Talk:Palestinian refugees

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Forced Migration Review

I stumbled across this source from the Forced Migration Review by University of Oxford's Department of International Development (ODID). It's from 2006 but is has about 30 high quality articles covering various aspects of Palestinian displacement. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Very biased and one-sided article, e.g. the section "Israeli view" cites people who question the official Israeli position. No where in the article is mentioned, that no other group of refugees is able to inherit their refugee status to their children, but the Palestinians. --78.104.63.52 (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, article does not provide any legal grounds of claimed, in the very first sentence of the article actually, expansion of refugee status to descendants of Palestinian refugees. Would suggest to elaborate on this item. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.114.130 (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Find a reliable source and do it then. There is nothing stopping you. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There is, actually. I do no share an opinion that descendants are refugees. So, whoever, claims they are, as the current text states, should provide "reliable source(s)" in support of his opinion not vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.114.130 (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The major role played by the Palestinian people's movement

A neutral representation of history means including all known facts. It seems unreasonable to me to suggest that the Palestinian refugee problem was largely caused by some evil Jewish leaders. Rather, the opposite seems to be true. From the '20s and until today, Arab leaders have not stopped to attack and denounce Israel and its Jewish population. Thus, there is an imbalance here, when one compares the media reports of such attacks and denounciations with what is written here. This people's encyclopedia MUST inform the public about the start and the existence of the Palestinian people's movement. Under Husseini (dubbed 'the Arab Hitler' by the Brits), this organization acted to murder as many Jews as possible in preparation for the Caliphate. I would consider it completely amiss to NOT mention Husseini's name in this context. Firstly, Husseini was, historically, the FOUNDER of the Arab "resistance" (a euphemism for jihad). Secondly, he was the highest leader of the Palestinian Arabs and as such he was the major force tearing the Arab-Jewish society of Palestine apart during the entire period of 1920-1948. --212.64.94.231 (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines#Timeline Are the real Palestinian as a people a subject of identity and historical theft by arabic people? "10th-7th centuries BC: Philistines lose most of their distinctive culture and absorb that of surrounding peoples" and also impossible too identify after that they did not having a nation or soverignty since 7th BC. For more then 2700 years constantly conquered and taken by their neighbour just too mention Jewes, Rome, Byzantium, Mamelucks, Arabs, Persians, Greeks, and many many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.236.179 (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

About the danger of politization

For reasons of political dispute or disagreement, Paul Kuiper has decided that my relevant contributions on the Jewish refugees and the Palestinian people's movement should be removed as "extreme POV". Paul may politically disagree with the publication of these historical facts, but that alone does not make them "POV". I consider it very relevant to mention the Jewish refugees from the 1948 war, in particular since their number exceeds that of the Palestinian Arab refugees. Also, it can not be denied that the Palestinian people's movement which was founded by Amin al Husseini is fundamentally hateful of Jews and keeps discriminating against them. I think that it is very important to write about the fact of this Palestinian hatred towards Jews, since it provides the motive. In its present form, without my contributions, this article appears to blame Israel for the plight of both the Arabs and the Jews, while it clears the Arabs of all wrongdoing, even though the Arab wrongdoing is very well documented elsewhere on Wikipedia. Come-on, guys, let's get real! Just calling my contribution "POV", so you can eliminate it, without any explanation WHY you think so, is NOT in the spirit of peace, democracy and/or Wikipedia. --Uruandimi (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have just returned my additions and I hope that any disagreement can be discussed and resolved here in a friendly manner. Don't just remove things, that is vandalism. Something struck me: in the box on the top right, "Jewish" can not be found among the refugees' religions. Of course, it is noteworthy that in a seemingly political issue over land, one of the parties excludes people who are Jewish. We can continue to ignore this obvious discrimination, or, we can perhaps find that this discrimination lies at the root of the conflict which caused the Palestinian Arabs to become refugees in the first place. --Uruandimi (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on reliable published sources. The verifiability policy for example is mandatory. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with the policies of the project before you edit articles in controversial topic areas. WP:FIVE is a good place to start. Could you also please take the time to read about the discretionary sanctions in place on all articles related to the Arab-Israel conflict. There is a link near the top of this page. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Both the Palestinian movement's discrimination against Jews and its acts of so-called resistance against them (decades before the State of Israel was founded) are extremely verifiable. So is Amin al-Husseini's role in this movement, and, so is the fact that the number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries exceeded that of the Palestinian Arabs. All this is both verifiable and relevant to the topic at hand. What is your real problem? Why do you eliminate my contributions, instead of making changes in them? --Uruandimi (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed your contributions because they don't comply with the mandatory policies of the project. If you read the policies of the project, particularly WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV and take care to fully comply with them, there is no policy based reason for anyone to remove your contributions. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This entry must be re-written since it is fraudulent

This entry must be re-written or immediately removed, since it does not comply with Wikipedia's most basic standards. The dubious term "Palestinian" is used even though this denomination, both as a noun and as an adjective, is fictive, fraudulent and misleading. There is absolutely no evidence that the exclusively non-Jewish national Palestinian identity, as it has been taken for granted in the past four decades, ever existed in history before 1964 (when the Palestine Liberation Organisation was founded). Nor is there any legal precedent for the retro-active imposition of a national identity upon only one group among a population. No exclusively non-Jewish national Palestinian identity existed when the leaders and members of the Arab political movement - who later called themselves "the Palestinians" - fled or were expelled from parts of the British Mandate of Palestine, shortly before or after the sovereign State of Israel was founded there. In order for this entry to comply with Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, NPOV, etc., I suggest to replace the discriminatory, utterly fraudulent denomination "Palestinian(s)" by "Arab(s)". --Uruandimi (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake. Did you look for any evidence? Consider:

• Palestinian nationalism, Daoud Kuttab
• "the emergence of the Palestinian Arab nationalist movement during the British rule (1917-1948)" in Muslih, Muhammad Y. (1989-10). The Origins of Palestinian Nationalism. Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231065092. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Indeed, it is apparent that within a few years of the end of the First World War, a well-developed sense of Palestinian identity had already emerged" Khalidi, Rashid (2009). Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness. Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231150750.

