Talk:Falastin

political position of the newspaper

Filastin lasted a long time, and it is not correct to use a description of its political stance in one time period as an overall summary. Actually it changed allegiances repeatedly. More sources are needed. Zero^talk 13:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Name

Looking through googlebooks, and searching for "Falastin newspaper" or "Filastin newspaper", I get about 30 for the former and 40 for the latter.

However, the photo we have illustrating the article, clearly shows Falastin as being the newspaper's own spelling.

I propose to amend the article name to match the photo.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The name of the paper was transliterated as Falastin from its very start while the Arabic name was indeed Filastin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ארינמל (talk • contribs) 11:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Since its Arabic name was Filastin and that appears in various articles published by the Institute for Palestine Studies and elsewhere perhaps the article should be retitled Filastin and its opening changed to something like "Filastin was an Arabic-language Palestinian newspaper whose title appeared as Falastin under it's Arabic title.". Mcljlm (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Falastin (newspaper). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151208173841/http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/academicians-extol-pioneering-palestinian-newspaper to http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/academicians-extol-pioneering-palestinian-newspaper

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Extent of influence

"Falastin... helped in shaping the modern Palestinian citizen, bringing the villages and cities together, building Palestinian nationalism and deepening and maintaining Palestinian national identity" reads the article, but UN records indicate that some 28% of Arab children in urban areas and 65% in rural areas were illiterate. --ארינמל (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok?...... --Makeandtoss (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, seeing as roughly 63% of the settled Palestinian (Muslim, Christian and other) population was rural, that means only one in two Palestinians could read. Keeping that in mind, together with the fact that there were several other Arab newspapers, the quote above seems like an exaggeration. Do we have any data on circulation? --ארינמל (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's what I was able to find: According to a report by the Palestinian Public Information Office, Falastin's circulation was 3,500-4,000 in 1940. The chief editor was Yousif Hanna (while Issa El-Issa was the proprietor). By comparison, the Jewish daily Davar had a circulation of 25,000 and Haaretz of 17,000 at the same time (surely owing to the fact that only 2% of Jews were illiterate according to UN records, and in spite of the fact the Arab population was twice as big). Ibrahim Shanti's al Difa'a, another Palestinian daily, had the exact same circulation as Falastin. al-Liwa was slightly less popular with a circulation of 1,500-1,700.--ארינמל (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Mr researcher, spare us the original research. Makeandtoss (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The figures stem directly from reports of the Public Information Office and the UN committee. I did the simple calculation of applying the percentages to the corresponding populations to make a point. Could use this instead: 70.3% of Arab males and 92.3 of females were illiterate according to the 1931 census or just the census directly. Either way, it stands. 3,500-4,000 papers per 1,237,330 people cannot possibly be responsible for "shaping the modern Palestinian citizen, bringing the villages and cities together, building Palestinian nationalism and deepening and maintaining Palestinian national identity." It was second to al-Difa'a in popularity during the 1940's and in 1950 it had dropped to a circulation of 2,500 according to UNESCO. In 1965, in what appears to be its peak, it had a circulation of 8,500 in Jordan --ארינמל (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The claim in the text is not in dispute (see [1] for a representative sample of reliable sources) and no amount of literacy statistics is going to change that. The key role of newspapers in forming national identity is not dependent on the entire nation reading them… see Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities. This is original research to make a novel claim about Filastin. If you want to find a reliable source on Palestinian nationalism that rebuts the text in the article, you can share it here, but your own opinions or conclusions don't qualify for inclusion in the article.--Carwil (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Very well. Is the claim that "Falastin covered sport news in Ottoman Palestine which helped in shaping the modern Palestinian citizen, bringing the villages and cities together, building Palestinian nationalism and deepening and maintaining Palestinian national identity" at all presented in the source article by Issam Khalidi? The entire part describing the newspaper sports coverage in Ottoman years (1911-1920) is just two paragraphs. "Some of the sports news appeared in Filastin before World War I. The scarcity of news was due to the modest number of sports activities which were in their infant stages," Khalidi writes. These sports news, he goes on describing, were a 70 word notice about a football match between the Beirut college and "Israeli youth" and a small club in Jaffa with "Arab and European members" which held a marathon between seven men and was accused by Falastin of advocating gambling. That's all.

