Talk:Palestinian right of return

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



main opposition to the right of return[edit]

In my opinion the section “Opponents of the right of return hold…..” dose not in fact contain the main opposition to the right of return, but rather a weak watered down version that does not give the highlights of the objection the right of return.

A balanced article would use a summary of the more significant objections therefore I suggest:

Israel claims: that following hostilities in 1948, the young Israel [1] could not survive with a fifth column; that the open denial of Israel’s right to exist by majority of Palestinian refugees, exclude them from the nonbinding UN resolution 194 “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors” ; that the ‘right of return’ is a euphemism for the destruction of Israel; that unlike hundreds of millions of refugees rehabilitated in the late 1940’s[2] the Palestinians were the only ones that were not rehabilitated; that UNRWA, has served to perpetuate the Palestinian refugee problem rather than solve it; that the Palestinian refugees should have been rehabilitated in the late 1940’s by the neighboring Arab countries, just as Israel has rehabilitated the influx of Jewish Arab refugees escaping persecution in Arab countries; that the Arab failure to rehabilitate the Palestinian refugees is long term strategy to destroy Israel.

Instead of: Opponents of the right of return hold that there is no basis for it in international law, and that it is an unrealistic demand.[5] The government of Israel regards the claim as a Palestinian ambit claim, and does not view the admission of Palestinian refugees to their former homes in Israel as a right, but rather as a political claim to be resolved as part of a final peace settlement.[6][7] Other disputed aspects include the issue of the territorial unit to which Palestinian self-determination would attach, the context (whether primarily humanitarian or political) within which the right is being advanced, and the universality of the principles advocated or established to other (current and former) refugee situations.[8]

Unfortunately my editing has been repeatedly undone by Sean.hoyland without any explanation. I am a new user and do not know how to get assistance to resolve this issue. I would appreciate advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raanang02 (talkcontribs) 19:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

For an explanation, see the edit summary. From here, click the "Article" tag, then the "View history" tag. You will see your edits listed there as your IP address 212.185.162.10 (along with other edits). You will also see my edit summary "rv 212.185.162.10 Please review your editing obligations here. See WP:NPOV and WP:V". Those links will take you to the descriptions of 2 important policies that you should read. WP:NPOV deals with neutrality and WP:V deals with verifiability. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Original research - note to IP editor from 86.108.nnn.nnn range[edit]

IP editor, the paragraphs you are repeatedly inserting into this article (as well as to Right of return) are unsourced. They appear to be your own personal viewpoints, created through original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please review our policy against origianl research, especially the part about using material published by reliable sources in a way that constitutes original research. Also, consider getting a user account, rather than utilizing multiple IP addresses, whcih could lead to having some of those blocked under our sockpuppet policy. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Blocked NoCal100 sockpuppet

Meanwhile I will try a compromise edit version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.185.162.10 (talk) 07:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The message above wasn't addressed to you. It's an old message. When you try a compromise edit version please ensure that it complies with WP:V i.e. it must be based on one or more published reliable sources and it must cite the source or sources. If the content does not cite a reliable source you can be sure it will be removed. English Wikipedia has over 4 million articles and you are editing one of its most contentious articles, so please bear that in mind. Please read the header at the top of the page, "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES", and familiarize yourself with the special rules that apply to all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Misleading statement, compensation individual, not national.[edit]

The statement in the lead "possibly while compensating the Jewish refugees from the Arab countries as well" implies that the property claims of the Mizrahs should be dealt with on a national level. This was only ever a minority view-point and has been abandoned.

A 2003 article in Haaretz puts the idea down to The World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries (WOJAC) and one man, Yaakov Meron, then head of the Justice Ministry's Arab legal affairs department. Haaretz says "In the end, the ministry closed the tap on the modest flow of funds it had transferred to WOJAC. Then justice minister Yossi Beilin fired Yaakov Meron from the Arab legal affairs department. Today, no serious researcher in Israel or overseas embraces WOJAC's extreme claims."

Note that it is national claims that are abandoned, not individual claims, the article also says "Many of the newcomers lost considerable property, and there can be no question that they should be allowed to submit individual property claims against Arab states (up to the present day, the State of Israel and WOJAC have blocked the submission of claims on this basis)." PRtalk 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No article on Al-Awda group??[edit]

Certainly notable enough. I just beefed up American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and mentioned it's position supporting it, FYI. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Right of Return" Plan to Replace Israel with Islamic Caliphate?[edit]

Years ago, I read an interesting article (I believe it was a transcript/translation of an interview on French TV, or somewhere else in Europe) of a senior Palestinian leader. IN response to the interviewer asking 'If Palestinians were allowed to return to Israel under the terms you seek, what next?' (paraphrasing obviously.... ) The response was that Palestinians would immediately take political control of Israel, rename it "Palestine," and establish a strict Islamic caliphate. When asked if this would be fair to the Christians and Jews in the newly named country, his response was an offhand suggestion that some groups are foreign introductions and don't have a right to exist there in the first place. QUESTION: I can't find that interview again, and suspect it may have been a fraud. Has anyone else run across it, or similar reliably sourced material? If it can be found and vetted, it would be a great source of insight for the article.24.21.105.252 (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find more people saying it today than back then since so many have been thrown into extremism by what they consider to be US/Israel imperialism. Just like you can find lots of Israelis who want to kick out all the Arabs from the country. What might be interesting is to compare polls of both populations (and I've seen a bunch) and see which population has the most extremists. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I'll give your thoughts all the consideration they're due.24.21.105.252 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

PoV tag[edit]