While you're welcome to cite and attribute statements that a Palestinian identity did not or does not exist, please refrain from using them in policy arguments. They are neither self-evident nor universally agreed to, and therefore are no basis for policy decisions on Wikipedia.--Carwil (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with Arab nationalism as such, but with the exclusivity that is applied here. To pretend that the Arabs were Palestinians but the Jews were not is to commit history fraud and a hideous act of discrimination. Wikipedia is a science, and we must be able to verify that what we write is true or common. The Palestinian identity which we commonly understand as being exclusively Arab and non-Jewish is neither historically true nor universally common. I will mention just one example but of course many more exist: those thousands of Palestinian Jews who in 1948 were forced to flee from their homes in Jerusalem's Old City, should definitively be included in the term "Palestinian refugees". To exclude them, even decades later, is not only heartless, unbecoming, offensive, unscientific and discriminatory, but also extremely POV. Fortunately, we can set the record straight, right here on Wikipedia. --Uruandimi (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Theory: there's an emerging binary here, created on both sides between Arabs and Jews, or if you like Palestinians and Jews. I have no idea what you mean by an identity "neither historically true nor universally common," and I think most students of nationalism would consider them socially constructed, often in opposition to other groups. That every binary opposition covers up people in an overlap is obvious, and Wikipedia should describe notable entities within these overlaps, including say, the Mizrahim.

Practice: The facts that come out of these distinctions have dominated life in Israel/Palestine since the Mandate period, and cannot be ignored. If Palestinian refugee refers to non-Jewish Arab Palestinians (who have been treated differently by Israeli law as present absentees or as Arabs who cannot return to their homes), there are good historical reasons for that. That is the term is a product of a real history. Our job as editors is not to take apart verbal constructions to find missing components, but to provide encyclopedic content on entities described in reliable sources.

If there are reliable sources discussing Mizrahi refugees from East Jerusalem etc., consider writing about them in Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, and branch out if space becomes a problem.--Carwil (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A distinction between Arabs and Jews is not "emerging" but has always existed. In contrast, never in history was there a "Palestinian" national or tribal identity. Like the Alps or the Great Lakes area, the term "Palestine" refers only to geography. Designed by the Romans, it points to the former homeland of the Children of Israel. Perhaps that's why the Arabs prefer the non-Arabic name of Palestine even though they themselves cannot pronounce it.

Arab leaders have admitted that the "Palestinian identity" refers to a political Arab movement with an agenda, rather than to a historical nation or tribe. This Arab movement is not designed by Husseini and his successors to ever become an independent nation. After 1948, its leaders and members fled to approximately the same areas it was granted for statehood in the UN Partition Plan it had rejected. From those areas, in 1964, it started the Palestinian Liberation Organization to achieve its original goal of ousting the Jews.

Speaking to Western journalists and politicians, the Palestinian movement now suddenly claims to actually covet these areas for a national state, but in Arabic, it still conveys its old agenda, which is something entirely different. From its very acts, one can conclude that it is more interested in obliterating and replacing the Jewish identity to which the land of Israel is connected, than to dwell as a neighbor next to it.

Remember how Arab armies once stole Egypt from the Koptic Christians, Iraq from the Chaldean Christians, Morocco from the Berber people, etc.? Some Arab leaders (Anwar Sadat was one of them, surprisingly) candidly would consider such mundane things as a peace agreement and a Palestinian "identity" just as tools for conquering the land of Israel which they know does not belong to them. Every serious student of history knows that the "Palestinian" identity never formally existed for the reason outlined above (the Alps). There are no "Holy Landers", or "Promised Landers", or "Palestinians", just Arabs and Jews. The bogus "Palestinian" identity serves as a scam which I think rational people at Wikipedia should recognize. We should not treat this fake agenda-driven denomination as if it is science. That's my point. --Uruandimi (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Your point is Palestinians don't exist and should be removed as a term from Wikipedia? Are you really saying this?--Carwil (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing against "Palestinian" people. Neither do I object to a discussion of the behind-the-scenes Palestinian movement and its well-documented goals (its warlike Charters) and all of its actual battlefield achievements, none excluded (such as the Munich Olympics). However, while doing so, I think Wikipedia should also somehow point out that this movement's unique identity is possibly fake (it has no history whatsoever prior to 1964) and that it appears to serve as a PR tool to legitimize an ongoing military campaign against the civilian population of Israel. Somehow, it should be fairly noted that this one party, the Palestinian movement, has a rather controversial peace and democracy record, to put it mildly, and has forever been waging wars (amongst itself, and in Jordan, in Lebanon and against Israel). I wish that Wikipedia shall continue to engage in solid and objective science, especially regarding such a disputed topic as this. To me, under the non-conclusive circumstances, that would mean to talk about Arab Palestinian refugees, not just "Palestinian refugees". It would mean to distinguish between the policy-making Palestinian movement, who seem to act off-stage, and the so-called Palestinian civilians who are held in the media spotlight, which is the other way around from Western practice. Then, for fairness sake, mention should be made here of the Jewish (Palestinian and other) refugees whose number and lost possessions are comparatively larger. And of course, science would also mean to talk about Amin al-Husseini's major influence - until today - in shaping the character, agenda, goals and most of the achievements of the Palestinian Arab movement (which includes having no state of its own). That alone would be quite a departure from the current subjective way in which Wikipedia reports about "the Palestinians" who are presented as victim refugees and who seem to have no agenda of their own, almost no leaders and no goals, and whose achievements and the lack thereof (such as no state) seem to have all been caused by a single event more than half a century ago, perpetrated by a single villain called Israel. --Uruandimi (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Please read WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. The talk page is for discussing changes to this article about Palestinian refugees based on reliable sources that discuss Palestinian refugees. Nothing else. Please try to keep your personal opinions to yourself. They aren't relevant. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Charters etc.

