history of a distinct Palestinian national identity is a disputed issue amongst scholars. The prevailing view is that Palestinian identity originated in the early decades of the twentieth century. The first widespread use of "Palestinian" as an endonym to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine began prior to the outbreak of World War I. The first demand for national independence was issued by the joint Syrian-Palestinian Congress on 21 September 1921.

References

Comment

Regarding this edit with the edit summary and related removals of this policy compliant material.

• "The source does not include such a conclusion as I read it; separately the next sentence in this para deals adequately with the underlying point being made - a spurious assertion of the "prevailing view" is not needed."

This has been discussed at length on my talk page where as I was accused by 132.160.43.101 (now registered user Lutrinae) of not reading the source and dishonesty. Now the material is described as a "spurious assertion" and removed.

• The source is available in google books. Here is some info about the author, Assaf Likhovski, from Tel Aviv University.
• Here is the book, Law and identity in mandate Palestine, published by the American Society for Legal History and the University of North Carolina Press. See page 174. The book was awarded the Yonathan Shapiro Best Book Award in Israel Studies in 2007.
• Since Google displays different pages in different areas I also posted a screen dump of the page here.

I have limited patience with this kind of disruption. This topic area is covered by sanctions. Editors absolutely must comply with the policies of this project. If this disruption and removal of material sourced to a high quality source continues I will be filing Arbitration Enforcement reports and requesting blocks. The material accurately reflects a high quality academic source. It cannot be removed without a policy based reason. What can happen is that the statement can be attributed to Likhovski and other contrasting views in reliable sources can be added but all changes absolutely must be based on policy and sources, not on the personal views of Wikipedia editors. If anyone so much as makes an assertion here about the content without a reliable source to back it up I will file an Arbitration Enforcement report against that editor for tendentious and disruptive behavior in the topic area. Time for this nonsense to stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what others are doing, but I made a good edit to the lead. Likhovski's opinions should be presented as such, his opinions. In his book (thanks Sean, for finally finding that page) he calls a viewpoint dominant. Dominant where and amongst whom? And he says that Palestinian identity arose from Arab and Palestinian nationalism. That is why I put that in, instead of the undefendable statement that Palestinians called themselves "Palestinian" before WWI. Not many Arabs spoke English before WWI, so that word couldn't have been widespread.

My edits are in compliance with guidelines and create a NPOV narrative when before there was political posturing.

Stop being a bully because you aren't getting your way. Does your limited patience mean you only have time for reverts, instead of suggesting new and problem-solving material? Lutrinae (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit and restored the material but retained attribution. There is no problem to solve. You cannot manufacture a problem when faced with high quality reliable sources. Your opinions do not matter without a reliable source to support them. This topic area is covered by sanctions for a reason. I warned you what would happen if you continued with this tendentious and disruptive behavior of editing and making statements without sources to back you up. You decided to continue. That was a mistake. And regarding "thanks Sean, for finally finding that page", I already showed you the page when you accused me of not reading the source and dishonesty on my talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You didn't link to page 174 on your talk page, I caught you in the lie. But bygones.

Thanks for compromising a little, but the EB source shouldn't be used to make the claim that lots of Arab's in Mandate Palestine were calling themselves that. I used the same EB source to make an informative statement that backs up everyones favorite legal historian Likhovski.

Why was "Palestinian" a widespread word? Think about it, it's an English word. Whatever anonymous internet user put that phrase on Encyc Brit Online, they were doing a poor job at original research.

Our article doesn't need that ridiculous phrase. The "joint" in Syrian-Pally Congress is a weasel word to make it seem like a meeting of two parties.Lutrinae (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Lutrinae, your comments and behavior here would have turned this article into a yet another I/P battleground if editors here had responded in kind, rather than with very considerable restraint. You take liberty to claim "I caught you in the lie" to Sean re your twice asserted and demonstrably false accusation that he "didn't read the source" under dispute, and now you're claiming that he didn't do all that's proper to inform you of that source. Anyone can see that he did do all that's proper, and more, in documenting that source, simply by reviewing the "Palestinians again" thread where your discussion with him about this took place.

He provided you with a google books link to the source. When you complained that you couldn't see it in your part of the world he even went so far as to provide you with a screen shot of page 174 of the book, that you'd accused him of not reading. And now this demonstrably false statement that you caught him in some kind of lie. You've misrepresented your motives on this page, you've removed content of the highest quality, against consensus, because it doesn't suit your apparent view that Palestinians have no right to Palestine, and now you've falsely accused another editor of having lied when it couldn't be more obvious that he did not. This seems a textbook example of battleground behavior, to me.

@Sean: This seems unlikely to stop without intervention. I don't like suggesting it, but I think an AE request has become unavoidable at this point.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@Sean: I see this same person, now registered as "Lutrinae" appears also to have edited this article as 132.160.54.162 in addition to having used the 132.160.43.101 address you noted above. Since these are University IP's that are likely to be rather fluid, I presume he's edited from others, as well. In part because it existed to push the same "de-legitimizing" theme re Palestine that Lutrinae favors, and because of edits to common threads, it also might be enlightening to to me to look at this now-blocked account.

And re battleground behavior, I'll also observe that his repeated use of "Pally" instead of "Palestinian" seems pretty offensive. Suppose pro-Palestinian editors started referring to Israel as, say, "Isreally?" or some such pejorative, with the same motivation of de-legitimizing the State and de-legitimizing the idea that its people form a discrete nationality. How would that go over? Based on what we've seen at AE recently, I have little doubt that the reciprocal wording would result in a near-instant topic ban. This guy's behavior does need to go to AE, in my opinion.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the combative one. You don't want to talk about the content. You haven't defended the "widespread" phrase I'm trying to remove. You also haven't shown the relevancy of the pictures that I tried to remove.

You are defending your ideological viewpoint and trying to make discussions personal. I am tring to make a better, NPOV article. My personal politics aren't in my edits. I'm not trying to erase a history of Pally people (I think its an OK abreviation). I'm trying to limit the overload of emotional content that is pushing a political viewpoint on this page. Stop accusing me of pushing politics if you can't show a single POV edit I've ever done.

I did catch Sean in a lie, his talkpage shows him scrambling to cover it up. Stop your bullying and accusations. I'm trying to make a better article. You are throwing mud and slowing down article improvement.Lutrinae (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Your "improvements" are not seen as such by other editors. Rather, your behavior is becoming disruptive. I recommend that you reconsider your approach to editing this article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Lutrinae, you need to immediately stop saying people lie when there is categorical proof that they did not. I do not lie. There is no scrambling to cover up. Read my talk page carefully, comment 06:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC). You are not allowed to behave like this in the project. You need to retract and strike your accusations. I insist and demand that you do that. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

<- For the record Lutrinae topic banned from I/P, 4 months. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Source 14

That Palestinians comprise 49% of Israel, WB, Gaza, Golan is not supported by its source (source 14). The source actually claims that of the Arab population in these places, 51% of them are Jews (i.e. Jews from Arab countries). The proportion of non-Jewish Arabs is about 1/4 of the total population. Compare this to the figure quoted by the CIA world factbook of 23.6% (last updated June 14, 2011)

Could someone please correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.70.64 (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You should do it yourself. The gang of revisionists around here don't correct misinformation that supports their myths. It is the Muslim way.