I removed the POV tag which hasn't been discussed for over a year for it to reverted straight away with Looks highly POV and needs tag - "right of return is a political position or principle" in the lead? Res 194 re-affirms it as an inalienable right.). We do not leave POV tags on article indefinitely, please identify these "looks highly pov" and discuss re-wording to achieve concensus. If there are to be no further discussion on these POV issues in the near future then I will re-remove the tag. Khukri 09:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have either the time or the knowledge to improve this article. But I do know that the "Palestinian Right of Return" is considered an "inalienable right" by the world community. So strongly do they feel about it that they re-iterate it every year (I think I have that right). Under such circumstances, calling it a "political position or principle" in the lead is hugely POV, and the article needs tagging as such. Alternatively, we could have a tag saying "For reasons outside our control, it is impossible to provide an article on this subject in the I-P conflict area to the standard that the rest of Wikipedia aspires to". PRtalk 12:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, though not being an expert on the subject, "Palestinian Right of Return" isn't viewed in the same light by the "world community" there are differing view points on what this means, not just on the Arab/Israelis sides but also what it means to the world community as a whole, as the article demonstrates. I think the lede succinctly states the two principle view points and am at pains at the moment to see how this is in favour of one side of the argument or the other. Also it is not generally accepted practice to slap a PoV tag on an article if you are not willing to aid with its resolution. Also looking at your edit summary, as I understand it UN 194 wan't a binding treaty which doesn't make it an unalienable right, looking at the article page? Looking at it all I need to do is add the word disputed to that sentence and I believe it removes your PoV issue. Khukri 12:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Both world opinion (eg UN Resolution 194 passed overwhelmingly every year for 60 years) and the UDHR, which says "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family .... to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country" make nonsense of the claim in the lead that the right of return that is a "a political position or principle" as if this was a negotiating point. The basis of this "right" goes back still earlier, eg 1945 Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg which defined the deportation of civilians as both a war crime and a crime against humanity.
And there is much else that is severely POV, requiring a tag eg "The causes and responsibilities of the exodus are a matter of controversy among historians and commentators of the conflict" - when there is no such controversy except amongst extremists. 95 or 98% of the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, with the exact circumstances carefully recorded eg the strongly Zionist Morris in "Birth", A - Abandonment on Arab orders, C - Influence of nearby town's fall, E - Expulsion by Jewish forces, F - Fear of being caught up in fighting, M - Military assault on settlement, W Whispering campaigns - psychological warfare by Haganah/IDF. Morris finds there were 5 villages (and half of Haifa) in category A, 38 unknown and 346 in the other categories (though there is sometimes some overlap). Every other investigator finds more villages (or groups) and says the same. There is no controversy. PRtalk 14:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The Accusation: And there is much else that is severely POV, requiring a tag eg 'The causes and responsibilities of the exodus are a matter of controversy among historians and commentators of the conflict' - when there is no such controversy except amongst extremists. ... There is no controversy."
  • The Reality: I believe Avi Shlaim, hardly an extremist, would disagree with you that there is no controversy among historians in this excellent article on the scholarly debate that has gone on among Middle East historians since the 1980s titled "The War of the Israeli Historians." I took the liberty of citing the Shlaim article as a source in this article for the sentence that PalestineRemembered claims is "severely POV" and "extremist." The existence of a scholarly debate is also self evident from the contents of this Wikipedia article. --GHcool (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I cannot see reference to controversy about the actual Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus in Shlaim's 2003 article - his entire thesis is summed up in his words "there is no longer a consensus among the original group of new historians that Israel is the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East". Controversy concerns only recent and peripheral matters, such as whether to dig up potentially 100s of bodies at Tantura in 1998, the integrity of Palestinian negotiators in 2000 and Morris's conversion to the right-wing in 2002. Nothing to do with the 1948 ethnic cleansing, which everyone now accepts (and for which Morris remains the most accessible source). The current state of this article is severely POV and it needs tagging as such. PRtalk 23:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Shlaim details the controversy among historians in the article. Its as plain as day and I can dig up dozens of more sources saying the same thing. Shlaim is considered to be on the political left and even he accepts that there has been a controversy among historians. For a political right analysis (and acceptance) of the controversy, I recommend Efraim Karsh's article here. I am sure Karsh is not one of PalestineRemembered's favorite historians, but he is a historian nonetheless and not an extremist by any measure. --GHcool (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The controversies described by Shlaim in that article bear no relationship to "The causes and responsibilities of the exodus are a matter of controversy among historians and commentators of the conflict", which are contested by nobody other than deniers.
Hence, this is a severely POV article and needs tagging as such. PRtalk 11:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
How do they bear no relationship, I read though what GHcool posted and seems to imply that the cause of the exodus was being debated by historians, and not just deniers. Explain please? Khukri 14:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
There is indeed a controversy about the causes of the 1948 exodus among historians. It is even what of the biggest controversy. I think it is explained in Shlaim's article but I don't see this describe in the article of Karsh. This latest rather attack the other and to paraphrase him, "report [his] truth"... So, it is rather a primary source rather than a secondary source for the controversy. Note that Shlaim is not the best source either, being part of the conflict. I have a source in French that could be accpetable but it is in French... So this "obvious think" when you see all the theories about the topic can hardly be sourced in English... Ceedjee (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
If primary sources should be given, I would suggest these :
  • Benny Morris, 1989, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949, Cambridge University Press;
  • Benny Morris, 1991, 1948 and after; Israel and the Palestinians, Clarendon Press, Oxford;
  • Walid Khalidi, 1992, All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948, Institute for Palestine Studies;
  • Nur Masalha, 1992, Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, Institue for Palestine Studies;
  • Efraim Karsh, 1997, Fabricating Israeli History: The "New Historians", Cass;
  • Benny Morris, 2004, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Cambridge University Press;
  • Yoav Gelber, 2006, Palestine 1948: War, Escape and the Palestinian Refugee Problem, Oxford University Press;
  • Ilan Pappé, 2006, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, OneWorld
I think these are the main books published on the topic and the due:weight is more or less respected. Ceedjee (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

supporters, opponents, and criticisms[edit]