This material is in fact about the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Hamas, and belongs on their page. Further, no one's "internal attitudes … are … governed by … official documents." This material is not about Palestinian refugees, nor do they reflect universal views of Palestinian refugees. Further, the role of the PLO covenant and the Hamas covenant in the politics of these organizations are the subject of extensive debate, which does not belong here per WP:COATRACK. I stated as much in my revert, and need User:Uruandimi to discuss or retract this material:

Attitudes and policies towards Israel

As a result of the division between Fatah and Hamas, the internal attitudes and policies of the Palestinian Arabs towards Israel are now based on and governed by two important official documents:

The yet unchanged PLO covenant, declaring that

• the Palestinian Arabs claim all the territory of the State of Israel (article 2)
• the Palestinian Arabs can only liberate Palestine by the armed struggle against Israel (article 9)
• commando raids are at the core of the Palestinian Arabs' war against Israel (article 10)
• the Palestinian Arabs must eliminate the Israeli Zionism (article 15)
• the Palestinian Arabs derive their dignity from the armed liberation struggle (article 17)
• the Palestinian Arabs' fight against Israel must be seen as an act of self-defense (article 18)
• the 1947 UN Partition Plan is not valid (article 19)
• the Jews can have no historic or religious connection to Israel (article 20)
• Israel threatens the entire world (article 22)

The Hamas articles of faith, which

• predict the elimination of Israel (introduction)
• cite passages against the Jews from the Quran (article 7)
• call the Palestinian Arabs to fight a jihad against Israel (article 13)
• refer to the antisemitic Protocols of Zion (article 32)
• warn the Palestinian Arabs that "to leave the circle of conflict with Israel is a major act of treason" (article 32)

Thanks.--Carwil (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Carwil, I would find it incomplete and definitely not neutral if somebody should give me information about the plight of, say, the Japanese victims of the recent tsunami, but would not tell me about the attitudes, policies and actions of the Japanese authorities regarding the same disaster. This page is about the Palestinian refugees but it creates the impression that these people have had and still have no leaders, no government and no policy of their own. This is more than strange and I have begun to correct this in a small way. Even including my own additions, this entire page now mentions the term "PLO" just twice; "Palestinian [National] Authority" twice; "Fatah" five times; "Hamas" seven times; but the word "Israel" is used well over than 50 times and the word "refugees" more than 60 times. The Palestinian Arabs - as they are correctly called only in the beginning of the article - turn into "Palestinians" after just one paragraph and they remain refugees throughout the page. Perhaps this is an oversight, caused by many editors working on the creation of a single page, but the Palestinian Arabs have neither been fleeing nor being expelled in recent years. They definitely have their own leadership who grooms and influences them in their attitudes towards Israel, just like any other community in the world is groomed and influenced by its own government. In my view, the conflict should not be presented as if it is between "the Palestinians" and "Israel", but between the representatives of the Palestinian Arabs and the government of Israel. Therefore, it is important to say something about the official position of both parties. If there has been a bias here, or a strange prejudice, I'll be happy to help correct this un-Wikipedia-like situation step by little step. Thank you! --Uruandimi (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Uruandimi: the key words of your analogy are "would not tell me about the attitudes, policies and actions of the Japanese authorities regarding the same disaster." The article already has the Palestinian view regarding refugees and their rights. The views of the Fatah, Hamas, and other actors regarding Palestinian refugees are already included in the article. However, you are engaged in an attempt to bring in all kinds of extraneous information, much of which is subject to debate as to its current relevance and its representativeness for the PLO itself (see Palestinian_National_Covenant), let alone Palestinians as a whole or Palestinian refugees in particular. If you want to discuss the political views of Palestinian refugees, most of whom cannot take part in PA elections, look for research on the topic, and don't quote documents written decades ago.

To switch contexts for a moment, what you are doing is the equivalent of saying Americans (now or in the 1840s, say) believe that Native Americans are "merciless Indian savages" as stated in their Declaration of Independence. And inserting said "belief" into an article about American expatriates in Canada. This is just poor documentation, as well as POV pushing.--Carwil (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Carwil, to just focus on the Palestinian Arab's "rights" vs. Israel is way too narrow and definitely not neutral. What about human rights within their own community? What about freedom of the press? Women's rights? Freedom of religion? Children's rights? It can not be blamed on Israel that the Palestinian Arabs are forced by government policy to maintain their miserable refugee status sixty years after they first got it. Sometimes, leaders of a community (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, to name a few) take decisions which go absolutely counter to the interests of their own constituency and of other nations as well. In the case of the Palestinian Arabs (Amin al-Husseini, Yasser Arafat), the question "did our government act responsibly?" is not on the table. It is asked in every community around the world, except with the Palestinian Arabs. This is strange and may indicate that (a) Arab Palestinian criticism of their leaders' motives is simply not allowed, and/or (b) the Palestinian Arab leader's agenda must remain a secret because their war is still going on. Here on Wikipedia, however, there is no war against Israel. We do not blame Israel. That is for judges only, and even they sometimes err (Goldstone). Right now, as we speak, the Covenant and the Charter are being implemented as Palestinian Arab policy. These documents, or parts thereof, are taught in the schools in the refugee camps and broadcast on television. People know them by heart and think that they actually reflect the truth. I think that relevant, verifiable clauses may and must be mentioned when we speak about the Palestinian Arabs. Just like we do it with other communities. Otherwise, we would not be objective, or neutral. What do you think? --Uruandimi (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Just a reminder, this article is about Palestinian refugees, not the Palestinian Authority or Palestinians (it's grating that you can't acknowledge that a group with that name is real, but let's leave that aside…). What we do on such a page is to place reliable sources about that specific topic. To repeat myself a bit: If you want to discuss the political views of Palestinian refugees, most of whom cannot take part in PA elections, look for research on the topic, and don't quote documents written decades ago.