Muhammad said: "Lying is wrong, except in three things: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie to an enemy, for war is deception; or a lie to settle trouble between people" [Ahmad, 6.459. H] ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.13.66.108 (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian Jews image

Nableezy removed an image of Palestinian Jews claiming this is covered at Palestinian Jews, this article is about Palestinian Arabs. But why does Nableezy not think this page should not document Palestinian Jews and only “Palestinian Arabs”. The lead says the Palestinian people are an Arabic-speaking Levantine people with origins in Palestine and that Palestinians have been predominantly Muslim by religious affiliation and “linguistically” and “culturally” Arab. Well, the Jews in Palestine were Arabic-speaking and culturally Arab. An image of the Musta'arabi Jews of Palestine is quite in order here. Chesdovi (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Chesdovi. I refactored your section title, I hope you dont mind. This article uses "Palestinian people" and "Palestinians" as synonymous with "Palestinian Arabs". I myself consider Palestinian Jews to be as Palestinian as anybody else, I dont think ethnicity, be it Arab or Jew, is determinative of whether or not somebody is Palestinian. But if you want to include that here, Id suggest having a broader discussion on what the topic of this article should be. And if it is meant to include Palestinian Jews as well then we should also discuss merging the content in Palestinian Jews here. nableezy - 18:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

From the lead, it seems Jews are already included, or am I misunderstanding? I was just upset that you removed the Jews but not the Chrisitans... Chesdovi (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion concerning the image, but I would point out that the article mentions and includes links to both Palestinian Christians and Palestinian Jews. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Palestinian Christians are Palestinian Arabs, no? I dont think we can compare Jews with Christians in Muslims, nobody claims that Christianity or Islam are ethnicities as well as religions. The term Jew can refer to an ethnic Jew or a follower of Judaism, and it unclear which one you mean here. This isnt an article on Palestinian Muslims, so I dont see why the inclusion of Christians would be an issue in any way. But could you tell me what in the lead makes you say that Jews are already included in this article? Again, I want to make clear I do not oppose the inclusion of Palestinian Jews, but rather I do not think the article as it is today covers them, and as such I dont think the image should be in the article as it stands now. nableezy - 18:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You say this page is about Palestinian Arabs, (indeed it redirects here), but it is called Palestinian people. If this just includes Arab Palestinians whose identity as a separate national/ethno people came into being since 1948, so be it, if not, Palestinian Arab Jews should be included. Chesdovi (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Palestinians, also known as Palestinian Arabs???

Not all Palestinians are Arabs, and not all Palestinians define themselves as Arab. This really shouldn't be in the opening line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.230.22 (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent population table changes

So I see that User:PaliChristianGurl (who I suspect might be Palestinian, Christian and female, but don't ask why :p) worked the latter half of the table around a bit. Now most of the changes seem okay and helpful, except it looks like Honduras's Palestinian population has skyrocketed. Here is a diff showing her changes [11]. I need to catch a share taxi to Nahariyya, but could someone review her edits? They seem otherwise fine, but I notice that in the Arab Christian article, she changed the numbers in the table there to much higher ones. [12] (The Egyptian one is okay as I am guessing someone didn't realise that Coptics are Christians, but the others are concerning). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Struggle for self-determination

I'd like to address this statement in the first paragraph of Struggle for self-determination. "Historian Avi Shlaim states that the Palestinians' lack of sovereignty over the land has been used by Israelis to deny Palestinians their rights." This is a good paraphrase of his statement, but I feel that instead of saying "their rights," it should say something about statehood or nationhood. Mr. Shlaim was talking specifically about perception of Palestinian nationhood, not rights in general. In the interview in which his quote originates, he is asked, "In your opinion, is there a Palestinian "nation"? This is his whole response...

There definitely is a Palestinian nation. It emerged in the aftermath of the First World War and it was forged in the crucible of the conflict with the Zionists. The Zionist movement in Palestine posed a challenge and led to the emergence of the Palestinian sense of nationhood. The Palestinians are clearly a nation, because that is how they define themselves. They had a land called Palestine, and they were displaced from it. The end result is that the Palestinians have never exercised sovereignty over the land in which they lived: First they were under the Ottoman Empire; then they were under the British Mandate. The Israelis use this fact against them. They say, "you never had sovereignty over this land, and therefore you have no rights." But during the struggle for Palestine, the Palestinians had a strong national movement under the leadership of the Grand Mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husseini. In 1948 they felt they had at least as much of a right to independence as the Iraqis or the Syrians or the Lebanese. The fact that some Israelis, like Golda Meir, have denied the existence of a Palestinian nation is neither here nor there.

You can see that when he says Israelis deny the Palestinians their rights, he is refering to the right to nationhood, the right of self-determination. I think we are taking "you have no rights" out of context. Mr. Shlaim is very critical of Israeli policies, but we can't have a quote from Mr. Shlaim that says, "Israel denies Palestinians of all rights." He didn't say that.

He did say (speaking as Israel) "you never had the land, so you have no rights." He is being colorful with his words. To preserve context, I want to change the following line..."Historian Avi Shlaim states that the Palestinians' lack of sovereignty over the land has been used by Israelis to deny Palestinians their rights." The ending, I think, should say "deny Palestinian self-determination" or "demands for statehood." Modinyr (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you're interpreting what Shlaim said. All he said (in the voice of "the Israelis") is "you have no rights". We don't know what he meant by that. We can make guesses, educated or otherwise, about what we think he meant, but guesswork is original research. Unless you can find a source that clarifies Shlaim's comments, I think we have to stick to what he said, without any interpretation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Our Wikipedia article says, "Historian Avi Shlaim states that the Palestinians' lack of sovereignty over the land has been used by Israelis to deny Palestinians their rights." We have a source to show this. Plagerism is not our goal, nor to use words to soapbox. So are we representing Mr. Shlaim honestly? During this interview, he said...

...The end result is that the Palestinians have never exercised sovereignty over the land in which they lived: First they were under the Ottoman Empire; then they were under the British Mandate. The Israelis use this fact against them. They say, "you never had sovereignty over this land, and therefore you have no rights."...(emphasis mine)

We can quote him, or we can restructure his words. Taking "this fact," Palestinian landlessness, the current version you prefer says that Palestinian landlessness is why Israelis say they should have no rights. No rights.

Mr. Shlaim was speaking in a context. I have reviewed original research and don't think my version would be OR, just a better reference to Mr. Shlaim to support the otherwise verifiable first paragraph of Struggle for self-determinism. Modinyr (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I have a solution. The article can read...

Historian Avi Shlaim states that the Palestinians' lack of sovereignty over the land has been used by Israelis to deny Palestinians their rights [to self-determination].

