Talk:Palestinian territories/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

including the words "called Judea and Samaria by Israel" near the top of the article

Hello. I have attempted to add the words "called Judea and Samaria by Israel" at the start of this article. In truth, even the title "Palestinian territories" biases the article, since Israel has long been on record that it has valid (if negotiable) claims on the territories. But at minimum, the article should include the terminology by which Israel calls these areas. Comments, please? Thanks Avigoldstein (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia n stuff! This article actually encompasses all of the Palestinian territories so I think you are looking for the West Bank article. Also the I/P articles on WP are a continuation of the conflict itself so if you want anything to stick you'll have to brush up on your policy and be prepared to spend hours bickering on talk pages :P. It ends up being less like editing and more like parliamentary politics. Just move slowly. Good luck! Sol (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines on naming conventions for the West Bank are located here [1] harlan (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Sol and Harlan, for your input and these references. I see now that Judea and Samaria will not fly as terms in this article. But I wish to put the title of the article up for discussion. The expression "Palestinian territories" presumes that the West Bank belongs to the Palestinian Arabs. The title therefore does express a POV. The equivalent opposing term would be "liberated territories," which would presuppose that the West Bank belongs to Israel. How about a more neutral term such as "disputed territories" or "administered territories"? Avigoldstein (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That information is mentioned in the first, "Name", subsection of the article. [2] harlan (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I do see this; however, the title of an article carries enormous weight. The NPOV would be that these are disputed areas; the fact that the UN considers the territories "Palestinian" does no more than demonstrate the bias of the UN. Avigoldstein (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV policy on naming articles is pretty clear.[3] "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." The topic name "disputed territories" could very easily be appropriated by other places like the Falkland Islands, Tibet, & etc. harlan (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Then why not title the article "West Bank and Gaza," terms that clearly define the territories being discussed, terms that are recognized by readers, yet terms that demonstrate much less bias than "Palestinian territories"?Avigoldstein (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And why should the article on the territory in Palestine that was taken by Jewish forces, and later the IDF, in 48 be called Israel? It clearly biases the reader, right? nableezy - 16:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing was "taken" by Jewish forces. The U.N. voted to divide the British Mandate into two states. Israel would be the state of the Jewish people, in a small sliver of their ancestral homeland. The other state (I don't know what it's name would have been) would have been the state of the Arabs in Mandatory Palestine. But the Arabs turned down this division and instead invaded the nascent state of Israel. If you wish to challenge the legitimacy of Israel (something that even the Palestinian Authority and the PLO claim to have accepted), you should also challenge the legitimacy of Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, all of whom are basically carved-out states rewarded to influential Arab families.Avigoldstein (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil side discussion

You really need to read a book or two. nableezy - 18:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I think you are supposed to be commenting on the content, not on the character. Regardless, I have read many books, from many sides of the conflict. If you wish to join those who question the right of Jews to a state in their ancestral homeland (a land in which, despite attempts to expel us, we have lived uninterrupted for thousands of years), then I think that puts you beyond the pale of those who engage in reasoned discussion. Perhaps the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions page would be a good home for your view.Avigoldstein (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Avigoldstein (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There already are articles about the West Bank and Gaza. This article is about the Palestinian territories. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Malik, yes, there are such articles, and the article titled West Bank is actually pretty good. And the present article is not bad. I wonder whether they should be merged, since there is considerable overlapping. Please excuse me if I miss some things that are obvious to you; I am very new at Wikipedia!Avigoldstein (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Avi, please. Try to understand that this page describes a topic in wide use, with very high relevance. Its international status is widely accepted. What has happened in the Israel-Palestine articles is that aspirational claims have generally been rejected as naming conventions, including for example Palestine, which does not refer here to the country, but to the geographical region. Please don't waste collective time with this, as it's going nowhere.--Carwil (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Request quotation

I'm opening this discussion section per WP:EDSUM and this diff. I've added link for the online document, per SD request. Request quotation is used to request a direct quote from the cited source, to be provided on the discussion page so that it may be verified that the source can verify the statement or has been interpreted correctly. This is particularly helpful for sources that are not available online or are difficult to obtain in order to check the editor's interpretation. I guess SD request was reasonable, when link was missing. Do we need RQ now? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you requesting something from me?

Please clarify.