Further, it's not enough to quote one document taught in schools and apply it to "the views of the Palestinian refugees" as some kind of template. It is also clear, for instance, that UNRWA schools teach a curriculum that includes national curriculum standards[1] and material on human rights.[2] However, it would be equally obnoxious an example of WP:COATRACK to include quotations from the Universal Declaration on Human Rights as part of this article as it is to include selected quotes from these charters. All these things might be interesting in UNRWA education policy if in fact reliable sources place them there. However, putting them here is a way leading the article towards highly peripheral issues.

When you say "I think that relevant, verifiable clauses may and must be mentioned when we speak about the Palestinian Arabs. Just like we do it with other communities," who exactly are you talking about? --Carwil (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Carwil, I think it is dishonest (and very counter-productive) to disconnect the refugees from their larger identity as Palestinian Arabs. Also, it is not Israel's fault that most of the refugees cannot participate in PA elections. The PLO Covenant is current policy, not because I say so but simply because it is. Its principal arguments have been taught in schools forever - indeed that's how "templates" get put over an entire population (there are other examples of this in history and of course a similar process is happening in our schools as well). In my humble opinion, the negative Palestinian Arab attitudes and policies towards Israel and the Jews are not "peripheral" but rather central to their situation as refugees. Personally, I think that's how they got to be refugees in the first place. When we speak about Americans, it is perfectly fine to quote from the Constitution in order to make a point. Wikipedia must relate to the refugees in the same dignified way and take their government policy papers equally seriously. Let's include them on the page about the refugees to whom these policies apply on a daily basis. --Uruandimi (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources connecting this material to Palestinian refugees? Please cite them.

Right now, we have a disconnected document placed as if it says something about the "views" of all Palestinian refugees, not really different than writing, "American expatriates are warlike (ref: The Star-Spangled Banner), anti-Indian (ref: United States Declaration of Independence) and believe in God (reference: Pledge of Allegiance). This violates WP:RS and is unencyclopedic. Reliably source it or drop it.--Carwil (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

On the relevancy of Palestinian Arab policy

moved from my talk pageSean.hoyland - talk 09:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Sean, it may seem that "People are getting less smart every day" but I think that the observation itself points in the opposite direction. You have just removed my text on Palestinian Arab policies, without first discussing this with me. I find this rather rude and in contrast with you, I think the official Palestinian Arab policies are very relevant. For the past sixty years, the refugees have been learning the PLO Covenant in their schools, they have heard it on their TV sets and in their mosques. They think that these policies are actually true and are willing to act on them. They do not dare criticize these policy statements, that is the scary part. Are the Palestinian Arabs "getting less smart every day"? I don't know, but I think that Wikipedia is not obliged in any way to believe what the PLO Covenant has been saying for all this time. It is Wikipedia's task not to adopt any political position towards Israel, but to neutrally and objectively report on people's common opinions and policies, instead of brushing them under the carpet. Soon, I will wish to return the segment you have removed, but you can do that too. Greetings! --Uruandimi (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not about what you think or I think. We don't matter. We are not reliable sources. The only thing that matters is what reliables sources have to say about Palestinian refugees and what reliable sources think is relevant to the subject of the article. So, without reliable sources connecting the content to the subject there is no policy based reason for the presence of the content in the article and there is nothing to discuss concerning its removal. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Your personal thought that the PLO Covenant would not be a reliable, verifiable source is preposterous. Indeed, your personal opinion does not matter here. The Palestinian Arabs have always had leaders, from the get-go back in the '20s of last century when they were verifiably advised by Amin al-Husseini to begin murdering Jews. It is also perfectly legitimate to present the current Palestinian Arab leaders' influential positions towards Israel and the Jews, in particular when these official positions have long been kept hidden. Israel's name is mentioned more than fifty times on this page about the Palestinian Arabs. In view of the verifiable Arab Palestinian policies, the implied message that Israel is solely responsible, let alone to blame, for the plight of the refugees, is unbecoming. Moreover, it is a political implied message, far from neutral or objective! Let's set this Wikipedia page straight, bit by bit, as it is our mandate. --Uruandimi (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I said nothing about the reliability of the PLO Covenant. I am going to repeat myself. Without reliable sources connecting the content (you want to add) to the subject of the article, Palestinian refugees, there is no policy based reason for the presence of the content in the article and there is nothing to discuss. If an article is about X and you want to add content about how Y is relevant/important/connected to X, you need a reliable source that describes and discusses how Y is relevant/important/connected to X. It is as simple as that. The connection needs to be made by a reliable source, not me and not you. Please read WP:COATRACK. Editor's personal views of the subject aren't relevant here on this talk page. The talk page is for proposing changes to the article based on what reliable sources have to say about Palestinian refugees. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no scientific need to dissociate the Arab Palestinians from their own policies. If the PLO Convenant weren't a true illustration of the Palestinian Arabs' own attitude towards Israel, they themselves would have refuted it already. This public, legally valid government document is available to all, so no agreement or permission should be needed to include it on a Wikipedia page about the Palestinian Arabs. From this paper, one can learn about their actual attitudes and policies towards Israel, the country whom they blame for expelling them, more than sixty years ago. This official document is very informative, relevant, reliable and verifiable for understanding the Palestinian Arabs and the refugee issue - beyond mere opinions or hearsay - so let's put it back up in the Wikipedia spirit of objectivity, neutrality and courage. --Uruandimi (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a set of policies that govern article content. You have been provided with links to the important policies. Editors are required to comply with them. If you cannot comply with them, Wikipedia isn't for you. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sean, COATRACK is considered an essay. It is not a WP guideline or policy. Rather, I think you are 'coatracking' the rules and regulations of WP here, in order to exclude a relevant contribution to the WP page on Palestinian refugees. Like every community in the world, the Palestinian Arabs recognize and adhere to a specific set of attitudes, policies, religions, languages, etc., to be counted as members of their community. For today's community of refugees to be related to the community of Arab Palestinians prior to its flight or expulsion, this community must still adhere to roughly the same attitudes and policies etc. their ancestors and predecessors had. Therefore, it is extremely relevant to report on these attitudes and policies at the WP Palestinian refugee page. --Uruandimi (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example of how not to engage in coat-racking material on this page.