why are there sections on both "opponents" and "criticisms"? these two are the same and should be merged and shortened to reflect due weight for these views. the international community supports the right of return, and only israel disputes it, therefore this article should reflect that without giving so much weight to a small minority view. untwirl(talk) 14:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Israels viewpoints are highly relevant to the article, as they are party to the conflict. However, as it stands now in the article the supporters and objectors viewpoints are very, very muddled. Especially the objectors article contains the same information over and over. There is also a good amount of weasel-wording thrown in for good measure.83.250.152.246 (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Above comment by me - forgot to log in. Snipanlol (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The so-called "international community" is just a euphemism for the United Nations—a body of foreign politicians made up mostly of third-world autocratic regimes that do not even represent their own people. Whose is the small minority view now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamgeeGardener (talkcontribs) 03:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:TALK. Talk pages are for discussing proposed changes to article content based on Wikipedia's policies and reliable sources. It's not a forum for people to post personal opinions. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Then perhaps people should not post ridiculous personal opinions describing pro-Israel positions as a "small minority view." — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamgeeGardener (talkcontribs) 03:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Objectors viewpoints[edit]

Some people here seem to think they get to decide the opposing side's views.
The sources say that the view is that a non-Jewish majority means the destruction (one source says "eradication") of Israel. That means you don't get to water it down with weasel words just because you don't like seeing the phrase "destruction of Israel".
The sources say that the view is that a minority of Jews would be at the mercy of the Muslims means that that's the view they represent even if you think that kind of view is biased or racist or whatever.
The sources say that the view is that there was no right of return or compensation offered to the Jews that fled Arab countries, and that the Arab governments were complicit in this, then that's what wikipedia should say.

That said, I'm open to changing "at the mercy of the Muslims" to "at the mercy of a hostile Majority" if that makes anyone feel better. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You dont get to present opinions as fact, as in "This would essentially be the destruction of Israel". You have to present them as opinions and you have to use NPOV language. There is nothing wrong with how it is worded now, it should in fact be further qualified by explicitly citing who said these things. nableezy - 17:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a section titled "viewpoints". It's about opinions. The "some people think that..." part is implied.
The opinion that losing the Jewish majority would essentially be the destruction of Israel is pretty common, as I'm sure you're aware.
Do you suggest we go over both sections and qualify everything? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Its as if you didnt pay any attention to what I wrote. If it is opinion then PHRASE THE TEXT AS OPINION. When you say "This would essentially be the destruction of Israel" in WP's narrative voice you are not phrasing it as opinion, you are phrasing it as a fact. nableezy - 18:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't specifying that the following bullets are opinions or arguments solve your problem with presenting this as fact? It is a fact that these are arguments used by opponents of a right of return. That is what is being said in the narrative voice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, what is said in the narrative voice is "This would essentially be the destruction of Israel" as a conclusion to the opinions presented. What is wrong with how it is phrased now? nableezy - 21:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
First of all, it doesn't say what the source says. The source says this will be the destruction of "Israel" not "the Jewish state of Israel". Second, that's not the way the supporters viewpoints section is worded. But if you want me to make the two similar by rephrasing the other section to include "it has been argued" all over the place, we can do it your way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a bit of a ridiculous conversation if you don't mind my saying. First, there's nothing wrong with Israel being a Jewish state. This is in the declaration of independence and the reason for Israel being located on the historical homeland of the Jewish people. Secondly, I don't know how the source puts it, but it would seem that the fear is the end of the democratic structure rather than merely the Jewishness of the state. If the source doesn't explicitly cite the end of a Jewish state, then the addendum is redundant and speculative (read: false assumption) on the intentions of the source.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 22:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hilton not WP:RS[edit]

It seems to me there is a lot of edit warring over what is NOT a WP:RS source. The source http://wais.stanford.edu/Israel/israel_andthepalestinerightofreturn51603.html is just one of a bunch of self-published discussion papers on http://wais.stanford.edu/Israel/, a not very official Stanford outlet. This one is by - who? Ronald Hilton - 5/16/03 did this one. Is he a freshman? A PhD? No information. It's acceptable to use information he quotes from - if you independently verify that it is true. But he should not be used as a source. We don't really have to go to WP:RSN on this, do we?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

i viewed the page, and agree that it isn't a RS. some of the links he provides may be, but any info relying on this ref should be scrapped and rewritten with attribution to the correct sources. untwirl(talk) 16:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
hm. well, i kinda messed that up by duplicating a ref. lets see if i can fix it. untwirl(talk) 17:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


==Who is a refugee?==

This indicates that descendants are covered under the definition. I realize that some people object to this definition; nevertheless, it's the definition the UN uses in this particular case. Linking to a more general UN resolution on the definition of refugees is original research and inappropriate. CJCurrie (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, what you're doing is original research. Some people are of the opinion that descendants are not refugees. You don't get to hide their opinion just because you don't like it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way, UNRWA can only decide who they consider a refugee for the purpose of distributing aid. They don't make international law. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

specifically[edit]

I'm trying to make it clear that the list of examples provided for the first bullet in the objectors viewpoints section is not a comprehensive list. How about "Some specific examples used by objectors for the argument above include:"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

how about just adding "these include" and leaving out the rest? Note that "some" is usually considered to be a weasal word. Tiamuttalk 16:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
That works. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

comparison to similar situations?[edit]

Could a section be created drawing parallels to other cases of wartime population displacements and treatment of the right of return of refugees in the aftermath? The question of the right of Serbian refugees to return to Croatia, return of their pre-war property and various lost privileges (lost pensions, lost public housing rights etc) has been a prominent issue in assessment of human rights in Croatia (and quite present in national media), including in the context of EU accession process. As I understand it, formally this obligation is accepted by the Croatian governments, but its implementation is often criticized for extreme slowness for various reasons (eg http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/croatia0906webwcover.pdf). The implementation of this is evaluated in context of Copenhagen criteria , so some measure of improvement is condition for joining the Union (eg http://www.delhrv.ec.europa.eu/files/file/progres%20report/CROATIA%202009%20PROGRESS%20REPORT.pdf , pg 15). I should mention that the official position of Croatia has been also that Serbs were invited to stay but were ordered to leave by their own leaders (making no claim that this is actually true or not, that's not my point) - but apparently this was not considered contradictory with formally having an obligation for enabling their return. I'd be very interesting if there are relevant legal differences between this case and Palestinian return. Aryah (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Source check failed[edit]

I like to check references. And the following sentence has three sources, and not one of them says what it says it says.