I supplied the link to the Middle East Quarterly article. What more is it that you want me to do? I can cut and paste the article, if that will be helpful. Thanks. Avigoldstein (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Avi, no problem I will clarify. I've opened this discussion, to avoid silly edit wars, since I was not satisfied with this diff. Per this guideline: Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. So basically I have doubts that RQ is needed at this point, since every editor could click a ref's link read and verify, but maybe other editors disagree. Let's wait and see. If no one is going to object, let's say within 24 hours, I will go ahead and boldy remove the RQ template. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Agada (im tirtzu, ein zu...), please indulge me here, since I am new at this. What is a diff? I understood an edit war to refer to someone consistently trying to change something and someone else undoing it. Here I added a sourced sentence over three days ago. No one has disputed this line (and indeed it is a fact, with other sources to back it up). So I am not sure why this might constitute an edit war.Avigoldstein (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Avi, I guess Wiki lingo takes some time to get used to ;). If you have any question, feel free to ask. Here is a definition of diff: diff usually represents an edit or content change. As far as I understand, this how it went:

1. You have added the content and reference, here, without online link for MEQ article used as ref to support the content.
2. SD (short Supreme Deliciousness) reviewed your change, and requested a quote, here, from the MEQ article so the content you have added could be verified. I guess it was a reasonable move on SD part, since verification (and not truth is the Wikipedia criterion for inclusion of content. If content can not be verified it might get removed, eventually.
3. So in order to help SD, I (AgadaUrbanit), googled for MEQ article and added online link and removed Request quotation template, here, since I believed it was not needed anymore. However it was a minor edit, since I did not change any content, only added http://www.meforum.org/522/the-smoking-gun-arab-immigration-into-palestine to ref.
4. For reason, which is unclear to me, Nab ( short for Nableezy ), restored the Request quotation template, here. This was a strange move if you ask me, but maybe Nab had a good reason, he is very experienced and well known editor. I've learned a lot from Nab about editing Wikipedia.
5. At this point, I was concerned, with Nab's edit (or diff as I put it earlier) so I started this section of discussion, in order to request involved editors (SD, Nab) to express their opinion, I did not request anything from you, Avi. Maybe there is a good reason for the Request quotation template, but I personally do not see it.

So we're going to wait and see for other editors to express their opinion. The wait is crucial to avoid silly edit wars, which are unfortunately common in the area of Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles. I hope I made myself clear. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Nableezy, but I am confused as well. This is a long and complicated article. It concludes in this paragraph:

The precise magnitude of Arab immigration into and within Palestine is, as Bachi noted, unknown. Lack of completeness in Ottoman registration lists and British Mandatory censuses, and the immeasurable illegal, unreported, and undetected immigration during both periods make any estimate a bold venture into creative analysis. In most cases, those venturing into the realm of Palestinian demography—or other demographic analyses based on very crude data—acknowledge its limitations and the tentativeness of the conclusions that may be drawn.

It's not clear to me how the included sentence can be derived from this. The closest I found on a quick read was:

It is not surprising then that the British census data produce an Arab Palestinian population growth for 1922-31 that turns out to be generated by natural increase and legal migrations alone. Applying a 2.5 per annum growth rate[30] to a population stock of 589,177 for 1922 generates a 1931 population estimate of 735,799 or 97.6 percent of the 753,822 recorded in the 1931 census. Does the imputation model then "prove" that illegal immigration into Palestine was inconsequential during 1922-31? Not at all.

This is pretty thin stuff on which to base a "there was considerable Arab migration during the period as well" statement. Avi, care to elaborate?--Carwil (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention this piece is authored by an economics professor in a journal that was not peer reviewed at the time this was published. Ive read the piece, and even if I were to accept that the author is qualified (he has written some other articles in better quality journals) and the source is "reliable", I dont see what in it supports the bald assertion made in the article. nableezy - 02:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nab, please see here about peer reviewed. Feel free to raise Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard request though. AgadaUrbanit (talk)

Agada, I know more about this than you think. MEQ says they instituted peer review in their Winter 2009 issue. This article is from the Winter 2003 issue. (see here) nableezy - 03:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nab, thank you for addressing me directly. I have a strong feeling that the source is secondary reliable one:

1. By the document style, citation and stuff
2. By the document author - known scholar
3. By the the fact that document is searchable by Google scholar, this how I got the ref in the first place. Google scholar results usually considered reliable by Wikipedia.