1. Find a reliable source like Milton-Edwards, Beverley (2009). The Israeli-Palestinian conflict: a people's war. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780415410441.
2. Use the source to identify an connection between the subject of the page and the issue

"The majority of Palestinian refugees [in Syria] believe in their 'right of return', though were sceptical that the Oslo peace process would deliver a just settlement to their case" (p. 107)

3. Summarize in a neutral way, attributing point of view

Most Palestinian refugees in Syria support the right of return.[insert reference here]

Clear? Simple? Okay, so I'm not going to respond to your political views anymore. Just your sourced edits.--Carwil (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Burden of proof

Uruandimi states at WP:AE#Statement by Uruandimi:

If people want to continue to prevent a paragraph on the PLO attitudes and policies from being included on this page, they must quote a reliable source which says (1) that there is a difference between the Palestinian refugees and the Palestinian Arabs; (2) that the PLO Covenant does not apply to all the Palestinian Arabs; and (3) that the PLO was not recognized by the Arab League (1964) and 100 nations, the United Nations General Assembly (1974), the EU, Israel and the USA (1993) to solely represent all the Palestinian Arabs.

Uruandimi, it may seem reasonable as a newcomer that arguments like WP:RS are "as good for the goose as they are for the gander," but this is not actually true on Wikipedia. Instead, we need reliable sources that show relevance to included contentious material, not to exclude it. See policy on the burden of proof:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find supporting sources yourself and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; see here for how the BLP policy applies to groups.

On the Charter itself, it's worth noting that the articles being cited here, which have no clear relevance to refugees, were ordered removed by the Palestinian National Council, a body which has a majority of Palestinian refugee representation. However, this is discussed on the page about the Charter, where it belongs.--Carwil (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Arab Palestinian refugee

The shorthand denomination "Palestinian" is discriminatory and ought to be changed into "Arab Palestinian". The shorthand name conveys the subtle message that "Palestinians" (of whom everybody knows they're definitely not Jewish) are the only legal heirs to the lands of Palestine. That pretense is patently false and in violation of the science of history which teaches that next to Arabs, Jews also have their roots in these grounds (some families never left), even if great numbers of Jews only arrived there at the end of the 19th century. To be sure, the Jewish inhabitants of the modern State of Israel are not going anywhere else. They and their forebears have complied with all the requirements of the 1920 San Remo Conference which granted them legal permission to settle the lands of Palestine. Both the Jewish presence and the State of Israel are definitely legit. Whereas the shorthand expression "Palestinians" questions the Jews' presence and Israel's legitimacy, in contrast, the full "Arab Palestinians" asserts the idea that Arabs and Jews can share these lands, or have adjacent states. I propose to cleanse Wikipedia of this confusion. Let us begin right here and change the name of this page into "Arab Palestinian refugee". --Uruandimi (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This fails WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV and probably a couple other policies I can't think of right now. "I propose to cleanse Wikipedia of this confusion." is POV-pushing, and is not welcome on wikipedia, much less in an area under arbitration for contentious editing. Please don't.--Carwil (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Carwil, you did not relate to the perhaps discriminatory and offensive nature of the name 'Palestinian'. This is not a small thing. Even today as we speak, like on every single day of the past five or six or seven decades, there is a war going on with, among others, people get expelled from their homes, deadly rockets being fired and children getting killed. The motive of this war is based on the idea that both the State of Israel and the presence of Jews therein are somehow not legitimate. The question who are the 'true' Palestinians, i.e., which party may inherit the land after the fall of the Ottoman empire, has not yet been resolved. That's why I used the admittedly strong terms 'confusion' and 'cleanse'. OK, Wikipedia may not take people's name away from them, but it can truthfully and verifiably report to its users that a particular name is being used as a rallying call and a weapon in a lethal conflict. We can discuss this further, but to not truthfully report on the meaning and purpose of this name would be un-encyclopedic. --Uruandimi (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

1. If you want to live in a world where the people currently called Palestinians are not called Palestinians, and instead others are recognized as "the 'true' Palestinians [who] may inherit the land after the fall of the Ottoman empire," I can imagine a number of things you could do. However, one place not to do so is Wikipedia, where we use policies like WP:COMMONNAME to decide what subjects are covered with which topic.

Wikipedia is about verifiability rather than truth. It also attributes opinions like "a particular name is being used as a rallying call and a weapon in a lethal conflict." And it maintains narrowly focused articles about the topic at hand. In this case, an article about Palestinian refugees is not the place for a debate about the term Palestinian.--Carwil (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What's in a name? About the new meaning of the name 'Palestinian'

"Ever since 1964, when the PLO was founded, the denomination 'Palestinian' commonly applies to an Arab, non-Jewish community. However, this is a reversal of the previous custom. During the British Mandate (1917-1948), all inhabitants could actually be viewed as Palestinians regardless of their background or religion, but in daily practice this name applied almost exclusively to Jews. Evidence of this can be found in back-issues of The Palestine Post, at the time a widely read English-language daily newspaper founded by Jewish journalist Gershon Agron in 1932, which changed its name to The Jerusalem Post in 1950. For exaple, on December 4, 1939, the Palestine Post reported on the increased yearly amount of alcohol consumed by Palestinians. Obviously, the newspaper does not refer here to the predominantly Muslim Arabs, but to the Jewish inhabitants of Mandate-era Palestine."