I think we should use the brackets so as not to misquote, but still keep context. The teeth of his comment are still there. The paragraph addresses Ottoman and British periods, and Mr. Shlaim is there to show how this relates to the present and self-determination. If it isn't agreed that his comment concerns self-determination, then what are they doing in the topic paragraph of Struggle for self-determination? Modinyr (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna make my suggested change. Here is one more reason why. Consider the following...

"I didn't know which relative to stay with, they all offered hospitality. I decided to sleep with my aunt."

We could quote this person as saying, "I decided to sleep with my aunt." It is a sentence and a sentence is a single grammatical unit. But this would be misleading. This is a better way to quote the sentence. "I decided to sleep [at the house of] my aunt."

Therefore... Historian Avi Shlaim states that the Palestinians' lack of sovereignty over the land has been used by Israelis to deny Palestinians their rights [to self-determination]. Modinyr (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A simple solution may just be to say "deny Palestinians this right" or "...these rights", although this may not appeal to English purists. Its quite clear his intention is going back on what he started with "The end result is that the Palestinians have never exercised sovereignty over the land in which they lived" this section is clearly detached from the argument of nationhood, the beginning of his response, he is now bemoaning as he calls it the Palestinian lack of Palestinian sovereignty (its almost as if he's reluctant to use the words self-determination. He possibly could have been more clear i.e. "and therefore you have no rights to sovereignity". I find that commonly Israelis use the plural in place of the singular (as is acceptable in Hebrew) to strengthen a point, even in English. Another alternative would be to use his own words "deny Palestinians sovereignity". Menachemsdavis (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Genetic analysis in the lead

Genetic analysis suggests that Palestinians are "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times," and that the Muslims among them are largely descendants of Christians and Jews from the southern Levant."

This is a summary of the following from ScienceNow, "The results match historical accounts that Moslem Arabs are descended from Christians and Jews who lived in the southern Levant, a region that includes Israel and the Sinai. They were descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times."

Those two don't really match up. When the author says this, she is talking about the historical accounts. The genetic study, according to her, says "70% of Jewish men and half of the Arab men whose DNA was studied inherited their Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestors who lived in the region within the last few thousand years."

She is linking the science that says "Palestinians have a genetic basis in the region for the last few thousand years" with the historical record that says "lived in the area since prehistoric times." So the science and history form a suggestive match. This is cool info that belongs in the article.

But, it is not true to say "Genetic analysis suggests..." and then quote the historic record that the author references. Genetic analysis suggests that Palestinians have ancestors who lived in the region for thousands of years.

I'm not trying to be picky, but I got interested in clarifying the DNA and Genetics section of the article. It's hard to understand, and I'm a guy who knows a bit of DNA and how to read a science article. A lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article, as my friend SeanHoyland recently pointed out for me. So I think I can do a better job at summarizing the genetic info, unless anyone else wants a crack at it. Modinyr (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Done.Modinyr (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

number of Palestinians in Israel, WB, and Gaza

DellaPergola fails to answer some basic questions: Separate confirmation of births of the PA's own Ministries of Health and Education's numbers (both of which are quite similiar the former recording births and the latter the school student entry records 6 years later). 300,000+ overseas: Masur Hasan Abu Libdah the head of the Palestinian Central Bureau of statistics is quoted saying "We counted 325,000 people living outside of Palestinian lands for more than one year who ... can return at any time. This number is a minimum as we couldn't contact all the families living abroad." At least 105,000 West Bank and Gazan Palestinians were still counted by the PCBS regardless of living in Israel at the time thus being counted both by the ICBS and the PCBS. Additionaly the 2005 census estimated a yearly net immigration of 50,000 since the 1997 census (some of these years even had negative migration). In summary as of mid year 2004: Approx. ~2.5 million in the West Bank & Gaza (not incl. Jlem.), 210,000 in Jerusalem and 1,330,000 in Israel(not incl. Jlem.). As the disparity is 35% more than 1 million people it should appear that there should be some pretty clear answers. Sources: http://www.israeldemography.com/Herzliya%20Presentation.ppt, http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/MSPS65.pdf Menachemsdavis (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Why no remind for Hajj Amin al Husseini

Why no remind for Hajj Amin al Husseini Is an integral part of the Palestinians history and among their early leaders — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.229.194 (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

HistoryLover4 slow edit-war

So, I notice from the article history that this HistoryLover fellow is engaged in edit-warring and appears to be reinserting the same point about Jews over and over in an article devoted to Palestinians. Thoughts on this matter? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 02:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This page currently contains the following statement "The study also discovered significant genetic mixing between these converts and incoming Arab tribes during the first millennium AD." It should contain a similar quote noting Dr. Ariella Oppenheim and her team said the following about Jews having mixed with European populations over the last millennium http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2000/10/30-01.html "Oppenheim's team found, for example, that Jews have mixed more with European populations, which makes sense because some of them lived in Europe during the last millennium." This is important to the debate regarding the differences between Palestinians and the world's different Jewish populations. Not mentioning this fact noted again by Dr. Ariella Oppenheim and her team leaves a gap in trying to judge the similarity and differences between Palestinians and Jews (genetically) and also seems to be trying to imply the erroneous claim that Palestinians are largely mixed with alleged "settling" Arabs (from the Arabian peninsula, rather then the reality that Palestinians and most people today called "Arab" were simply culturally and linguistically Arabized aka Arabization with little mixing with alleged "hordes" of invading and supposedly "settling" Arab Muslims as Islamophobic theory absurdly claims: for an example simple compare a Levantine Arab like a Syrian and compare them to a Sudanese Arab, they are not genetically similar at all yet both are termed "Arab" by most common people because they speak Arabic as their mother tongues in their local dialects). Not noting that Dr. Ariella Oppenheim and her team noted Jewish mixing with Europeans genetically is lying by omission and could be seen as trying to give weight to erroneous claims of modern Zionist's who alleged they are "direct descendants" of people allegedly in Palestine before the Palestinians (in this case the Hebrews who Dr. Ariella Oppenheim has shown the Palestinians are closely related to and have genetic input from, especially the Arab Negev Bedouins who many scholars believe are the closest people to Hebrews or Israelites, whether Arab Bedouins of the Negev identify as Palestinian is a mixed bag though and has been discussed by different researchers who note that Arab Bedouins in the Negev regions closer to non-Bedouin Palestinian Arabs tend to more readily identify themselves as Palestinian Arabs). Note Dr. Ariella Oppenheim herself notes (as is already stated in this page) that Palestinians are "descendan­ts of a core population that lived in the area since prehistori­c times", albeit religiousl­y first Christiani­zed then largely Islamized, and all eventually culturally Arabized. So if anything a Palestinian could say Dr. Ariella Oppenheim is mentioning the Canaanites (who came before the Hebrews) when she calls Palestinians the descendants of the "core population that lived in the land of Palestine since prehistoric times". Historylover4 (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

best to use the talk pages cuz edit war gets us no where. resolve it here. I see no major issue with Historylover argument, and even if it is disputed it is not so major that we need to throw it out on such a fine argument as "not about Jews" considering the history. Maybe refining it to fit in better with the Palestinians topic. The study also discovered significant genetic mixing between these converts and incoming Arab tribes during the first millennium AD i think the user is trying to balance this by citing that Jews in Israel are also significantly mixed with European populations, just like Palestinians are mixed with other "Arab" groups.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

First off, Dr. Oppenheimer's study focused on Ashkernazim and Sephardic Jews. These are the Jewish groups that mostly came from Europe to Israel. She doesn't say "Jews have European blood." When comparing European Jews with Levantine Palestinians, of course the Jews will have more European blood. The million or so Arabic Jews (sometimes called Oriental Jews) that live in Israel today shouldn't be grouped in with their lighter-skinned cousins.