However, feel free to approach Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, disputing reliability here is useless. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Multiple noes. Having "citation and stuff" does not make something reliable. The author is an economics professor, not a scholar in either the migratory patterns of Arabs during the Ottoman Empire or in immigration in general. An article being indexed in google scholar does not make it reliable. But you miss the major point here; I wrote even if I were to accept that ... the source is "reliable", I dont see what in it is supports the bald assertion made in the article. The citation does not back what is in the article, that isnt touching on whether or not it is a reliable source. nableezy - 03:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, Nab, feel free to approach Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, disputing reliability here is useless. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Its these comments that make me question whether or not you actually are confused about what I am writing or if you are just playing the role. I just said that even if I were to accept that ... the source is "reliable". The point is not the reliability of the source, the point is that it does not support what is written in the article. nableezy - 03:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

My bad Nab, thank you for clarifying. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Carwil, thank you for joining in. Nab is very experienced editor, he probably had a good reason. I guess more eyeballs, better. You did not ask me, still let me help, hope you don't mind. There is a long discourse about the immigration, both internal and external. There are pros an cons points discussed. I guess Fred M. Gottheil, a professor in the department of economics, University of Illinois published by MEQ comes to following as conclusion, in Every Reason to Believe section:

Therein lies the ideological warfare concerning claims to territorial inheritance and national sovereignty. Contrary to McCarthy's findings or wishes, there is every reason to believe that consequential immigration of Arabs into and within Palestine occurred during the Ottoman and British mandatory periods. Among the most compelling arguments in support of such immigration is the universally acknowledged and practiced linkage between regional economic disparities and migratory impulses.

The precise magnitude of Arab immigration into and within Palestine is, as Bachi noted, unknown. Lack of completeness in Ottoman registration lists and British Mandatory censuses, and the immeasurable illegal, unreported, and undetected immigration during both periods make any estimate a bold venture into creative analysis. In most cases, those venturing into the realm of Palestinian demography—or other demographic analyses based on very crude data—acknowledge its limitations and the tentativeness of the conclusions that may be drawn.

Carwil, I am personally not sure, do you think it is enough to support the included by Avi claim? If not what claim could be supported by the provided source? Thank you for sharing your insight. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW we have this Fred Gottheil claim also here. Maybe clear attribution (something like Fred Gottheil said this and that) would be better? AgadaUrbanit (talk)