Is Issam Khalidi, "an independent scholar living in Monterey, California", at all a reliable source? He references his own works six times in the footnotes for his article.

"The Palestinian Arabs have three daily papers, the largest having a circulation of 3,000. This is the Falastin of my friend Joseph Hana, who was not particularly depressed when his paper was prohibited by the Government. "When we again appear," said he, "we shall undoubtedly sell double our numbers and rapidly make up our losses." He said this in spite of the fact that the collective circulation of all the Arab papers in Palestine is less than the circulation of the Davar. The great differences between Hebrew and Arabic book and newspaper production are due, apart from the proverbial book-hunger of the Jews, to the fact that the Arabs are for the most part still illiterate; in Palestine only some 130,000 of the 1,000,000 Arabs can read and write. Of every thousand Mohammedan Arabs only 144 can read and write, as compared with the 934 per thousand of the male Jews." - Palestine at the Crossroads, 1937, by Ladislas Farago --ארינמל (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

From what I can see of Ladislas Faragos work: he is hardly WP:RS, Huldra (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

And Khalidi, who has no credentials? At any rate, the line in question has no basis in his article to begin with. I admit I tackled it from a wrong angle with what was, at first, original research. But I've proven my point either way. Also, I would like to point out how rare it is to find a source arguing for the insignificance of something like a newspaper (or almost anything for that matter) --ארינמל (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

What happened in 1933?

The Palestine Gazette of 15th June 1933, p762, contains the following: "Notice is hereby given that a permit, No. S.11, has been granted on the 18th day of May, 1933, under the hand of the District Commissioner, Southern District, to MR. ISSA DAUOD EL-ISSA, residing at Jaffa, to publish six times a week at the printing press situated at Ajami Road, Jaffa, a newspaper in the Arabic language entitled "Falastin", treating of news, moral and political subjects with illustrations and under the editorship of YOUSEF EFF. IBRAHIM HANNA. — E. MILLS. Acting Chief Secretary. 7th June, 1933." I didn't add this to the article because I don't have any context as to why a permit was needed in 1933 when the newspaper already existed for a long time. Zero^talk 05:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Anything to with the 1933 Press ordinance? Maybe all the permits had to be reissued or something.(Publication of a newspaper in Israel is illegal without a permit from the government, which continues to implement the Press Ordinance enacted by the Mandatory Government in 1933. Mass media in Israel)Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Yes, that's the most likely explanation. Certainly the permit was issued under the Press Ordinance 1933. Zero^talk 01:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it was an attempt to censor the Palestine press (mainly, although it applied to all), to force publication verbatim of all gov announcements, lots of new rules, etc etc. Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Albert Einstein correspondence

Still needs more elaboration, not less of it. Removing information about this correspondence is disruptive. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Duvasee: Do you even know what undue means, or have any arguments why you keep changing these edits? Continuing to revert without using the talk page is disruptive behavior. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the late response. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the Einstein letter or the Orthodox movement, but devoting entire sections for them in an article of this size is undue, as those are non-primary topics in regard to this article. Duvasee (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Duvasee: WP:UNDUE refers to prominence of viewpoints, not to factual content. There are dozens of dedicated sources on the newspaper's relationship with the Orthodox movement, which was the newspaper's initial aim anyway. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. As for the Einstein letter, it has been widely reported on Reuters, Business Insider and the Independent [8]. Now since coverage has been demonstrated, these edits will be restored. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

UNDUE is part of our NPOV policy, which relates to all content, not just "viewpoints" and requires that content be presented according to its weight in mainstream RS narratives. The choice of which facts to report and how to frame them is of the essence to NPOV. WP:NOTABILITY is not what is meant by WEIGHT, and it is not helpful to conflate the two policies. Finally, disputed content should not be restored prior to working out consensus on the talk page. Declaring that your view is correct and that you will restore the disputed content is edit-warring. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Even a cursory reading of WP:UNDUE would disabuse somebody of the notion that any of that is true. nableezy - 18:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." WP:Notability talks about whether or not to have a standalone article.