I think I can say with certainty, that none of the articles refer to the international law or basic human rights at all. The first says the right of return is "sacred," and the second is an opinion piece in which the author admits his opinion is "contrary to the leading opinions of the American-European politicians and media." He references Wikipedia as his source. There is a bibliography but no footnotes. The last article is an interview with an Hamas spokesman, arguing for the so-called Saudi peace plan, which was non-starter. Nothing at all to support the sentence as written. What's up with this? Snakeswithfeet (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Does the Right of Return include the right to have property returned, and how much property is involved?[edit]

Logically it must, because otherwise where would people return to? My rough research indicates that approximately 17,000km2 of land was confiscated without compensation. Would be great if someone could find reliable sources & add as it would help explain the situation!93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC).

have added following passage adapted from israeli property law article - please redact/improve/discuss. In 1945, of 26.4 million dunams of land in Mandate Palestine, 12.8 million was owned by Arabs, 1.5 million by Jews, 1.5 million was public land and 10.6 millions constituted the desertic Beersheba district (Negev).[6][7] By 1949, s. Israel controlled 20.5 million dunams (approx. 20 500 km²) or 78% of lands in what had been Mandate Palestine: 8% (approx. 1,650 km²) were privately controlled by Jews, 6% (approx. 1,300 km²) by Arabs, with the remaining 86% was public land.[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Does the right only include those expelled during wars?[edit]

I doubt it, and will look for sources.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Myths and Facts[edit]

There are things that the JVL hosts that are reliable sources, however Myths & Facts by Mitchell Bard is a self-published work by a non-expert. It is not a reliable source, and I am once again removing that source. Repeated insertions absent a consensus that it is a reliable sources will be reported. nableezy - 19:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

1. You just violated this article's 1RR rule. No wait, read Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_to_"no_consensus" (added later, 24December).
2. Your reasons given to revert/delete the material are based on falsehoods; you are using the following easily-exposed lies to demean the source:
A. "Non-expert"?
i.) The author's PhD & other uni studies (@ USA's top-ranking uni's, at that) are pertinent to this article's subject matter as seen by clicking here combined with...
ii.) He's recognized as a notable expert from BOTH the political right (see last link) AND the left (Huff Post), and has...
iii.) Accolades or recognition about the JewishVirtualLibrary.com site from: Assoc of College & Research Libraries, as well as PBS, CNN, NYTimes, Fox, LATimes, Bloomberg, BBC, BusinessWeek, USA Today, & CBS... AND Britannica & Study Web... AND King's College, London, MSU, & other uni's.
iv.) The author's[2] material which I specifically linked to/cited, and especially his most politically-controversial claims therein, DOES conform to --and DOES cite other sources that ALSO themselves qualify as-- WP:V, RS, etc.
B. "Self-published" as you ALSO claimed?
It's published by AICE--and doesn't matter anyway because: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications": see "iii" above for a list of such "RELIABLE" third-parties (he's also published by Harper-Collins, & Palgrave-MacMillan among the many others here).
Nableezy, you don't get to UNILATERALLY decide what is WP:RS (thankfully, as you've obviously no clue what JVL's author's expert credentials, etc were...or if not clueless, you were PURPOSELY misrepresenting him as a "non-expert," but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt & assume the former, because as the saying goes: "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance/incompetence." ;) ), and you have not sought a "consensus" before deleting a source that DOES meet WP guidelines. Based on all the facts about JVL that I gave you tonight, further removal of JVL as a source based on falsehoods, such as those you've (finally) presented, will result in YOU being "reported" (oh, was that threat supposed to scare me even as the FACTS are in my court?) -- as well as: (1.) reservation of the "equal right" that I or anyone else who reads this page should go ahead UNILATERALLY remove some of your beloved pro-Arab sources based on the reasoning in bold text below (see next topic), esp if you persist in UNILATERALLY deleting all material sourced from JVL: "What's good for the goose..." (but hopefully only until I find an unbiased ArbCom to come & review ALL the article's sources for WP:RS, especially the sources listed in bold below); or (2.) hopefully you INSTEAD choose to stop waging the virtualized/internet equivalent of "guerilla warfare" & become more civil/less childish & less dictatorial as if you WP:OWN this article, and then ppl can discuss the below list of sources in bold AND JVL, one-by-one, before removing anything in the below list unless they develop a FACT-BASED (not lie/ignorance-based) argument for which ones don't meet WP:RS BEFORE deleting ANY of them (as, unlike you, I don't have the hubris & bias to UNILATERALLY remove a source unless I've CHECKED to be CERTAIN I can give proper reasons rather than lies and to CHECK that it indeed doesn't meet WP:RS instead of remaining willfully-ignorant which leads to false allegations such as those you've made in TWO different reverts against DOCTOR Mitch Bard now, because you did NOT _check_ DOCTOR Bard's credentials--leading to a waste of my time AND your own), but I'm confident that an escalation to RfArb, if that's what you desire, will allow WP's top NEUTRAL contributors to determine that JVL meets WP:RS but that MANY sources in this article do not (such as many in the below list; see next topic).
My edits yesterday also addressed a concern that someone else noted (the 1st topic on this Talk page...so I'm not just crazy; someone else noticed what I did): a desire for the lede's pro-Israeli position to be given by someone (e.g. Dr. Mitchell Bard, as I used) who represents LOTS of ppl on the pro-Israel side & does NOT make weak/VAGUE arguments: ergo, my edits might also partially address Nice Guy's concerns as he expressed on this Talk page about what might be strawman attempts--but in a different section than Nice Guy was complaining about.
JH Robbins
72.48.252.105 (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
If you revert once more I will report you for edit-warring (and I have most certainly have not violated the 1RR). Mitchell Bard's PhD is in Political Science, not Middle Eastern History or the modern Middle East. He has no particular expertise on the topic and doesn't have the credentials that allow you to bypass WP:SPS. Myths and Facts is not a reliable source, it is the self-published work by a non expert. You may not edit-war your way through this, and if you continue to revert you will find yourself blocked. And before you link the HuffPo again, could you try thinking about just what in Mitchell Bard is a writer and filmmaker.

