Talk:Palestinian people

St. Georgius as a person of the Palestinian people

In the picture on the right at the top of the article St. Georgius is presented as a person of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people hadn't existed back then. In addition, back then most of the region's inhabitants weren't muslims nor arabs, so why is he presented as a Palestinian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.95.63 (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2012 (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." [[1]].--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.[2].--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.)"[3], 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)

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)

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)

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)

New one

This edit

Palestinian people . . .are an Arab or Arabic-speaking people descended from peoples indigenous to Palestine.

is patently silly because it entails the idea that Palestinians are 'Arab-speaking', i.e., that Palestinians speak the ethnic group to which most of them belong. I know the editor wished to distinguish ethnic and linguistic aspects of Palestinian identity, but most readers will laugh at the result. The second part of the sentence has a good source, but also has to be emended. The Circassian, Gypsy, Kurdish, Armenian, Jewish, Turkish etc. elements in the Palestinian population are not necessarily descended from the people 'indigenous to Palestine' anymore than Israelis or Jews are. A sensible 'predominantly', if inserted, would avoid a huge hairsplitting non-problem resolving argument over my second point. Nishidani (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read this man's book. He understands the conflict. I will amend phrase. Jamussy (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. The mergence of Palestinian identity is already iscussed further down in the intro. We don't need to highlight it in the first sentence. Please, veryone, the first sentence is a little sensitive. Can we discuss changes to it here before making them? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 21:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I believe we should add a "modernly" before the phrase "Arabic speaking" in this section, because Palestinians have spoken many different languages as their first tongue throughout history, it was not until the Islamic conquest where the majority of Palestinians began speaking predominately Arabic. Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Struggle for self-determination

This article continues to have problems... one example being the beginning of this paragraph. The lead-in to the quote by Avi Shlaim seems to support his contention later on in the paragraph and may be factually inaccurate. It states 'Palestinians have never exercised full sovereignty over the land in which they have lived' and the follow-on quote by Shlaim states 'that the Palestinians' lack of sovereignty over the land has been used by Israelis to deny Palestinians their rights'. Apart from the discrepancy between 'full sovereignty' and 'sovereignty', the former is an unprovable statement, as we do not know the extent of early Palestinian states and we also do not have a complete history of the area. What we do know is that a large number of Palestinian/Canaanite states existed in the area and it is possible that collectively they may have exercised 'full sovereignty' over the 'land' for much of its early history.

It is clear that the author of this sentence meant a single, unified, and fairly recent state on the lines of a 'nation-state' - but this is not what the sentence refers to.

(ps This article has become semi-protected recently. However, this subject is very topical at the moment - it would be a shame to freeze unregistered contributions at this time...)

182.177.60.47 (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No one has disputed my comment so I will assume universal agreement and amend the paragraph for a second time ;). I have checked up some sources and it does seem that virtually all of Palestine was briefly united under Daher El-Omar, who ran an independent state from the capital, Acre, in the 1770s. There is already a Wikipedia article on Daher El-Omar, so it is a bit strange that the statement on Palestinians ‘never’ exercising full sovereignty was allowed to pass. I will also add the references to Hourani’s study and the more recent one by Safi.182.177.77.27 (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please add this reference to the end of the first line in this section... cheers, 182.177.55.169 (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I added the source. Please check it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's fine now... thanks Sean.Astari5 (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a great source. Unfortunately, rule by a dynasty or little kingdom is not a people expressing "self-determination." Only if the Palestinian people are helping determine rules are they practicing self-determination. Maybe this source is better used elsewhere. For now, it must go.Jamussy (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history Please cross-check with other Wiki articles before making changes... ‘Modern era’ is a debatable term but can be defined from the mid-16th century onwards. Daher’s state was in the late 18th century.Astari5 (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2012 (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)