There are no significant viewpoints that Einstein did not correspond with the Falastin newspaper, or that something happened differently.

Objecting without reason to edits by throwing in random Wikipedia guidelines is extremely problematic. Please cease from this increasingly worrisome behavior across multiple Wikipedia articles, before this behavior warrants intervention to ensure Wikipedia stays a pleasant place to edit for everyone. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

This is disputed and now involves a number of editors, so let's not impose any version without consensus first. Again and as per the above, the level of the material included about the Orthodox movement in the last edits is in fact undue and WP:OOS, with the extent before that being sufficient for an article of this size. Duvasee (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"a number of editors" == Duvasee and SPECIFICO. And I have not seen any convincing argument for removing this, sorry, Huldra (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

How is it UNDUE? What perspective is not given its due weight here? How is it out of scope? Just saying something isnt an argument. nableezy - 00:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

We should not force disputed material regardless of for/against ratios per WP:CON. At any rate, the quote and the mini subsections are unessential and unnecessary, and the vendor image is best suited in the gallery alongside the other two images. Duvasee (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Why do you feel that it is unessential and unnecessary and what policy supports that position? nableezy - 01:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Duvasee: You do realize that you are engaging in edit warring, and that your five reverts of multiple editors, and two reverts in the same hour, is a violation of WP:1RR that will get you almost immediately topic banned? Please immediately self-revert and then engage in the talk page. Consensus works by giving proper counterarguments based on Wikipedia guidelines, not just opposing for no reason. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is currently not under 1RR. As for the quote and minisections, MOS:PARA states "short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings," and MOS:QUOT "using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style," as the article already has more than enough images and quotes, as well as a gallery, for its size. Duvasee (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Duvasee, the entire topic is under 1RR. I strongly suggest you self-revert and review WP:ARBPIA4, specifically Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Was not aware of the former; undid. Duvasee (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Per the above, WP:SILENCE, and it having been more than 24 hours since the last revert, I have reinstated the prior version. Duvasee (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You still have not explained why you think it is unessential and unnecessary or why you think either of those things entitle you to remove well sourced material. Filibustering is not an acceptable editing tactic. nableezy - 03:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Pardon? You could perhaps argue that the quote and subheadings in themselves are not "unessential and unnecessary," but at the current state of the article, MOS:PARA and MOS:QUOT clearly apply. Duvasee (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The entire article has barely 3 quotes, please spare us this fruitless discussion, so we can focus on more important things. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The quotes are unencyclopedic. If there are not abundant secondary RS that can be summarized and paraphrased to support such content it is further evidence that the content is UNDUE and should be removed entirely. SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Just saying something doesnt make it true. How are they "unencyclopedic"? nableezy - 17:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to my second sentence above. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you didnt give an argument there, just made a statement of personal belief. nableezy - 17:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry it is not clear to you. That is our NPOV policy - Jimbo often says something very similar to that second sentence when discussing the WEIGHT/UNDUE determination. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Jimbo isnt god king here, sorry. But what is UNDUE about this. You keep asserting that it is, but refusing to explain your edits is tendentious editing and prohibited on Wikipedia. Please stop filibustering and start engaging. nableezy - 20:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a straw man. Nobody is worshipping Jimbo, but the fact that he repeats this explanation of NPOV from time to time is sufficient to refute any assertion that such understanding is incorrect out of hand. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You need to be able to explain what it is about this material that fails DUE. Not restate the policy as though it were self-evident. nableezy - 23:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, adhering to guidelines, such as Manual of Style, is far from "fruitless;" it's compulsory. The two bottom quotes are fine, but the one at the top is overkill and, as explained by WP:OQ, crowds an article of this size; the key here being the latter. Duvasee (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"Overuse happens when:

• a quotation is used without pertinence: it is presented visually on the page but its relevance is not explained anywhere;
• quotations are used to explain a point that can be paraphrased;
• the quotations dominate the article or section."