I had wanted to post the above, originally with external url links to both the Palestine Post and its article. However, WP does not accept these links, citing that they are 'blacklisted'. Are you kidding me - an entire newspaper blacklisted? Anybody can find this Palestine Post article titled 'Palestinians drink more' (and many others about the Palestinians of that time) on the internet - outside of WP. Perhaps I am making a mistake here. Can somebody assist me in this? I do have sources for the paragraph I wish to add, but of course this does not help when such sources are not allowed. --Uruandimi (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Re the blacklist: I had never heard of it before this, but it appears to an anti-spam mechanism used in response to widespread reposting of links to non-informative websites. I have no idea why the Palestine Post content should be connected to it. That seems unfortunate.

However, since the Palestine Post is a newspaper, its web home is not essential to citing it on Wikipedia. You could quote enough of the cited material in between two ref tags and follow it with the citation. That doesn't solve the content-related problems I've discussed below however.--Carwil (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of this page

Uruandimi, this is essay-style material that does not mention Palestinian refugees and is unsupported by reliable sources (articles on pre-1948 drinking do not support the larger opinion about "what's in a name?" It also states the opinion of some people (including perhaps yourself) using the narrative voice of Wikipedia, rather than attributing those opinions to significant figures as discussed at WP:NPOV. It thus has exactly the same problems discussed above with your earlier edits. You appear to be deliberately ignoring the suggestions of other editors and repeatedly engaging in tendentious editing that will not lead to changes in the page. Please take this seriously and attempt to respect Wikipedia policies.--Carwil (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia content on the meaning of "Palestinian"

The meaning of "Palestinian" is discussed at Palestinian people which says (on the issue of Jews and Palestinians):

Jews made up part of the population of Palestine prior to the creation of the State of Israel, but today rarely identify as "Palestinian".

Recent genetic research has suggested that Arabs as an ethnic group are closely related to Jews and represent "descendants of a core population that lived in the region,"[17] largely predating Muslim conquest.

Following the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel, the use and application of the terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian" by and to Palestinian Jews largely dropped from use. For example, the English-language newspaper The Palestine Post, founded by Jews in 1932, changed its name in 1950 to The Jerusalem Post. Jews in Israel and the West Bank today generally identify as Israelis.

If you wish to amplify this information with factual statements or attributed statements of opinion, you should do so there.--Carwil (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Carwil, the entry you quote is tendentious and agenda-driven. It seems to me that its authors try to prove that Arabs are "related" to the Jews in order to coatrack/obfuscate/belittle their religious hatred towards them. Otherwise, they would have also, in the same entry, given an explanation why Arabs and Jews have separated. They don't give such an explanation, because their whole 'genetic research' is just meant as a diversion in the first place. This malevolent practice impacts the Palestinian refugee page and vise versa. In my opinion, hidden tendencies and agendas do not belong in WP. It does not matter where editors begin to weed them out. --Uruandimi (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It is, unlike your text, based on reliable sources and relevant to the subjec of the article in which it is discussed. If you have contradictory material, please sort it out on Palestinian people. Best, --Carwil (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The science of true motives exists, but it is as yet not recognized. Therefore, my references to it are not accepted here, if they are noticed at all. In my view, the 'Palestinian people' as such would make a prime candidate for agenda research if people are interested and when such a science becomes widely available. Meanwhile, I can only try to point out where on its Palestinian refugee page WP fails miserably on its own commitment to neutrality. Best, --Uruandimi (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Jordanian annexation and bestowing of citizenship to West Bank Arabs

The article mentions that when Jordan annexed the West Bank in '48, most Arabs in the West Bank were given citizenship. So how does this explain how there are at least 2 million stateless Palestinians in the West Bank currently. I know recent reports have said that Jordan has begun revoking citizenship,but that is not happening at the magnitude needed to create the millions of stateless West Bank Palestinians there are today. So at what point did all these Palestinians lose their Jordanian citizenship? Or was it not passed on to progeny? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.133.167 (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

in 1988, Jordan decided to disengage from the west bank. depriving west bankers of their citizenship. jordan did that in order to opened the way for the establishment of palestinian political entity. this can be found in "Palestinians and Jordanians: A Crisis of Identity" an article by Laurie A. Brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.169.168 (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

number of Palestinians in lebanon

• 400,000 is not the accurate number,it's the number of the registered refugees(the actual number is way much higher)

• it's not true that the refugees "need a special permit to leave their refugee camps"(some palestinians live and work outside their camps)

• the lebanon related-section of the article needs to be rewritten(does not mention anything about naher el bared and many other conflicts) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.135.17.231 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

WND

Regarding this edit which oddly asserts that WND may be used if accurately sourced and for specific facts or opinions found there based on "many" discussion at RS/N. You cannot use unreliable sources as reliable "for their own views", if a source is not reliable it may not be cited. WND is not a reliable source and its use in an article that has actual quality sources about, books published by university presses and peer reviewed journal articles, is asinine. Add to the fact that Farrah's view is absurd and directly contradicted by countless high quality sources and you get a rather obvious instance of a user attempting to side step the reliable source requirement for Wikipedia content. This is not much better than citing material to Stormfront in the article Israel. Users should be ashamed of themselves when they put such crap into articles. nableezy - 18:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I pressed enter while typing the edit summary of my revert, however the point is that there are as Nableezy writes high-quality sources that discuss these matters so there's no need to rely on "WorldNetDaily", which isn't a serious source and the author used here isn't an established expert in the field. --Dailycare (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

UNGA res 194 did not use the UNRWA definition of refugees

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, under which the Palestinians claim refugee rights, was adopted 11t Dec 1948, 12 months before UNRWA was established later 8th Dec 1949. Secondary Sources citing UNRWA figures in relationship to UNGA res 194, are unreliable on the point.