He has written, produced and directed many independent film projects, including features, made-for-television movies and music videos. His feature film directorial debut, "Mergers & Acquisitions," was a festival favorite and is currently available on DVD in North America. He has also co-directed two music videos for Brian Vander Ark (lead singer of The Verve Pipe).

Mitchell is currently pursuing a graduate degree and serving as a teaching assistant at the University of Wisconsin School of Journalism & Mass Communication in Madison.

His weekly television column on the Toronto-based entertainment site WILDsound is currently on hiatus makes somebody reliable on the Palestinian right of return? nableezy - 09:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

1. You are the only 1 here who has made 3 reverts (very close to a 3RR), and it takes two to edit-war, so if you're fair, you'll report yourself along with me. ("A hypocrite is something that is hard for me not to call out." nableezy - 19:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Well, we share 1 thing in common. ;) ) You might also wanna read: Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_to_"no_consensus" & note that it's better to mark my work with [unreliable source?] rather than revert: Revert_only_when_necessary. But yes, on a technicality you didn't violate the letter of the 1RR.
2. From WP's lede for Political Science: "Political science intersects with other fields; including economics, law, sociology, history, (emphasis added) anthropology, public administration, public policy, national politics, international relations, comparative politics, psychology, political organization, and political theory." Also, "Mideast History" is only 1 of many peripheral issues pertaining to the primarily _political_ topics that I'm citing Bard as a source for, and he is recognized as an expert in the Mideast Conflict (in the related HISTORY) by the numerous & wide-ranging credible third parties including: click here, as well as in "iii" and "i" above, who also cite him regarding the HISTORY of the region, including but not limited to the history that's related to the Mideast Conflict.
3. My last post already cited WP:RS for WHY his credentials don't make him subject to WP:SPS: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article (emph added) whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"--note that the topic of this article is primarily political, but even if you wanna argue that it's primarily Mideast History, he still meets the above requirements b/c he's published by third-parties on many topics related to the Mideast Conflict, including the region's HISTORY as well as its politics. Also, Myths & Facts is NOT self-published (as AICE is a group, not 1 man Mitch Bard) -- certainly no more "self" published than many other websites that this article cited, as they are publishing (usually WITHOUT Bard's academic credentials nor citing their sources as Bard laboriously does) an article written by 1 of their members--just as Mitch Bard is an AICE member.
4. My apologies for hastily getting the wrong Mitchell Bard on ONE source, Huff Post... the political left like PBS & LA Times still recognize him -- despite that his political stances disagree with many of their viewers/readers.
I hope that we can just leave it here until 3rd parties add their commentary -- because maybe no one else will want to read what the dispute is about if this gets longer, and we've both had 2 chances to collect our thoughts & make our most important points for now.
JH Robbins
72.48.252.105 (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Kindly remove the RFC tag, this is not a properly formatted RFC. I did indeed revert 3 times over 28 hours, and twice in 14 hours. I did not however violate the 1RR, though Ill leave it as an exercise in reading comprehension for you to figure out why. One thing Ill never understand about you and your fellow warriors for the cause is that when somebody challenges some garbage source you bring, why dont you just look for better sources? As far as we've both had 2 chances to collect our thoughts & make our most important points for now, are you being serious or trying to get a laugh? And I didnt revert due to no consensus, please dont do that. I dont appreciate my clearly worded objections being distorted. I reverted due to you repeatedly placing an unreliable source into an "encyclopedia article". nableezy - 20:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
1. I acknowledged above that you didn't violate 1RR on a technicality (speaking of reading comprehension...). But I still assert that your reverts violate Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_to_"no_consensus"; I suggest you read that page & let me know if you have an excuse for why you've reverted, in violation of the principles expressed on that page. :::2. You keep asserting that this is an "unreliable" source to obtain facts from, yet you've never provided any facts of your own to PROVE him an unreliable source; don't you know this is the diff between making an accusation, and proving an accusation? (Instead you've resorted to using subjective crybaby insults such as baselessly --i.e. without supporting facts-- calling Dr. Bard a "garbage" source. I could say you're a "garbage" source right back, but instead, to PROVE my assertions, I've pointed out the sections of WP:RS which make Bard a valid source, and point out below that just-as-biased sources were used in this article in the same CONTEXT as I'm using Bard as a source.) I'm not exactly a "warrior for any cause" as several editors have accused you of being (but that's more rehashing of nonsene, so getting back to the main dispute here...), but when Bard is cited in the CONTEXT of this page's sections which resemble the common WP writing-style of: "The proponents hold that...XYZ, and their opposition holds that...ABC" which, per section 4.7 of WP:RS, is SUPPOSED to include citations from POV sources (and this article & countless others already DO include many POV sources besides Bard/JVL), and this writing style therefore makes my references to Bard's work conform to WP:RS; so why are you stubbornly denying these facts ONLY for this one source which opposes your PERSONAL pov? It's openly acknowledged in WP's guidelines that having a POV doesn't make a source non-RS, so long as any opinionated/controversial/etc statements are denoted to the reader as being from a biased source. ~JH Robbins
  • Comment: Myths and Facts is a highly unreliable piece of propaganda. There's no way it could be used on Wikipedia for statement of fact, whether attributed or not. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Do you have FACT-BASED reasons why [JVL] would violate WP:RS, or is this simply "Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it"? (JVL is being cited for the pro-Israel side within the writing-style of "The proponents hold that...XYZ, and their opposition holds that...ABC" -- so we are NOT claiming it's a neutral source but WP:RS section 4.7 allows for this.) Many websites cited in this article --and in WP overall-- are "propaganda" sites; that, alone, does not violate WP:RS (per section 4.7 of WP:RS). If you accuse JVL of being (factually) unreliable, please prove your own arguments that are (factually) reliable, e.g. by citing examples of "Myth & Facts" getting commonly-accepted facts wrong. ~JH Robbins
    • Frederico, I also notice that you're often accused of having an anti-Israel slant on your Talk page & of being an over-zealous reverter of others' additions. In all of your 1st 3 disputes on your Talk page, you have a habit of accusing that those who disagree w/you are all "propagandists," typically without offering any more factually-based critiques than that. You finally capitulated to an editor who told you, "you're confusing a potentially biased source with an unreliable source," but appear to be repeating this same confusion between "bias" issues & "reliability" issues 2 years later, for the reasons pointed out in my last paragraph. ~JH Robbins
  • Comment This is not an issue of rs, but of neutrality. Bard's book is certainly a reliable source for his opinions, but the issue is the degree of weight they should be given. We need to establish this through secondary sources. TFD (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree, and JVL is being cited for the pro-Israel side within the writing-style of "The proponents hold that...XYZ, and their opposition holds that...ABC" -- so it's not being claimed that JVL is a neutral source but WP:RS section 4.7 allows for this & it's consistent with the way this article (and in WP overall) cites such sources. ~JH Robbins
    • I'm not sure if you can answer, but I wonder why is this JVL source is being challenged on WP:RS, yet other openly- and self-admittedly biased/POV sources are in this article, mostly anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian I must note (which don't even have nearly the credentials & frequent citations/ref's as used by the JVL "Myth & Facts" author) and they've not been excised/reverted out of this article on the same grounds by Nableezy or others? (We'll also be left with barely any article if charges of "bias" alone are equally applied to all the sources in this article. I try to merely cite those sources by acknowledging any biased/opinionated/controversial statements to the reader in accord with section 4.7 of WP:RS--not by completely excising some POV sources & leaving in the other openly/admittedly POV sources.) ~JH Robbins
  • Comment. Myths and Facts is not wp:rs (and highly not neutral). It is a propaganda book that claims answering to Myths in giving the Facts behind but in practice, the answers that are given are biaised and don't use sources properly. The purpose is not hidden. This is also a tertiary sources in a field where there are numerous secondary sources. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Myths and Facts often cites primary sources, per WP's own definition of a "secondary source". Please explain what you mean by it not "using sources properly" & how the other sources cited in this article do so "properly" i.e. in a way better than how Myths and Facts has cited each source? (if anything, most sources used herein aren't nearly as well-cites as Myths and Facts) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.252.105 (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I would support using the source for noting opinions. Bard is not specifically educated in this field, but he is the executive director of the Jewish Virtual Library, and has been actively involved in discussion of Middle East policy. The IP's specific changes were not appropriate for several reasons, but this source is reliable for noting what a major figure on this subject believes. To that effect, the discussion should be over the content and whether the additions are giving due or undue weight to the opinions of this single figure.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't get what's being asked by this RfC, but OP is wrong on WP policy. Nableezy's opinion about the expertise of the author is neither here nor there, and source reliability is not a function of neutrality. The Editorial Voice (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Responding to RFC as an independent editor. This article is seriously lacking. It needs radical improvement. Simply by creating headings of 'supporters views' and 'objectors views' turns what should be an encyclopeadic article into an opinion piece. Adding a section on Jewish exodus from Arab countries which is obviously not relevant unnecessarily provocative. This article should be properly restructured setting out the refugee position, UN position, Israeli position. Also, the quality of the article would be improved by including international law and international relations content. Input from an editor with an academic background in International Relations or International Law should be sought to edit the final article. Isthisuseful (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