None of these conditions apply, so the quote about what the newspaper's owner thought about the patriarchate will stay. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The second and third points do apply, and WP:QO is an essay, not a guideline nor a policy, with its reference being to give some explanation and advice regarding the guideline; further, responding with so-and-so "will stay" is unconstructive and borders on WP:UNCIVIL. The criterion which is to be followed here is MOS:QUOT, which, in accordance to and as elucidated above, the quote is inapposite. Duvasee (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I integrated the quote into the text, and there has yet to be an explanation as to how covering these topics is UNDUE. Please explain the objection instead of just repeating the unsubstantiated claim that it is UNDUE to cover this material here. nableezy - 20:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

If you'd refer to the above, you'd see that I didn't say covering them is undue; the undue-ness is in reference to MOS:PARA. Moreover, MOS:QUOT is applicable regardless if the quote is within the clause or not; the majority of the quote is redundant and is already construed in the sentence before it, I've trimmed that portion per the former. Duvasee (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Duvasee: not only have you reverted again and removed sourced information without any basis, you have also rejected a significant concession made by @Nableezy: to remove the block quotes and integrate within the text. Your behavior is currently being discussed on the enforcement noticeboard and it seems likely that it won’t go well for you. Revert yourself immediately. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I did not reject it, the quote is in the text. I simply trimmed a redundant portion of the quote that is already paraphrased in the sentences prior per MOS:QUOT, which states "Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". Duvasee (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Duvasee: You rejected the compromise, a main component of reaching consensus on WP, by removing the quote all-together and paraphrasing it. The quote, whose significance is evident by its usage in the source already provided, and in this article as well, will be restored and not paraphrased. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I didn't; baseless WP:AOBF accusation and circular reasoning. Also, complying with MOS does not undermine content. The only rejection here is from you towards MOS:PARA and MOS:QUOT. Duvasee (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The use of a quotation in a single select source, or even several select sources does not establish that it is suitable NPOV article content. If there's any dissent from that fundamental policy application, then those who advocate it should solicit advice at NPOVN. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You just saying something does not make it true. NPOV means covering all views with accordance to their weight in the sources. Not whatever some random person on a Wikipedia talk page thinks should be covered. You do not own this article and I do not need to pretend like your opinion is the deciding factor here. I’ll be adding material from reliable sources. You want to delete it? Fine, we can see how that works out. nableezy - 18:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Alleged 1921 suspension

To editor VirginiaEwe: The source you provided for a 2-month suspension in 1921 says "On May 4, 1921, Falastin newspaper wrote about the rejection of the Balfour Declaration. Addressing the public, it said: “Citizen of Palestine, you have the final say.” Such writings were considered provocative by the authorities, and the newspaper was suspended for two months." However, the National Library of Israel's archive of this newspaper does not have a May 4 edition and has multiple issues in every month from March to December. The issue numbers at the top right are consecutive from April to the end of May, so the explanation is not that the library is missing a May 4 issue. The only thing I noticed is that the May 21 issue has a blank first page, which was a type of punishment short of suspension. So I believe your source has the facts wrong and I'm removing it. More information might be obtained by reading the few issues before the one with a blank first page to see if there was an article on the Balfour Declaration, but my Arabic is effectively nonexistent. Zero^talk 04:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This would explain: "In May 1921, in an act of defiance, the paper's editor published three issues under the masthead of another paper, al-Akhbar." [9] But I don't support the reinsertion of the claim since the source used is mediocre and relates to art. There are a lot of academic RS on the newspaper, and so it deserves an expansion in a good quality that would eventually be promoted to GA. Hopefully this can be undertaken in the near future. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The mastheads all look the same for April-June 1921. So I'm still puzzled. I guess it is possible that the newspaper sold on the street differed from the one kept in the archive. The description at NLI only mentions Al-Akhba for 1936–1939. Zero^talk 12:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Naturally, since it was legally another newspaper, and it wasn't "officially" confirmed. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)