Daher el-Omar

My edit summary got cut off, what I was going to say is that according to the sources in the Daher el-Omar article, he controlled only parts of the Galilee, so we're going to need more sources that say he controlled the whole area if we're going to make a statement like the one I removed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope :). Read the source more carefully. It (and the summary you removed) says the opposite of what you just claimed. Quote:'Nevertheless, between 1770 and 1775, Zaher, with the help of Ali bey al-Kabir, extended his control over the entire Palestinian territory'. The sources in the article back up Safi's claim. If you want further sources I suggest you cross-check with Wikipedia article on al-Kabir who also declared Egypt independent at the same time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Bey_Al-Kabir. 'However, a few days after a major victory by the allied forces of Dhaher al-Omar and Ali Bey on 6 June 1771, Abu al-Dhahab, the commander of his troops in Syria, refused to continue the fight after an Ottoman agent stirred up mistrust between him and Ali Bey, and hastily returned to Egypt.' The source follows this sentence.Astari5 (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

ps I guess this means I am going to have to change the introductory paragraph to the Daher el-Omar article as the rest of that article says pretty much what the Safi source and the al-Kabir Wiki article says. I will do it when I get time, thanks for bringing it up.Astari5 (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. Safi (btw, who is he? I couldn't find any details in google about him) says that el-Omar "extended his control over the entire Palestinian territory". Other sources say he only controlled part of the Galilee. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I don’t believe I misunderstood. I am sure you have read the Daher el-Omar article but it is easy to miss the significance of the later section as it does not highlight or clarify the extent of Daher’s military victories. Also, Volney and others describe Daher’s state as being Galilee based because for twenty-five years or so he was restricted to Galilee by the Ottomans. It is correct therefore to describe his state as controlling only Galilee if referring to the early years. The expansion was late in his reign so Safi is also correct in saying that his regime expanded to cover the entire Palestinian territory. This resolves the apparently conflicting statements in different sources. There is in reality no conflict between them – the term restriction or the phrase ‘only controlling parts of Galilee’ are not being used to describe the totality of Daher’s reign but a specific period when the Ottomans did indeed restrict Daher’s forces to northern Palestine.Astari5 (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with No More Mr Nice Guy. This seems like a WP:REDFLAG issue. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It may seem like a WP:REDFLAG issue but it isn’t. I agree though that for many people it may seem to fit the category of ‘surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources’. However 4 mainstream references were given (Khaled Safi (work published by a mainstream orientalist institute (IFPO)), Albert Hourani (an acknowledged expert on Palestinian history who was consulted in the UN sessions in 1947), Volney (1783) and Manna.Astari5 (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I should add that Volney has already been referred to by other articles in describing the expansion of Daher’s regime, with the help of Ali Bey, to Damascus. Furthermore, at least three Wiki articles on this (biographies of Daher, Ali Bey and Dhahab) exist and are based upon the same information. If you don’t accept that Daher’s state expanded in 1765-1775 then all other references to that expansion should be deleted from other related articles. That would of course be unacceptable as the facts about Daher and Ali Bey’s expansion are mainstream history.

So in summary it is def not WP:REDFLAG because some of the sources and the descriptions of the expansion have been used before in other Wiki articles and are essential to an understanding of the late 18th Century map of the Middle East.Astari5 (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is Safi -> He's a professor of history at Al-Aqsa University, Gaza. Search for safi here or see at the bottom here. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I saw the second one but missed the bit at the end.

I'm pretty sure I've read in several sources that the Palestinians didn't have sovereignty over the territory of Palestine in modern times, as the article now states. I'll try to remember where I saw that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be useful - but until then the reference will have to be put back as there are four supporting references in total to none against.

Btw I think the result of reverts and counter-reverts has improved the original sentence somewhat without changing the basic structure of the paragraph, but it has still left a claim unsupported and introduced another lesser factual inaccuracy (namely that no full sovereignty was exercised during the modern era). This statement would not be an issue except the use of ‘modern’ contradicts the definition of ‘modern’ in other Wiki articles where it is defined as being from the 16th Century onwards (to clarify this point – the use of ‘modern’ here places both the founding of Great Britain and the development of steam engines in the medieval period... I think we can all agree that is not an acceptable use of the word ‘modern’ in historical terms).