Further, the study does not say "core population that lived in the land of Palestine since prehistoric times". That quote is from the ScienceNow article about the scientific study. It is the non-scientist author of a pop-science magazine making a connection between the study and her own analysis of "historical accounts." So don't go claiming there are genetic proofs to your Canaanite theory.

Finally, this article is about Palestinians. There is enough mention of Jews in the Genetics section already. The text you want added is not relevant to the article. You haven't shown that it is. Instead you said, "This is important to the debate regarding the differences between Palestinians and the world's different Jewish populations."

No, this article is not the forum for a debate about the differences of anybody. By all means, create an article for you to air the many OR claims you made in your reply. Modinyr (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Ariella Oppenheim's study supports Palestinians being the "core population that lived in the land of Palestine since prehistoric times" (prehistoric times obviously being Canaanites) that is why there is a consensus about it being included, I don't see you advancing anything of Oppenheim or anyone in her team arguing about this fact (see also works of historians like Ilene Beatty and others). As for the mention of specifically Ashkenazi Jews in Europe the statement already mentioned that: "Oppenheim's team found, for example, that Jews have mixed more with European populations, which makes sense because some of them lived in Europe during the last millennium." Is something very relevant and should be included if this page also includes statements like: "Jews are even more closely related to the peoples living in the north of the Fertile Crescent, such as the Kurds. Given the influx of Arabs to the area that reached climax with the Muslim conquest of the Levant in the 7th century AD, the researchers concluded that this disparity was likely the result of genetic mixing between the Palestinian population's Christian and Jewish ancestors and these later Arab settlers." As Halqh stated about what I was saying: "i think the user is trying to balance this by citing that Jews in Israel are also significantly mixed with European populations, just like Palestinians are mixed with other 'Arab' groups." Also lastly if we are mentioning that studies show that many Jews are close to Kurds (and the studies say in complete quote: "Kurds, Turks, and Armenians") why can't we again mention the information about European genetic input again: "Oppenheim's team found, for example, that Jews have mixed more with European populations, which makes sense because some of them lived in Europe during the last millennium." Seems to fit to me, either we should mention Jews fully (including the info of Oppenheim's team mentioning heavy European genetic input on modern Jews) or not at all in this article. Historylover4 (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to take issue with this trend of forcing editors to use the talk page and then the people who reverting them not adding to the talk page debate. You cannot dismiss any edit unless you are prepared to engage in the "Why". "This article is not about Jews" is not good enough. I agreed with it, had i not seen ""Jews are even more closely related to the peoples living in the north of the Fertile Crescent, such as the Kurds." I am going to have to agree with Historylover on the issue of in or out People are not as NPOV as they think. And this is obvious here. I am an anti-Zionist - proudly so. So i will be biased even when attempting balance. As the user indicates there are already suspicious statements which have political overtones. In this hot articles balance is critical and the reader should be given as much contrasting info as possible to offset any political suggestion, which is very common around these issues of identity and genetics. All used to prove someone has more right to something. 4 me wiki has to be NPOV, even if i am not. all in or all out. And we should discuss how to include it on merit only.request for additional comments from diverse editors would probably serve historymaker as i am not 100%.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone other than me have the actual study (which should be attributed to its first author Nebel, not to the author who was interviewed)? Most versions mentioned here or put into the article do not match it very well. Here is the last part of the abstract: "Single-step micro satellite networks of Arab and Jewish haplotypes revealed a common pool for a large portion of Y chromosomes, suggesting a relatively recent common ancestry. The two modal haplotypes in the I&P Arabs were closely related to the most frequent haplotype of Jews (the Cohen modal haplotype). However, the I&P Arab clade that includes the two Arab modal haplotypes (and makes up 32% of Arab chromosomes) is found at only very low frequency among Jews, reflecting divergence and/or admixture from other populations." And a few bits from the summary section of the paper: "Our findings corroborate previous studies that suggested a common origin for Jewish and non-Jewish populations living in the Middle East" ... "However, the present study, using high-resolution haplotypes, also revealed statistically significant differences between Arabs and Jews." (Then a summary of the differences.) And the final two paragraphs: "The occurrence of less than 1% of I&P Arab clade chromosomes in the Ashkenazi and Sephardic samples is noteworthy since they shared many other haplotypes with Arabs. The low haplotype diversity of the Arab clade chromosomes, as seen in the network (Fig. 2), suggests that they descended from a relatively recent common ancestor. Arab clade chromosomes could have been present in the common ancestral population of Arabs and Jews, and drifted to high frequencies in one of the subgroups following population isolation. The event leading to this isolation might have been the acceptance of the monotheistic Jewish religion by a subset of the population, or geographic separation due to the expulsion of Jews after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 79. Alternatively, the Arab clade could have been introduced through gene flow, perhaps by the immigration of Arab tribes in the first millennium AD. In this regard, it is of interest that Arab clade chromosomes were observed in 8 out of 49 Moslem Arabs (16%) from the Hadramaut in Yemen (Thomas et al. 2000). Further studies are needed to clarify the origin of the Arab clade. According to historical records part, or perhaps the majority, of the Moslem Arabs in this country descended from local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD (Shaban 1971; Mc Graw Donner 1981). These local inhabitants, in turn, were descendants of the core population that had lived in the area for several centuries, some even since prehistorical times (Gil 1992). On the other hand, the ancestors of the great majority of present-day Jews lived outside this region for almost two millennia. Thus, our findings are in good agreement with historical evidence and suggest genetic continuity in both populations despite their long separation and the wide geographic dispersal of Jews." Zero^talk 13:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Goldwyn, a successful movie producer, once said, "If I want to send a message, I'll use Western Union." The purpose of this article isn't to establish that Palestinians have a "more pure" genetic line than Jews. It is merely to write about Palestinians. That's it. Anything more verges into the territory of WP:Synthesis. As I wrote, this isn't an article about Jews. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case Malik they why does this page still currently contain the following: "A follow-up study by Oppenheim found that in addition to being closely related to Israeli and Palestinian Arab populations, Jews are even more closely related to the peoples living in the north of the Fertile Crescent, such as the Kurds." Note again the full quote is: "Kurds, Turks, and Armenians". So if this is included why not include: "Oppenheim's team found, for example, that Jews have mixed more with European populations, which makes sense because some of them lived in Europe during the last millennium." http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2000/10/30-01.html. If your not going to allow the quote I included to be given then the quote talking about possible similarities between Jews and Kurds should also be deleted as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand: Palestinian people. You should follow what you said and delete any reference to non-Palestinians in this article then. Historylover4 (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Gone. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Historylover, the intention is not to remove any reference to non-Palestinians. The goal is to not go off on tangents. This article mentions Yasser Arafat. We could say "You know, he was actually born in Egypt." Would that be relevant? Maybe. Is somebody trying to use Arafat's nationality to try to make him seem like a non-Palestinian? Than its inappropriate.

