Talk:Palestinians

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)

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)

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.

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."

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.

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. 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)

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.

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)

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.

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)