List of this article's sources that should be checked for conformance to WP:RS & other WP guidelines[edit]

For All Editors & Nableezy: The below sources used in this article infringe on WP:RS (way more than JVL, Nableezy) -- especially those with notations in bold below; feel free to check the claims made below & discuss:

  • standforfacts.org (no scholarly credentials in "about us," etc sections, nor do they cite their claims (as my source, Dr. Mitch Bard has, Nableezy)), likely the same: ArabHRA.org & Future of Freedom Foundation,
  • Le_Monde_Diplomatique#Controversies (even runs 911 conspiracy theories & cites Steven E. Jones' commentary on explosives: he was already disciplined by a university for expounding outside his area of expertise (general physics, not demolition-engineering/explosives)[3] before this Monde Diplomatique article cited him expounding on explosives ONCE AGAIN, and Jones was the main contact between his group of Truther scientists who dubiously claimed to have had their paper regarding 911 peer-reviewed and the journal, which already had a history of repeated reports that it was falsely claiming to have peer-reviewed the papers it published -- causing the Journal's editor & only peer-reviewer, Pileni, to RESIGN stating that this Truther paper was published without her knowledge, and that she already suspected the journal was dishonest & this confirmed it in her mind[9] ); Monde Diplomatique also is FAR-left/fringe),
  • al Awda (even claimed a guy later convicted of "conspiracy to help the Palestinian Islamic Jihad," Al-Arian, was likely only a “pattern of profiling and targeting the community" and Hussein Ibish (their rep who's cited separately in this WP article) claimed in al-awda's propaganda piece that "the presumption has to be that this is a political witch-hunt, a vendetta...very ugly post-9/11 McCarthyism": makes anyone sane trust their judgment & CREDIBILITY, right!? The presumption "HAS TO BE..."?!? They woulda been smarter to "never presume what cannot be proven" cos they & their editorial oversight standards got proven to be WROOOONNNNNNNNNG on life-and-death issues.),
  • Benny Morris as critiqued for not fact-checking by many scholars who are cited on user_talk:Pluto2012 AND in the "Distorting Hertzl" & some other sections of: meforum.org/711/benny-morriss-reign-of-error-revisited, but Benny Morris gets his vengeance by critiquing the facts of 1 of his MANY critics, Efraim, as he joins MANY other lefties who all criticize the fact-checking of Efraim_Karsh#Praise_and_criticism (Efraim is also cited in this WP article & to be fair, I'll point out that BOTH sides can be attacked on WP:RS grounds, but that we also have "character assassins" on BOTH sides (including some with PhD's on BOTH sides) whose attacks aren't always themselves fact-based, but then more rarely we have SOLID/legit issues of poor fact-checking i.e. poor scholarliness even from some of the PhD's such as Benny Morris (or Ed Said below)--but I've seen most mainstream sources & other scholars praise JewishVirtualLibrary: if you have any fact-based & verifiable attacks though, please do show it.),
  • israel-wat.com appears self-published (cached in google search) & is a dead link now anyway, and cablegate.wikileaks.org is sourced from a soldier who allegedly ADMITS (but trial isn't till 2013) to violating his oath of loyalty--a crime that goes to his CREDIBILITY
  • Edward_Said#Intellectual_criticism wow 'nuff said about this guy in WP's well-cited 'criticisms' section about him, related but possibly more credible: Jrnl of Palestine Studies (editor was even cited by some as a PLO official, also he won an award in the name of Edward Said whose own veracity is repeatedly trounced in the last link)