The quote you want in seems like an attempt to distance Jews from the land of Israel (Palestine). You haven't shown its relevancy, only compared it to other references to Jews. Also, you are taking out of context a genetic study that you are sourcing through a popular science magazine. Modinyr (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What ever the quote appears to do, let it first balance the article, add value to the article and be the truth.BTW I didnt know Arfat was born in Egypt . But if it was inserted for that reason then it would be a problem because of dishonest motives. Like i said let not pretend we dont come here with our biases. And I love it when people say Jews as if it is a monolith. Some Jews 100% come from the Levant (just like the Arab Palestinians), some come from Ethiopia and some are 100% European. Shlomo Sand is on point.(off topic i know)--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Overblown sentences in the lead section

I have removed the following: "[...]of the Israeli-occupied West Bank population (versus over 300,000 Jewish Israeli citizens in West Bank Israeli settlements, or close to 500,000 if including approximately 200,000 Jewish Israeli citizens in Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem)". How come every article about Palestinians has to be about how the big bad Israel annexes and occupies? Not to mention that the "Jew count" is WP:SYNTH and does not serve an encyclopedic purpose here at all; complete violation of WP:NPOV. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. The material on settlers is there to give information on the percentage of Palestinians in the West Bank. The rest of your comments about "big bad Israel" merit no response except to say that your apparent belief that NPOV is a tool to remove any mention of the occupation is not something that any reading of that policy backs up. nableezy - 15:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The material on settlers does not advance anything except the number of Jewish residents in certain areas, which is not the topic of this article. As for NPOV, again – Israeli occupation is also not the topic of this article. I am not excluding this information completely, since it is mentioned in the proper context later in the article, but none of that belongs in the lead section. That is unless, of course, you or anyone else can point to the appropriate policy that proves me wrong. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Mention of the West Bank as "occupied" is justified. We are talking about Palestinians in the West Bank and we are trying to count them separately from Israel. The status of the West Bank is misunderstood by many (and can be exactly defined by noone.) So, including "occupied" to eschew confusion is good.

Now, what of Mr. Hearfour's concerns. Is it necessary to include the numbers of Israeli settlers? I think not. The lead is a summary of the article, and the article does not discuss settlers and their demographics. Sayings "Palestinians are a majority of the West Bank" sounds fine. Mr. Hearfour has a point about many Palestinian related articles being whipping posts for Israel. While "Occupied" is an appropriate word for the lead, settlers is not. Modinyr (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The occupation bit may be justified, but not in the lead section, since the article is not about Israeli occupation. Putting this kind of information in lead sections is exactly what WP:UNDUE advocates against. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agree with the argument of user Nableezy. Seems like a very small issue which is being blown up. Is it not an occupied territory? Are they not settlers. The same tone is used for explaining South Africa.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the relevance of any of that? This is an article about Palestinian people, not about Jewish settlers on land that is argued by some as belonging to Palestinians, and most certainly not about Israeli occupation. I will repeat again: this material is not necessarily excluded from the article, on the contrary – if notability and relevance are established, it can most certainly be included, but not in the lead section. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I will say that that number is hogwash. The actual number is over 700.000. I think I read that on YNet. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Tishrei 5772 16:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following: "[...]of the Israeli-occupied West Bank population (versus over 300,000 Jewish Israeli citizens in West Bank Israeli settlements, or close to 500,000 if including approximately 200,000 Jewish Israeli citizens in Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem)". How come every article about Palestinians has to be about how the big bad Israel annexes and occupies? Not to mention that the "Jew count" is WP:SYNTH and does not serve an encyclopedic purpose here at all; complete violation of WP:NPOV. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

-- I was giving you the correct number as you put the original comment that talked about number. Please do not wiki-lawyer (misinterpret wikipedia policy in a reply). I do agree though that it serves no purpose in an article about the Palestinian people (I don't think they're counted as these guys last I checked). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Tishrei 5772 16:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If you noticed, this was a direct copy-paste from the diff, and my main point is that the info does not belong in the lead section to begin with, so why would a "hogwash claim" (the sound of which kind of rings a Holocaust-denying bell...) be in any way relevant to this discussion? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I was commenting on the synth and saying that it was wrong anyway and here is the right number, so you're welcome. Didn't see that it was in the lede though (I also missed the first time you bolded it as I am reading on a large screen from a distance and occasionally miss some things). It should not be in the article anyway, but seeing it in context in the actual article, it looks ridiculous. I'm afraid I don't get the holocaust denial point, could you please expand on that? I would also politely ask that you please tone down on what comes across as a somewhat hostile tone as it creates an uncivil atmosphere. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Tishrei 5772 17:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I apologize if you have perceived my comments as uncivil, but the word "hogwash" instantly reminded me of the famous recurring phrase "six million Jews is a hogwash perpetrated by evil Zionists", so... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Understandable. Apologies about my choice of words, but I couldn't think of a better word at the time. I agree that such a long-winded explanation of West Bank status, especially in the lede is ridiculous and seems to be there to prove a point. If it is going to be mentioned, it should be somewhere in the body, not taking up about 1/4 of the whole lede. After all, the article is called "Palestinian People" not Residents of the West Bank. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Tishrei 5772 17:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So it's a consensus, aye? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You have an odd way of judging consensus. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Instead of personal attacks, tell me how come an agreement that irrelevant material is irrelevant is not a consensus. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Who made that agreement? nableezy - 13:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Me, Modinyr and Flinders Petrie. You have not yet shown how the number of settlers is relevant in the lead section of an article about Palestinian people, nor why the word "occupied" belongs in the lead section. My offer was to move it, not remove it altogether, but nowhere in any MoS can you find justification to keep this material. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Modinyr agreed with one part of what you wrote, not the other. The reason to include the number of settlers in the West Bank is to give the percentage of Palestinians in the West Bank. Just as we say that Palestinians comprise around half of the population in Jordan or 20% of the population within Israel. The reason to include "Israeli-occupied" is to likewise introduce, briefly, the status of the territories where the Palestinians make up a substantial portion of the population. Flinders Petrie's position does not make much sense to me. He writes that a long-winded explanation of West Bank status, especially in the lede is ridiculous and seems to be there to prove a point. I fail to see where the is any long-winded explanation, we are talking about exactly one word. That one word succinctly gives the status of the territory. If you would like to show how one word can possibly be considered a long-winded explanation I might be inclined to agree. I dont honestly see that happening though. nableezy - 04:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Long-winded is the specifics of how many Jewish settlers there are in the West Bank, including and excluding East Jerusalem. It is more than sufficient to write the percentage of the Palestinian population, since the article is not about Jewish settlers. "Israeli occupied" may be relevant in the article body, but not in lede, since the article is not about the military-political status of the Palestinian territories. The lede should only include bare essentials that pertain directly to the article subject, certainly not marginally-related descriptions like "Israeli-occupied" or "Israeli-annexed". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither is long-winded. Your belief that the lead should only include bare essentials is unsubstantiated. That Israel occupies the area known as the Palestinian territories is without question related to this article, not "marginally-related" trivia. nableezy - 13:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's relevant. It's showing the reader quite clearly that Palestinians are the majority demographic in a certain territory. If you present the proportion of the population that are Palestinian, you should identify what the other major group is. Icarus^talk 14:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We're treading water here. I'm questioning the relevance in the lede, not in the article as a whole. I'll take this to RfC soon. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy and Icarus. These statements are very relevant and they belong in the lead section. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Arnaiz-Villena

