User talk:APKeaton

1RR violation at Demographics of Palestine‎[edit]

Please self-revert. --Frederico1234 (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Why? The truth is there is little proof of what happened in British Mandate Palestine. I don't see how Fred M. Gottheil is any less reliable than Justin McCarthy.[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_McCarthy_%28American_historian%29

Gottheil makes valid points about the changing economic situation in mandate Palestine caused by Jewish immigration and the likely labour force those changing conditions attracted. The Middle East Forum is a peer reviewed paper that includes editors from several Ivy League schools.

APKeaton (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to make more that one revert in 24h. This is called the 1RR rule, and is applicable to all articles covering the Israeli-Palestinian confilct. Please see this link for more info. --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous account?[edit]

Have you edited english Wikipedia under a different account in the past? --Frederico1234 (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, please answer. Zero^talk 13:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No

Stuff[edit]

1. The mandate period was 1918-1948, but twice you claimed that references to pre-1918 were relevant. They are not relevant. 2. MEQ claims to be peer-reviewed now, but it did not claim to be when Gottheil's article was published. Moreover, Gottheil is an economist and does not have qualifications in demography (unlike McCarthy, who is a professional demographer). So there is no contest. One can also mention (but not in the article) Gottheil's lack of reputation due to his association with From Time Immemorial. Treating Gottheil as a reliably source is highly questionable but a brief citation of his opinion has been allowed until now. More of him will not be allowed. 3. You may not copy citations from other sources into Wikipedia as if they are independent of the place you copied from, like you copied Gottheil's citation of Bachi. Do you have Bachi's book? Zero^talk 13:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original quote that I changed was also copied from the McCarthy article. It was not a direct quote. It was McCarthy's interpretation of other demographers and was purposely misleading.

Gotthiel is an expert in economics at the University of Illinois (a leading research university and "public Ivy" school) with a focus on the "Economics of the Middle East".

http://www.economics.illinois.edu/people/fgotthei/

He is most certainly qualified to weigh in on the history of Palestinian economics and how changes in those economics may have influenced the labour fource.

McCarthy, on the other hand, is employed at the University of Louisville, a far less regarded university. In addition, he makes statements about the economic situation within pre-Israel Palestine and comments on the reasons for those changes. He is not qualified to make those comments.

APKeaton^talk 15:11, 16 July 2011 (EST)

It seems that you don't belong here. Your edit at Palestinian people is was made with a false and phony excuse. I suggest you go away, as you will be blocked soon anyway. Zero^talk 20:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to discuss my changes to the "Palestinian People" section, I am all ears. The reference to the secondary source (the interpretation given by Ms. Gibbons) is wrong: http://bric.postech.ac.kr/science/97now/00_10now/001030a.html

The two genetic studies you've shown also don't say anything close to "Genetic analysis suggests that Arabs as well as Jews in the Southern Levant represent "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times."

They say that modern day Jews and Palestinians (as well as other populations from the Levant)do share some genes and have some recent common ancestors. The studies also show that Palestinians, like most other arab populations, share genetics with populations not from that area.

The statement by Ms. Gibbons suggests an unbroken and unchanged line of descent from prehistoric populations, which simply isn't supported by the genetics.

The entire text of the original study that Ms. Gibbons refers to can be found here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18733/pdf/pq006769.pdf

How about this:

Palestinian populations, like Syrian and Jewish populations, share some ancestry with "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times."

Also, my original edit was neither false nor phony. Ms. Gibbons web article is a secondary source. It also misinterprets the results of Mr. Hammer's paper.

APKeaton^talk 17:33, 16 July 2011 (EST)

"in-migration" means migration from other parts of the same district. Gilbar gives figures. Zero^talk 13:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't.

"In-migration" as Schmelz uses it refers to the migration of all Ottoman subjects. At page 23 he states:

"It seems that the recorded increases were mainly due to adoptions of Ottoman nationality and to in-migration (incompletely recorded) of Ottoman subjects.”

He doesn't differentiate between migration from other parts of Palestine and the rest of the Ottoman empire.

Also, please provide the reference to the Gilbar figures. All it says is Gilbar, 1986. No title of the book is given. I would like to see if he was making a similar comparison between pre-1905 economic growth and Mandate growth that Schmelz was making.

As far as I can tell Mr. Gilbar did not write a book in 1986.

http://mideast.haifa.ac.il/staff/gilbar.htm

His first book was written in 1990. Furhtermore, he didn't actually write the books. He was merely an editor that put together a bunch of papers from other authors. I will contact him directly to see if he agrees with your interpretation of his works.

APKeaton^talk 17:40, 17 July 2011 (EST)