My position is that SOME of this list of sources DO meet WP:RS, actually...BUT they just don't meet WP:RS SO strongly as JVL meets WP:RS (despite Nableezy's baseless/factually-unfounded accusation that JVL doesn't). THE ABOVE IS ALSO NOT MEANT TO BE A COMPLETE LIST, BUT MAY BE USEFUL TO THOSE BESIDES NABLEEZY WHO WANT TO IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE. 72.48.252.105 (talk)

Ive removed israel-wat as I agree it is self-published. I havent looked at some of the others, mostly because your rant is so indiscriminate in what it attacks that it makes it hard to take the rest of it seriously. If you would like to challenge Morris or Said or Le Monde Diplomatique, by all means, feel free. I wish you the best of luck. nableezy - 08:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ^ 600,000 Jewish citizens, attacked by more than a million Arab citizens, and 6 hostile neighboring countries
  2. ^ India-Pakistan, Eastern Europe Greece - Turkey
  3. ^ http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=6946&sectionid=351020202
  4. ^ http://www.imemc.org/article/20936
  5. ^ Plotkin, Robert (2002-04-28). "Hamas would accept Saudi peace plan, spokesman says / Group would stop attacks on Israelis if occupation ends". The San Francisco Chronicle. 
  6. ^ Before Their Diaspora, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1984
  7. ^ Village Statistics of 1945: A Classification of Land and Area ownership in Palestine [1]
  8. ^ Abu Sitta, Salman (2001): From Refugees to Citizens at Home. London: Palestine Land Society and Palestinian Return Centre, 2001.
  9. ^ "Chefredaktør skrider efter kontroversiel artikel om 9/11". Vindeskab.dk. Retrieved 2012-07-23. 

Gaza Strip was never part of Egypt[edit]

Egypt never claimed that Gaza was part of its sovereign territory. Egypt maintained a military occupation of the Gaza Strip, and from 1949-1959, Gaza was ruled by the internationally unrecognized "All-Palestine" government (which did not exercise power over "All-Palestine" and was not a government (like the term "1967 borders", which describes armistice lines that were established in 1949 and which are de jure not borders)). The article claims that Gaza was "a part" of Egypt. On the contrary, the fact is that either Gaza was Egyptian-occupied Israeli territory or an unincorporated territory under the administrative control of the Egyptian army. Since both Egypt and Israel both currently renounce any claims to Gaza, Gaza is either an unincorporated territory with no state claimants (and therefore Hamas could issue a unilateral declaration of independence), or some kind of de facto State of Hamastan, which is engaged in an ongoing war with Israel, but I digress. Anyway the article is wrong and I don't have the power to fix it because it's locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.174.192 (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Objector's View Points - The Women 46[edit]

This is with regards to the [Viewpoints] section.

Some of those who are Jews change words from their context and say: "We hear and disobey; hear thou as one who hears not" and "Listen to us!" distorting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said: "We hear and we obey: hear thou, and look at us" it had been better for them, and more upright. But Allah hath cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, save a few. (An Nisa 4:46)

-Pickthall Translation[1]


مِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ وَيَقُولُونَ سَمِعْنَا وَعَصَيْنَا وَاسْمَعْ غَيْرَ مُسْمَعٍ وَرَاعِنَا لَيًّا بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ وَطَعْنًا فِي الدِّينِ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا وَاسْمَعْ وَانْظُرْنَا لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَهُمْ وَأَقْوَمَ وَلَكِنْ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ بِكُفْرِهِمْ فَلا يُؤْمِنُونَ إِلا قَلِيلا (46) mizzo (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Quran.com

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2014[edit]

Please replace the template call

{{Israel-Palestinian peace process}}

just below the "Background" heading with

{{Israel-Palestinian peace process |Primary}}

so that the relevant list in the template is shown.