Palestinians were found genetically very similar to both Askenazhi and non-Askenazi Jews according to HLA genes.The paper written by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena et al (2001) [13]was removed of scientific databases against a majotity of the scientific community.PortAngeles (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment on lede statements

The relevant discussion can be found here. Basically, the question is whether or not it is appropriate for the lead section of an article about Palestinian people to:

1. Precede the wikilink Palestinian territories by the expression "Israeli-occupied";
2. List, in detail, the number of Jewish residents in what is disputed as Palestinian territories in and around Israel, with a separate sub-sentence in parentheses that pertains to East Jerusalem, the wikilink of which is also preceded by the expression "Israeli-annexed". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Under international law it is occupied.Slatersteven (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Even so, why would any of that be relevant to the lede? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say it's very relevant for the lead section to mention that a large part of the people that the article describes are living in occupied territory. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Palestinians have always lived in an occupied territory, first in the Ottoman Empire, then in the British Empire, then in Jordan and only then (since 1967) under partial Israeli control. Isn't this just a little undue weight towards the Israeli issue? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Palestine wasnt "occupied territory" under the Ottomans, and if this article were written in the 1930s it would, quite rightly, say that Palestine held by Britain under a League of Nations Mandate. nableezy - 18:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems appropriate and due. The article on the Kurdish people talks extensively about Kurdistan within the article, and also mentions it in the lead. The Kurds seem like they're in a similar situation (i.e. a peoples without a home). NickCT (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, there was never a sovereign country called Palestine, so technically, Palestinians never had a land of their own, hence no land of theirs could have been occupied. Israel occupied some Jordanian territories following the six day war, why isn't it mentioned that the territories were always occupied, every era by a different government? Are you saying that whatever was prior to the Israeli interference bears no importance? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand what the term occupied territory means. Palestine was a province of the Ottoman Empire, it was not "Ottoman-occupied territory". But why would that matter? nableezy - 21:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Am I understanding you right, Hearfourmewesique, when I paraphrase your reasoning as in "They have never had a sovereign nation"? I see no reason not to add something like that in (I am sure the sources will range in how it is described and DNA this and OMG borders that) along with "occupied" since it two very interesting and relevant parts of the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs)

The basic definition of sovereign nation suggests just that. If I'm not mistaken, out of all the governing bodies in the area, Israel is the only one that gave Palestinians sovereignty over Gaza and parts of the West Bank, does anyone remember the Oslo Accords? Given all this, why does the lede include the expressions "Israeli-occupied" and "Israeli-annexed" while not mentioning that the "Palestinian territories" were never under Palestinian governing and Israel was the first ruling body to give them their autonomy? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Israel has not "given" sovereignty over any part of the Palestinian territories to anybody, mostly because it was never theirs to give, and also because the Oslo Accords did not grant sovereignty over any territory to the PNA. But again, the terms in the lead are there to give the current status to each of the places with large numbers of Palestinians. Among those places are Israel, Jordan, and the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. We need not specify that Jordan controls Jordan or that Israel controls Israel because that is obvious, but the Palestinian territories have a different status. That status is Israeli-occupied. Why would we say that Jordan occupied the West Bank from 1948 to 1967? How is that at all relevant to the area now? The answer, obviously, is that it isnt, and that the urge to add such things is based on a need to remove or reduce any material on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories. Also, if you are going to open a discussion in another venue it is generally considered good manners to inform other editors involved in the dispute. nableezy - 19:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, one more issue here, the RFC instructions specify to include a brief neutral description of the issue. I dare say that the RFC question listed here is nowhere near being a neutral statement about the dispute. nableezy - 19:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

My take: The fact that a large part of the Palestinian people lives under Israeli occupation is one of the key features of their current status and obviously it belongs in the first few sentences. On the other hand, I think the first paragraph should take a more global view and summarize the distribution of Palestinians around the world, including the occupied territories but not exclusively focussing on them. Zero^talk 23:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• When English sources discuss the Palestinian people, the fact that their existence is impacted by the still continuing occupation is very frequently mentioned so inclusion in the lead is as far as I can see entirely OK and neutral. The ICJ refers to the territories, incl. East Jerusalem, as "occupied palestinian territories" and the UNGA has said the Palestinians have a right to sovereignty in those areas. East Jerusalem can be called occupied just like the rest, since Israel's "annexation" is considered as having no effect on the legal status of East Jerusalem by every country except Israel. That is, that's the super-majority view that can be presented in a neutral voice. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You're funny. We're discussing a situation that is happening in Israel, but you don't consider Israel's status of EJ in any way notable. Also, who's "every country"? One more thing, they are governed by Hamas, an internationally recognized terror organization, and Fatah, whose military wing, al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, is also an internationally recognized terrorist organization, yet this has no mention. Doesn't that have an impact on their existence? Indeed, very neutral... NOT! Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• A side note: would any of you be OK with prefacing the mention of Israel with "Palestinian-terrorized"? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, the point of an RFC is to invite comment from uninvolved editors. EJ isn't in Israel and it's part of the OPT, according to consensus opinion, according to sources. In other words the sources say that's the consensus view. What we write in this encyclopaedia should reflect what the sources say in the matter. That's neutral according to the definition of neutral (WP:NPOV) we use here. --Dailycare (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You still have not addressed my main concern: why it is neutral to only mention that Palestinian territories are occupied by Israel, while completely neglecting the fact that they are governed by internationally recognized terrorist organizations? What's neutral about that? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to refer you once more to WP:NPOV, where this issue is explained. To the extent that reliable sources describe the territories as "governed by internationally recognized terrorist organizations" then mentioning that is neutral. I don't recall seeing many sources describing e.g. the West Bank or East Jerusalem in those terms, but of course I don't see all sources. This discussion is getting a bit side-tracked from the RFC question, for my comment on that specifically, see my post above (timestamp 21:55). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't be too hard to find sources that describe Hamas and al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades as terrorist organizations, and since the first is the ruling party and the second is the military wing of the other ruling party... well, the rest should be obvious. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is about people, so the political status of the territory is absolutely irrelevant for the lead. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your statement is a bare assertion so I'm not sure how it adds value. It seems to be inconsistent with how reliable sources do this. For example, this high quality academic source from the Forced Migration Review by University of Oxford's Department of International Development (ODID) is about the people. Of course it talks about the occupation repeatedly as it's a key aspect of any description of the people. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Source that relies on Illan Pappe to be reliable historian couldn't be considered reliable too.Here is what Morris writes about Pappe:"At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two." [[14]].--Shrike (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