I am prepared to accept certain compromise statements. But the word ‘modern’ should be replaced with something more suitable that doesn’t contradict other Wiki articles. If we can find such a compromise word or phrase I think we could have consensus on this.Astari5 (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Safi is the only source that says he controlled the "entire Palestinian territory". Unless I'm missing something? I'm not following you regarding the "modern era" issue.

It would be helpful if you didn't keep edit warring the text into the article. See WP:BRD. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PSTS. Safi is a secondary source. He has used other primary and secondary sources such as Volney, and Ottoman and Nablus administrative records to come to his conclusions. Hourani and Manna are also secondary sources.

Please do not make any further reverts until someone has shown a secondary source of equal quality (published in a specialist journal like IFPO) that clearly states that Daher’s state did not cover the whole of Palestine at any point. If you can find one, we will discuss it at that point and try to find a compromise. You’ve removed the reference twice without providing an alternative secondary source to replace it with (I’m still waiting for the ‘promised’ references ;) ).

Re: ‘modern era’ - the problem with this term is that it covers more ground than most people realise. Saying ‘for at least two centuries’ allows one to continue making the claim that no Palestinian state, with full sovereignty, has existed since then; use of ‘modern era’ does not, as this term is defined from the 16th Century onwards. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history)Astari5 (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:REDFLAG, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Several editors have objected to your addition, while no other editor supported it. Stop trying to force it into the article and let the discussion take its course. Repeatedly edit warring material into the article against consensus might get you blocked from editing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don’t make ‘arguments from authority’. 'No other editor supported it' - actually one editor did choose to insert the reference and quoted from the source. Please don't make misleading remarks or repeatedly accuse other users of 'edit warring' for changing one of your edits.

My revert of your changes was entirely appropriate as you had shown you had clearly ‘misunderstood’ the Daher article. Another user - 'Zero' - while he/she is inclined to agree with you on 'interpreting' the source has disagreed with your assertion that the sources say that Daher's state was limited 'to parts of Galilee'. Are you willing to recognise that Daher’s state wasn’t limited to Galilee and you may have misinterpreted the sources?Astari5 (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not happy about "entire Palestinian territory" due to its lack of precise meaning. "Sovereignty" is also problematic in a historical setting as it doesn't distinguish between official and actual control. As for Daher, there was a short period during which he controlled more than the Galilee. In 1772 he took Ramle, Jaffa and Gaza, and held them for a while. However this was a temporary military achievement; describing it as a time of great historical significance seems to be stretching the point a bit far. Zero^talk 10:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We are not here to judge the historical significance of Daher’s military conquests in the late 18th Century... but to decide whether the facts allow us to introduce the contemporary Palestinian ‘struggle for self-determination’ with a remark about the ‘lack’ of Palestinian ‘sovereignty’ over the last 400 years (‘modern era’)... Daher’s state challenges attempts to define Palestinians as passive players in their own history and that of the region.

Daher’s conquests took him to Damascus and his control over the territory was complete (Volney (1783) describes how the Ottomans offered him (Daher) the governorship of the entire region of Syria and Lebanon in addition to Palestine, in return for his accepting overarching Ottoman suzerainty; and he goes on to criticise Daher for apparently refusing to relinquish his sovereignty in Palestine: a decision that was to cost him his life after a third Ottoman invasion in 1775).

Whether we consider that brief period of expansion and sovereignty (1765-1775) ‘significant’ is irrelevant. The concern here is that the first sentence needs to be verified if it makes sweeping generalisations about Palestinian sovereignty.Astari5 (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda article

This article reads like propaganda and contains many untruths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashmadi.r (talk • contribs) 18:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)