Nothing in what you quote supports the assertion that is made in the article. nableezy - 03:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If this is the one Fred Gottheil source we have, we have to admit that most of what he expresses is skepticism about other sources, Bachi and McCarthy. If we cite him, we should cite their opinions as well: B & M concluded [Arab in-migration is not significant], but G argues [the data is tenuous and there is every reason...]. Or simply, "It is debated by scholars whether the level of contemporary Arab immigration to Palestine was significant or not."--Carwil (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess your points make a lot of scene, Carwil. We could expand immigration discussion also here, alternatively we could wiki-link to full debate. Anyway, I hope Request Quotation is no longer relevant, so if there are no further objection, I'm going to remove the template, which was my original reason for this opening discussion. 10x everybody. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, a quotation has not been provided backing the claim in the article. If you would like to remove that template you can add a {{failed verification}} template. nableezy - 03:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nab do you think that American economist Fred Gottheil argues that there likely was significant Arab immigration, could work, like here? I guess now it is a question of proper neutral phrasing. BTW can I use your talk page? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Fred Gottheil was the source of the statistics used in the highly discredited book From Time Immemorial. Far from being a scholarly point of view among others, it is a fringe view that is not accepted by the great majority of scholars. Bacchi was the first Official Statistician (or similar title) of the state of Israel, so was hardly biased against an Israeli perspective. McCarthy is one of the leading demographers of the Ottoman region. If Gottheil is cited, then others more eminent than him must be cited as well and the conclusions of the many official enquiries of the mandate period, all of which state explicitly that the Arab increase was overwhelmingly natural, should be cited too. Zero^talk 05:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool facts Zero, 10x for the insight. Never heard of From Time Immemorial or McCarthy as Ottoman region leading demographers, but now I also see ref to both here, for instance. And thanks Google I also see that Professor Bacchi was in 1947 the first Government Statistician. See here. BTW agree that The moral claims of the sides should not depend on percentages of population. And even I know that before 1948 Arab population of Jaffa was 10 times bigger than after. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I have nothing new to add on the text, but want to thank everyone for combining reasonableness with a search for facts. Avi, four things for you as a newcomer: (1) this is what Wikipedia at its best looks like, where we learn things and potentially improve articles without too much hostility; (2) adding a source which doesn't seem to say what it's summary sentence says will often got checked out and changed, especially in controversial areas like Israel/Palestine; (3) when there is such a discrepancy, everyone's level of annoyance and skepticism rises, so it's best to fully read through sources you use, describe their opinion in full, and write for both sides in one's description; (4) as was the case here, many side issues to one article are the subject of another article (like Demographics of Palestine), so prioritize linking to an existing discussion, which may have been worked through to make it more NPOV--Carwil (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Carwil, thanks for your input; yes, as a newcomer I am finding Wikipedia a bit cumbersome. As for sourcing, whereas one of the sources quoted is the radical Noam Chomsky, who never lets facts get in the way of his anti-Israel opinions, for me to quote a source that I did read thoroughly and seems to confirm what I wrote seems reasonable. Re From Time Immemorial, contrary to what is written above, the book is most certainly not discredited. Written in the early eighties by journalist Joan Peters, it set out to prove how Jews had usurped Arabs in Palestine. What Peters found was the opposite, that a large number of the Arab population came to Palestine in the wake of the Jewish immigrations of the late 18th and early 19th century. After initial raves (including a NYTimes Book Review piece), the book was subjected to a bombardment of politically motivated attacks. While there may be parts of the book that are not well done (yes, it is a laborious read!), Peters' underlying thesis has never been successfully challenged. I would be quite comfortable quoting her instead of the citation I gave, except that the one I gave is online and easily verifiable while I don't think hers is. I highly recommend From Time Immemorial.Avigoldstein (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Avi, please read From Time Immemorial and tell me if you think the book is a reliable source.--Carwil (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Carwil, I read the book some time ago, and yes, I believe that it is a reliable source, at least on this point. And keep in mind, Peters actually started from the other point of view! Just to clarify, and again, I am grateful for this discussion, which has been very helpful for a newcomer, there is nothing wrong with Arabs having immigrated to Mandatory Palestine. Israel guarantees rights for the Arab minority, as stated in the Declaration of Independence and in many subsequent statements. What is wrong is that those who are anti-Israel have tried to claim that the Arabs, especially those who left in the wake of the 1948 War of Independence, were there for centuries, making the Jews usurpers. While I don't agree that this would make the Jews usurpers, for many reasons, Peters proved that even the premise was inaccurate. Hey, can anyone explain this thing about the four tildes? I don't even have a tilde on my keyboard. I have to copy and paste!Avigoldstein (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I assumed you had read the book. Read the Wikipedia article about it, which summarizes the scholarly response to it (which is overwhelmingly critical of her methods and conclusions).--Carwil (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, From Time Immemorial is "not discredited". I think that line demonstrates the type of propaganda being pushed here. Even the most rabid of "pro-Israel" partisans accept that this book is worthless as anything other than toilet paper. Try using that as a source, see how fast it gets removed. I have become convinced that this line does not belong at all. nableezy - 18:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment Nab, I know that your intentions are good, but it might appear as if you are commenting in toe of other editors. This is not your personal talk page where civility is not required. You were already warned on this talk page, by other editors. Please try not to disrupt the careful consensus building process. 10x, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

When you dont know what you are talking about it would be wise for you not to make any comments. Kindly do not discuss me. My comment was about the content of the article and the argument presented in favor of it. An argument that attempts to use discredited propaganda that even "pro-Israel" demagogues admit is discredited propaganda. If you have a comment on the substance of my argument you are free to make that comment. You are not however free to make comments about me. nableezy - 19:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll go to my corner and read a book or two. And thank you for letting all us know neutrally who real demagogues are......... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, Israeli historian Yehoshua Porath, who wrote a sharply critical review of FTI addresses here the principal issue raised by Gottheil:

It is true nevertheless that during the Mandatory period the Arab population of the coastal area of Palestine grew faster than it did in other areas. But this fact does not necessarily prove an Arab immigration into Palestine took place. More reasonably it confirms the very well-known fact that the coastal area attracted Arab villagers from the mountainous parts of Palestine who preferred the economic opportunities in the fast-growing areas of Jaffa and Haifa to the meager opportunities available in their villages.