eh ? The 70+ page source from one of the very best universities on this planet mentions Pappe twice and one of those times is in the sentence 'archival research by Israeli historians like Morris, Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappe'. In what sense does the source rely on Pappe ? It mentions Benny Morris twice too. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It quotes a Pappe book and present it view as reliable and notorious .Why should we trust such source at all probably other data is too tainted with Pro-Palestinian propaganda and lies.--Shrike (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Morever one of the writers is part of Pro-Palestinian organisation Badil that give monetary awards to Anti-Semitic caricatures.[15].--Shrike (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh sorry, but Ilan Pappé is a professor of history and a reliable source. Morris is entitled to his view of Pappé, as is Pappé entitled to his view of Morris. As for the rest of your comment, see ad hominem for why such an argument is invalid. nableezy - 14:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No his not, he was widely discredited like I showed before.My argument was no way ad hominem just statement of facts.--Shrike (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Both of those sentences are simply untrue. Morris dislikes Pappe, Pappe dislikes Morris. That does not mean he is discredited, and the fact that he retains the position of director for the European Centre for Palestine Studies at Exeter University directly undercuts the claim that he is discredited. As far as your comment being an ad hominem argument, you attempted to discredit a paper due to one author being a member in an organization that you dislike. That is pretty much a textbook case of an ad hominem logical fallacy, in that you attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. That remains a fallacious argument. nableezy - 15:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm having dificulty following you Shrike. I don't quite know how to respond. It is a source from the Refugee Studies Centre, Department of International Development, Oxford University in conjuction with the Norwegian Refugee Council. Do you know anything about the RSC ? If not you can read about them at their site here. They publish the Journal of Refugee Studies. They are exactly the kind of scholarly source preferred by Wikipedia's WP:RS policy. They are the exact opposite of nationalist propaganda organizations like NGO Monitor who do not hesitate to tell blatant lies. Here's a recent one "For the most part, these pseudo-human rights groups largely ignored the violation of Schalit’s rights for 1,941 days. (Four years after he was kidnapped, both Amnesty and HRW belatedly made brief statements on his behalf, but only after being named and shamed by NGO Monitor.)"[16], a statement so blatantly and verifiably false, that I find it amazing that they said it. Anyone can verify for themselves that Amnesty issued many, many statements about Shalit starting on 26 Jun 2006 as did HRW simply by searching their sites. To use an NGO Monitor source and 2 mentions of Pappe to try to invalidate a high quality source like this is very odd. Having said that, the source has many authors so each would need to be treated appropriately if this source were used but my simple point was that a high quality academic source from one of the very best universities with a centre that specializes in issues pertinent to descriptions of the Palestinian people repeatedly discuss the occupation. Of course they would because the occupation is a defining feature of any description of the Palestinian people. It's not our fault. It's how it actually is. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The POV of this article is that an article which is about Palestinian people should focus chiefly (almost exclusively?) on Palestinian Arabs, as if (1) there have never been any other residents of Palestine like, say, Palestinian Jews or the ancient Israelites; or as if (2) the term "Palestinians" should be used (as Arab nationalists prefer) to refer only to Palestinian Arabs.

I believe that having such a point of view in the article violates the policy on Wikipedia:POV pushing. Please unlock the article, so we all can help each other remove the pro-Arab bias. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh, what? Current usage of the term Palestinian is about Palestinian Arabs. Prior to 1948 the term was applied to all residents of Palestine, and a small minority of the Jewish residents of Israel still call themselves Palestinian Jews. But the use of the word Palestinian, in contemporary usage, is about Palestinian Arabs. You really want to say that there should be no article on Palestinian Arabs? And further, you want to claim that to have an article on them is "POV"?!? But what exactly does any of that have to do with the topic under discussion in this section? nableezy - 20:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

i see a lot of POV pushing about this and Israeli Arabs. the acid test is: what do the reliable sources say. i don't see much reference support for all the edit warriors here. this may need to be locked for a long time. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 04:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Your statement is vague and generic. Please be very specific with evidence to support every single statement you make. You see a lot of POV pushing about what ? I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. The acid test for what ? You don't see much reference support for what specifically ? What edit warring are you referring to and where. If there is edit warring please report it. This article may need to be locked because of what ? Please be very specific providing evidence. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, after calling Joan Peters' book "excremental", I would advise you to be more careful when flinging accusations of ad hominem. Yes, a source can be discredited if the author can be discredited as biased enough to openly sponsor anti-Semitic activities. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I said the book itself was of an excremental nature. That isnt an ad hominem, I am not attacking the work by attacking the person. And no, the source Sean brought cannot be discredited on the basis of two random people on the internet not liking one of the authors. That isnt how things work here, sorry to disappoint you. nableezy - 18:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

...except that it wasn't "two random people on the internet not liking one of the authors", but proof that one of the authors directly sponsored sheer anti-Semitic propaganda. Yeah, I can be a real hair-splitter sometimes, but it's the little things, you know... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That is an unacceptable smear against a living person made without any sort of reliable source backing it up. WP:BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, and you cannot make such statements without solid sources backing you up. Either provide evidence for the smear that one of the authors directly sponsored sheer anti-Semitic propaganda or retract the claim. Those are the only two options, and if you refuse I will redact it for you. nableezy - 04:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I guess you missed the post that cited this source, so I've done your job for you... again. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You actually havent, as that source does not say that any person directly sponsored anything, and further it is not a reliable source for making such an attack on a living person. I have redacted the BLP violation above, if you restore it I will be asking for administrative assistance. nableezy - 16:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The source above presents the caricature that conveniently "disappeared" from BADIL's website. The person who submitted the blatantly anti-Semitic caricature was awarded $600 in cash, or – in other words – being directly sponsored in a one time fashion. More proof (though really unneeded at this point) can be dug upon request, although later since I have to go back to work now. So... please stop touching my comments. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Citizenship picture

Does anyone know how to get this picture http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/קובץ:Palestinian_Citizenship_Order_1925.jpg from Hebrew wikipedia to be usable in English wikipedia? It might be a good addition to this page. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a certificate of naturalization of one Leopold Koppel. Call me a cynic, but somehow I doubt it will end up in this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks, via google translate, like the uploader put it in the public domain, so it could be transferred to commons anyway...maybe Sean.hoyland - talk 19:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, i have done that here

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional Notable Individuals for the Infobox

I found some additional free use images to Add into the Palestinian Infobox of Notable Palestinians to help show both notable persons and additional diversity of the Palestinian people.