Primary Source Document: For the purpose of finding accurate Secondary Sources (http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/418E7BC6931616B485256CAF00647CC7)

Secondary Source: ... pages=38, 19

Suggestion: Remove all unreliable content ... talknic (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Having received no objections since 17:19, 28 October 2011 ...made changes to information relevant to UNGA res 194, (which was already mentioned) Clarified UNRWA mandate re final status ... talknic (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

NOTING: After having sought opinion and seen NO RESPONSE AT ALL for almost 3 weeks, I clarified the definition of refugee used by the drafters of UNGA res 194, according to the UN. Without discussion, Jolinksi does a wholesale revert, removing the ONLY reference in the article to the actual UN definition of Palestinian Refugee used in 1948, which BTW, included Jewish refugees.

the reason given for the revert "The present version, resulting from edits by Talknic, appears to be some sort of legal argument about what various UN resolutions say." You haven't even bothered to read the sources? AMAZING!!!

"I think it makes this a very difficult article to read for somebody who comes here looking for information about "Palestinian refugees" So you remove the ONLY reference to the UN definition in 1948. Very clever. Removing UN definition used in 1948. Pivotal to understanding the issue of Palestinian refugees.

"The old version starts, appropriately, with a clear explanation of what this article talks about" The old version leads people to believe the UNRWA definition is the definition covering RoR etc. UNRWA says it isn't! It's in the Q&A section on the UNRWA site. The UN tells us what the definition was before UNRWA came into existence ... talknic (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What is this article supposed to be about?

The present version, resulting from edits by Talknic, appears to be some sort of legal argument about what various UN resolutions say. I think it makes this a very difficult article to read for somebody who comes here looking for information about "Palestinian refugees". The old version starts, appropriately, with a clear explanation of what this article talks about. Jsolinsky (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I am restoring the previous version. If there are important facts which would be lost in this process, then we should discuss them and/or restore them. But dense legal discussions surely do NOT belong in the lede before we have even explained what this article is about. Jsolinsky (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"..dense legal discussions surely do NOT belong in the lede" Er... the UNRWA definition is in the lede of your restored version. It's mentioned FOUR times, yet it is NOT the definition used by the UN in 1948. No other version is mentioned? Why not? ... talknic (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV in the lede UNRWA defintition of a refugee is mentioned four times. UNRWA's definition does not cover final status

No other definition is mentioned. Jolinski demands the removal of the UN definition used in 1948 [3] amongst other information. Preferring the misinformation carried by the current version and by which readers might get the impression the UNRWA numbers are for RoR to Israel.

The UNRWA definition does not cover final status. Readers should be afforded this knowledge at the outset, in the lede and be given the UN definition used in 1948, which included Jewish refugees from Palestine ... 13:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't demand the removal of anything. I just want the article to provide a clear answer to somebody who is looking at it for the first time. Hitting them over the head with legalese does not accomplish that. If there is a dispute over the definition of refugee, or some particular consequence that follows from conflicting definitions, then that can be covered intelligibly in the body of the article. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - "I don't demand the removal of anything" You bulk reverted, unnecessarily.

"I just want the article to provide a clear answer to somebody who is looking at it for the first time. " The UN Statement on the definition used in 1948 belongs in the lede, not the numerous mentions of the UNRWA definition, which didn't exist in 1948 and which do not form the basis of the Palestinians claims under UNGA res 194 ... talknic (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fundamentally opposed to that, as long as it can be accomplished in a manner that has the net effect of improving the article.

That said, I do not see why we should prefer (or not prefer), the 1948 definition. This article is not specifically about UNGA res 194 which is covered here: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194

The most important thing is that first time readers quickly understand what this article is about. I'd only oppose starting off with the 194 definition if it is less compatible with that goal than the alternatives. Jsolinsky (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - The UNRWA definition does not extend to the contentious issues surrounding RoR, repatriation, compensation. Yet the UNRWA definition has FOUR instances in the Lede, obviously a purposeful attempt to lead the reader into believing UNRWA definition is the basis for the Palestinian claims. It isn't. Leaving it there, knowing it isn't factual, is LYING, propaganda.

There's no other definition in the lede. Either the remove the numerous references to UNRWA from the Lede/pruned down or give equal weight to the definition which is relevant to RoR, repatriation, compensation ... talknic (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Its easy for me to support removals as long as what remains clearly and articulately explains what this article is about. Go for it. [[User:|Jsolinsky]] (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - A) What the article is about is in the lede. B) You reverted RS information from the rest of the Article as well, where it belonged.

At the moment the Article Lede speaks ONLY of UNRWA definitions contrary to NPOV. It falsely claims there was no definition of a refugee and gives no source for the statement. No where in the article does it refer to the definition accepted in 1948 by the drafters of resolution 194 according to the UN.

"Go for it" I did. Addressing the issues with RS Secondary Sources defining a Palestinian refugee 1948 and; moved the UNRWA material from the lead to UNRWA. It was balanced, it was informative. You reverted to an unsubstantiated, biased version, conveying only the UNRWA definition which is quite irrelevant to final status or the Palestinians claims under UNGA res 194 ... talknic (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way. For what its worth, I did spend more than 20 minutes looking at the individual changes you made. I found them very confusing (and was not helped by the fact that some reordering confused the wikipedia compare changes view). Ultimately I thought it made the article significantly worse, and couldn't find an easy way to do just a partial revert. Jsolinsky (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Your reason for reverting was this "As discussed, changes make the article significantly less readable" Where was it discussed? Changes actually made the article significantly more informative and accurate. This discussion BTW is NPOV in the Lede.