Thank you, 213.246.85.251 (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks! LittleMountain5 21:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Al-Awda[edit]

The usage and primary topic of Template:Noredierct is under discussion, see talk:The Return (guerrilla organization) -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Stig Jagerskiold[edit]

The line added here can be found, verbatim, in a number of places, among them the Israeli MFA and the JCPA. I however am unable to locate a book called The Freedom of Movement by Stig Jägerskiöld. Can Averysoda (talk · contribs) please clarify where exactly he got this material. A publisher, or a date published, or any of the other items generally included when sourcing a book would be appreciated. nableezy - 17:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not a book, it's an essay published in The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ed. Louis Henkin (New York: Columbia Univesity Press, 1981). It's referenced in a lot of high quality sources - [4].
This information is available to anyone who puts "The Freedom of Movement by Stig Jägerskiöld" into a google search. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Well thanks for that, but that doesnt quite answer my question to the person who inserted the material. If that person actually found the original essay great, he or she can add the missing parts of the citation. But if they just pulled this from the JCPA or the MFA then we have a different problem. Id still like that answered, but thanks for answering a different question. nableezy - 21:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstood where you said "A publisher, or a date published, or any of the other items generally included when sourcing a book would be appreciated" after saying "I however am unable to locate a book called The Freedom of Movement by Stig Jägerskiöld". But hey, I'm happy to help in any little way I can. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Well if thats the actual source of the material then yeah absolutely, that is a big help. But for some reason, and maybe this is overly cynical, when I see the exact quote that is hosted at the JCPA and the MFA from a book that I cant find a digital copy of (ill head to a library to verify it no worries), I cant help but consider whether or not WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is an issue. nableezy - 22:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I read it in JCPA. I didn't know it was a crime. But NMMNG already found the original source, so the problem is resolved... I hope--Averysoda (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
In that case you should read WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and formulate your refs accordingly in the future. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I'll bear it in mind.--Averysoda (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please change his name in the article to "Stig Jägerskiöld"? ImTheIP (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"Scope of the issue" section[edit]

This whole section is mostly WP:OR. "Supporter's viewpoints" and "objector's viewpoints" pick out random viewpoints, based on no criteria and no standards. An academic article is counterposed with trash websites like "Myths and Facts", counterposed with randomly chosen text from UN resolutions or Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all based on no discernible standard, except that some are "supporting" and same are "opposing".

International law is complex. We should be citing the opinions of scholars on this matter, who look at the relevant points, as to which principles are applicable and which are not, rather than randomly picking out aspects that WP editors think are important. Kingsindian  14:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits to "scope of the issue" section.[edit]

@LoveFerguson: Even though I think the whole section is very bad, this edit is not good. Randomly attributing some information to "opponents" does not make it worthy to be included on Wikipedia. What makes a random blog post on the Times of Israel website or a comment by the website "Myths and Facts" notable? I have reverted this for now. Please note that 4 people, including myself, have reverted this material. I see continuous edit warring to keep it in. Kindly get consensus first, before adding this material again, per WP:ONUS. Kingsindian  15:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it has the same notability than Hussein Ibish and the "Al-Awda" organization in the section dedicated for those who support the right of return, but I'll ask the user who added this paragraph in the first place.--LoveFerguson (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The reason I added in was simply to present a common viewpoint. This is one of the most common arguments used by opponents of the right of return, and if we want to be fair to both advocates and objectors, I think it should be left in. That being said, I understand if you reverted it because it was a blog post, and I'll try to find a better source. However, please keep in mind that the two sections are basically just summing up common viewpoints of people for and against it, and there really is no reason not to include it.--RM (Be my friend) 04:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Palestinian right of return. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the history of this page, and it has only had very minor changes since August 2015. Like what's the point of having articles that no one can edit? Not only is the article very biased, it is also poorly formatted and structured. You'd be better off just deleting these frozen articles because their low quality is embarrassing. ImTheIP (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Position of Israeli govt. in the lead[edit]

Seems like pertinent information to have in the lead. No convincing reason to remove it that I'm finding. But feel free to argue otherwise. El_C 19:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C:, your edit description says "undid revision..." giving the impression that it was just a revert, and one that was intended "mainly" (your words) to correct the errors Wikipedia was giving. But...the diff view shows that you merged the 2 "opponent" paragraphs into a single paragraph, thereby inadvertently admitting that there is indeed a problem. It took only 1 byte to expose all of this. Did you think it was clever to risk your reputation with 1 byte? Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Risk my reputation by following WP:PARAGRAPH, no, no I did not. El_C 20:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


As a rule there should be no "discussions" in the lead. No pros and contras. The lasts edit introduced such material, which should be kept in sections, so I undid it. Debresser (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Still, it would be pertinent if a correlation to the Law of Return (חוק השבות) was drawn in the lead. (How am I doing, reputation-wise? (Rhetorical: answer is nyet good.)) El_C 06:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure if I disagree or am not understanding your argument. Please explain, El_C. Debresser (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Debresser:, if you feel that the text placement is turning the lead into a "discussion", then relocating the content under the proponents paragraph would've made more sense than complete removal. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Your point? Debresser (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I restored the text. Now you'll get the point. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I posted a WP:ARBPIA warning on your talkpage. Also, why would your restoring help me understand? Debresser (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Debresser, it's not too complicated. If you bothered to look at my edit, you would've seen that I restored the content, placing it at a different location this time, thus addressing the concern you had stated. But it seems you insist on *complete* removal and on retaining the status quo, and so far, you have not engaged in the discussion (believe it or not, acting stupid on the talk page like one has absolutely no clue what me and others mean is a pretty obvious and lame way of faking participation). Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm pointing to a certain symmetry that exists between the Law of Return and the Right of Return, both being rights of return, and both concerning people who inhabit the same locale. Does that sound like original research, though? El_C 21:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The Israeli law of return and international right of return are two very different things. The former is a domestic law of Israel and the latter is in the UNDHR, but is not part of customary international law. They also deal with different classes of people. There's no point conflating the two. Kingsindian   04:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I actually agree with Al-Andalusi. If proponents make the comparison as an argument for their case, then that should be in the article. The place it was put in the second time, seems the logical context to do so. Debresser (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Just skimmed the discussion, but it seem very weird how the introduction section is structured. First summary, then proponents view, then opponents view and then the government of Israel's view. While the Israeli view certainly is important, it is unfair to have it in the lead if the government of Palestine's view isn't also included. But then it becomes to cluttered. I therefore propose to cut it out and place it under the "Objectors' viewpoints" in the article. ImTheIP (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Palestinian right of return. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)