Saint George, considering he is a Historical Palestinian, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:35_St_George_on_Foot.jpg

Queen Rania of Jordan (clearer and closer up picture in comparison to the former) http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldeconomicforum/374716729/sizes/m/in/photostream/

Riah Hanna Abu El-Assal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Riah_Hanna_Abu_El-Assal.jpg

Riad Al-Maliki http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Riad_Al-Maliki.jpg

Nathalie Handal http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SuheirHammadNathalieHandal.jpg

Juliano Mer Khamis http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Juliano_mer_khamis.jpg

Munib R. Masri http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldeconomicforum/5122545903/

Mitri Raheb http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mitri-raheb-1318659616.jpg

Lazyfoxx (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

New Improved Infobox for the main page, http://i41.tinypic.com/mrded.jpg Lazyfoxx (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nathalie Handal is not Palestinian. She has compiled an anthology of Arab women writers. She was born in Haiti, grew up in Boston and lived in Paris. She identifies as French-American.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

She is French-American by Nationality but she is Palestinian by Ancestry and Heritage and identifies as such. Interview with Nathalie, http://imeu.net/news/article008585.shtml Nathalie quotes "I am Palestinian but I am also French, Latina, American. People think that fragments cannot be whole." Some more links if you still do not believe me. http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/nathalie-handal http://www.bethlehem.edu/archives/2006/2006_012.shtml Lazyfoxx (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

One of her grandfathers left Bethlehem in the early part of the 20th century. Her other grandparents and parents were not born in the region and neither was she. Her interest in Arab women authors began in the 1990s. She has left a note on Wikipedia describing herself as French American.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Gilabrand, just because her grandparent left Palestine does not mean she is not Palestinian by ancestry and Identity. Read the links that I posted for your convenience, she clearly states she is a Palestinian, and that is what this article is about, Palestinian people. Lazyfoxx (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you are confusing Nationality with Ethnicity, Gilabrand, and that is why I think you said what you did, I looked up Nathalie's note on wikipedia and it read what I suspected it to, ""The changes I made are about my nationality. I am French and American. I was ONLY born in Haiti (foreigners can be born in another country and not be from that country, it happens all the time). Editors keep saying I am Haitian American which is INCORRECT. Kindly leave changes. I am French and American of Palestinian origin" -Nathalie Handal" Lazyfoxx (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Extremely biased article

Blocked sockpuppet. MuZemike blocked SudanMyMan for abusing multiple accounts
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is extremely biased. It only describes the Palestinian mythology which is the mistaken belief that they are somehow indigenous to Israel. It should also include the scientific and plausible theories that Palestinians are in fact settlers from Arabia who began immigrating to Israel in the seventh century as part of the Muslim conquests. SudanMyMan (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Everyone migrated from somewhere to where they are today. No settler arose from spontaneous generation of the earth their progenitors inhabited. "Indigenous" merely means having settled down somewhere a long time ago. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC) No, that is not what indigenous means. Indigenous means native; i.e., the first people to live in a land. Since Palestinians are not the first people to live in the Land of Israel (Canaanites are), they cannot be indigenous. In fact, Jews were living in Israel before the Arabs arrived, and even their article does not call them indigenous. SudanMyMan (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately that is with a grain of salt. In my readings, any current identifiable population which has had a continuous territorial presence for some number of millennia is typically considered "indigenous" when it comes to natural rights modern society would confer on a territory's inhabitants. Ultimately that is the crux of the matter here. IMHO, when you go back that far in time, there is nothing constructive to be gained from a debate of who got there first. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Article talk?

The above cannot be the first article talk. What happened? Archived? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It was temporarily deleted by an admin yesterday so the edit history could be cleaned up. I just left a message to find out when it will be restored. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick update. Best, PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Problems with population figures

According to the information box, there are 1,540,000 Palestinians living in Israel. The figure comes from this Ha'aretz source. Problem is, the source says nothing of the kind. In fact, no explicit number for Palestinian residents is given. The number is derived from Original Research. The source states that there are 7,465,000 people living in Israel and that 20.6% of the population is Arab. Presumably, the number in the Wikipedia article comes from multiplying 7,465,000 by .206 which equals 1,537,790, which doesn't exactly jive with the number noted in the infobox. But that's the least of the problem. The Ha'aretz source merely states that 20.6% of the population is Arab. That doesn't mean that 20.6% of the population is Palestinian. As Ya'll are aware, there are Druze Arabs and there are Bedouin Arabs that factor into the 20.6%. These groups are not Palestinian and in fact, serve with distinction in the Israel Defense Forces. Thus, the number of Palestinians living in Israel is significantly lower than the figure noted in the infobox and the Ha'aretz source is being used incorrectly. Moreover, the Ha'aretz source includes Palestinians living in East Jerusalem. However, in the infobox, the figure for Palestinians living in East Jerusalem is already included under Palestinian territories. Thus, we have a situation where a significant number of persons are being counted twice.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are problems. Zero^talk 12:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's called a double standard: reject all sources that say EJ is within Israel, but accept the sources that count EJ Arabs as Palestinians living in Israel. I am removing the figure altogether until a reasonable source can be found. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Good move. And well done by Jiujitsuguy spotting this. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Frederico--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

this source indicates a figure of approximately 1.2 million (the Israel CBS figures for 2009 are given as 1,526,000, which he notes include about 250,000 residents of East Jerusalem). Would people support using this source while noting the figure is approximate? Tiamut^talk 18:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No because among the Arab population, Arab Druze and Arab Bedouin are also included. To get a reliable source, you would have to exclude the Arab population of East Jerusalem, either in the Israel section or the territories section. Then you would have to figure out what percent the Arab Druze and Arab Bedouin factor in the 20% and then make the necessary adjustments. Assuming that you can even make these calculations, we would be engaging in substantial original research.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Some Bedouins and Druze do identify as Palestinians, and some Muslims and Christians don't. But as the source I linked to, a book entitled Israel's Palestinians points out, the majority of Arab citizens of Israel do identify as Palestinian. We can include the figure of 1.2 million, and note that this figues excludes The population of East Jerusalem which is incuded in the CBS figure, and that hile the majority of Arab citizens o identify as Palestinian, some don't, and refer the reader to Arab citizens of Israel#Terminology fr more information. Tiamut^talk 10:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

bueller? bueller? anyone? ;) Tiamut^talk 11:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that is fine. nableezy - 15:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, this source says over 1 million Palestinian in Israel, not including EJ, as of 2000. This book, published in 2004, puts the number at 1.2 mil. nableezy - 15:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@Tiamut. The first source specifically excludes EJ when determining the population figure whereas the second does not. I think it would be more prudent to stick with the former source to avoid inaccurate or misleading numbers.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, the source utilized in the article lumps all Arabs, including Druze and Bedouin. These two subgroups are most certainly not "Palestinian." In addition, the non-Jewish figure includes non-Arabs as well. Thus, the current figure noted in the article over inflates the actual number of Palestinians living in Israel. Therefore, I recommend using this source which is rather clear and unambiguous--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)