"was not helped by the fact that some reordering confused the wikipedia compare changes view" - so re-write the Wikipedia source code. It has nothing to do with the quality of the information I provided or where I put it.

NPOV there is only mention of one definition in the Lede. It is NOT the definition effecting contentious issues. In fact, it has NOTHING to do with the contentious issues ... talknic (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

---

There's been no response from the only other participant in this NPOV discussion and; taking into consideration Jsolinsky's reason for reverting was not actually discussed in Talk. There was no legal argument in the Lede and Jsolinsky reverted from version that was no less readable than what stands now. "some reordering confused the wikipedia compare changes view" is not a valid reason for reversion.

To that end I intend to manually restore. Any of the usual last minute objections? ... talknic (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If you return the article to a version which reads worse than the current article, I will probably revert. If you make the change in a way which improves clarity, I will applaud. Jsolinsky (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - The article Lede is currently presenting only the UNRWA definition. NOPV and chronologically impossible. It says there was no definition. The UN itself tells us the definition the drafters of UNGA res 194 used. It is impossible for UNGA res 194 to be based on a definition that didn't exist when UNGA Res 194 was drafted. How 'worse' can it get?

The definition used by the drafters of UNGA Res 194, according to the UN itself, is accurately reflected in the Secondary Source. It is the definition used by the drafters of UNGA res 194, not a legal argument.

Clarity would be informing readers of the actual situation. UNGA Res 194 is the basis of the Palestinians claims and the Palestinians claims are the basis of Israel's objections. Not the UNRWA definition.

The legal argument, including the chronologically impossible notion that the UNRWA definition is the basis for RoR via UNGA Res 194, should be in a separate section for legal argument, where I'd be more than happy to help present both POVs. I intend to restore and we can improve readability significantly from there. There is no need to wholesale revert without a very solid reason ... talknic (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'll see what I can do. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the lede should provide a clear and succinct explanation of what a Palestinian refugee is. The details of particular resolutions (which already have their own web pages) should probably be left to the main body (unless the plain definition of a Palestinian refugee happens to coincide with one of the resolutions), or at the very least, only be mentioned in brief. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - Just to be clear, the lede did provide a clear and succinct explanation of what a Palestinian refugee was. You reverted it based on nonsense ... talknic (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, repeatedly asserting counterfactuals is a waste of time. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - Whole sale reverting is an exercise in counterfactuals ... talknic (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Manual restore instituted per the above discussion, pending collaboration on further improvement. New discussion listed tending those improvements ... talknic (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration on Further Improvement

Suggest: Creating New Section on definition argument using some of the dialogue which we can glean from an old version. Replacement of any Primary Sources. Clean up reference citations etc. ... talknic (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The current lede is very problematic. Instead of explaining what Palestinian refugees are, it immediately starts talking about resolution 194.

"The definition for Palestinian refugees or Palestine refugees accepted by the drafters of UNGA Res 194, as confirmed by the UNCCP[3], included Arabs whose normal places of residence was in Israel and Jews who had their homes in Arab Palestine, such as the those from the Jewish quarter of the Old City. UN Resolution 194 was adopted on of 11 December 1948, calling for the return of refugees from the ongoing Arab-Israeli hostilities. It forms the basis of the Palestinian claim for RoR."

Jsolinsky (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - the current lede immediately starts "The definition for Palestinian refugees or Palestine refugees..." You cut and pasted it. It then goes on to tell readers how they are known to be refugees in 1948, according to the drafters of UNGA res 194. It could be improved. Perhaps thus:

//The definition for Palestinian refugees or Palestine refugees accepted in 1948 by the drafters of UNGA Res 194 as confirmed by the UNCCP[3], included Arabs whose normal places of residence was in Israel and Jews such as the those who lost their homes from the Jewish quarter of the Old City and in Arab Palestine during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

It should also mentioned that more refugees were created in subsequent wars ... talknic (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This becomes especially problematic when one realizes that resolution 194 does not even contain a definition for refugees. Jsolinsky (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - That is why I used the source provided at the very start of the article. To inform people before they head off into the jungle of the article ... talknic (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Lebanon pop contradiction?

The first sentence says: "Over 400,000 Palestinian refugees live in Lebanon,"

but one of the later paragraphs says: "There are about 350,000 non-citizen Palestinian refugees in Lebanon."

which seems to contradict the first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionfish0 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

UNGA res 194 adopted 11 December 1948 // UNRWA established 8 December 1949

UNGA res 194 adopted 11 December 1948 - UNRWA established 8 December 1949
Any NPOV RS calendar will show December 1948 is 12 months before December 1949!
UNGA res 194 has nothing to do with the UNRWA definition of refugee! talknic (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The Lede is misleading. Palestine refugee is NOT the same as Palestinian refugee

Palestine refugees, those whose normal place of residence was Palestine before May 15th 1948, includes Jewish folk. Palestinian refugees are refugees who're Palestinian.
UNGA res 302, establishing UNRWA, does not have any of these words "Palestinian/s", "Jew/s" or "Arab/s".
UNGA res 194, does not have any of these words "Palestinian/s", "Jew/s" or "Arab/s".
Readers should be informed talknic (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

not only that, 194 doesn't define a Palestinian refugee at all, so "per" 184 is utter nonsense. See post below 76.179.5.174 (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

194 does not define refugee

First line says a P. refugee is "per" UNGA 194. 194 does not give a def of refugee. It makes a comment about them but only UNRWA defines them. 76.179.5.174 (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)