--Carwil (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

We kind of drift away from the original topic of this discussion ;) However, I have to agree with number of editors here, we have to attribute clearly and say, according to this scholar, or according to that book. We, as Wikipedia, also have to bring opinions that disagree ( with external immigration point in this particular case ) see WP:DUE. Finding balance and symmetry, is the aim of those long discussions on article talk pages generally. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The author is not a "scholar", the publication is not "reliable" and the conclusions, which are not even in the source, are discredited by actual reliable sources. "Balance" does not entitle users to search the internet for any garbage source that supports their own viewpoint, we write based on reliable sources. FTI is about as far away from a reliable source as you can get, even past National Inquirer. Until an actual reliable source is provided that supports that line it should not be in the article. It is that simple, and no amount of game playing or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT changes that. nableezy - 19:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nab, slowly-slowly, please. There is consensus building process, please consider it. 10x, again. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Stalling tactics also dont change what Wikipedia policies demand for sourcing. nableezy - 19:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You just lost me Nab. Stalling tactics? By whom? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yehoshua Porath is a founder of the radical Peace Now movement. I would hardly count him among unbiased reporters. Please keep in mind that the Arab migrations (which it appears you acknowledge took place) may have come from other regions of Mandatory Palestine, including the seventy-eight percent of Palestine today known as Jordan. The specific focus here is Arab migration to areas within the June 4, 1967, boundaries or at least within the June 10, 1967, boundaries, from areas outside those boundaries. I don't see, Carwil, you denying that those movements took place.Avigoldstein (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont see, Avigoldstein, you providing a reliable source backing the statement you made in the article. Transjordan was not part of "Palestine", it was a part of the British Mandate but "Palestine" was treated separately from "Transjordan". nableezy - 19:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nab, could you clarify, the demographics article also does not use a reliable source? Maybe already mentioned debate is flawed? Feel free to approach WP:RSN if you again having reliability concerns. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, Nab, the Balfour Declaration included ALL of Mandatory Palestine, which was treated as one entity. This is clearly indicated in the White Paper report of 1922, which split off Transjordan from the rest of Palestine regarding the proposed homeland for the Jewish people. See http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_transjordan.php. A quote from there: "The 1922 White Paper (also called the Churchill White Paper) was the first official manifesto interpreting the Balfour Declaration. It was issued on June 3, 1922, after investigation of the 1921 disturbances. Although the White Paper stated that the Balfour Declaration could not be amended and that the Jews were in Palestine by right, it partitioned the area of the Mandate by excluding the area east of the Jordan River from Jewish settlement. That land, 76% of the original Palestine Mandate land, was renamed Transjordan and was given to the Emir Abdullah by the British."Avigoldstein (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There is so much wrong with the above that I do not have time to list the problems. Ill get back to this. nableezy - 21:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it is very wrong. Why do think the Balfour Declaration says "in Palestine"? It was not worded that way by accident. Also see here for discussion of www.palestinefacts.org (summary: never use it as a source). Zero^talk 22:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

revert

Nab, could you explain this revert, please? Basically we're here to discuss before editing. Please try not to disrupt the careful consensus building process. There were number of options considered. For instance we could wiki link the already mentioned debate in another article, alternatively we can add a fair attribution and brining opposing opinions, per WP:SUMMARIZE. Removing the external immigration claim completely is also an option, it is not that important, it is relatively a minor issue comparing to the large topic of this article. I have not seen an RSN request raised though. I guess question of balance and symmetry are also still open. Feel free to contribute. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been explained. This material was added by a user who used a source that both is lacking in reliability and which does not back the statement made. A bold edit was made, I reverted it. You cannot demand that whatever edits you like stay while it is under discussion. If you do not understand the explanations already provided there is not much more I can do. nableezy - 21:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Agada, does Nab have th::e right to simply remove an edit he does not like? I sourced my comment; I can source my comment as well with quotes from From Time Immemorial. Wikipedia guidelines seem to be met here. If we wish to edit out sources we don't like, how about starting with the radical linguist (that is his expertise, not politics) Noam Chomsky?Avigoldstein (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Nab has every right to edit this article, like everybody else of us. However while doing so every editor has to follow WP:Consensus. Building consensus, while opinions of editors are so far away from each other and there is an atmosphere of mutual distrust is tricky and slow process. We should not rely on our personal opinions, for sure, but use references. As rule of thumb, Secondary reliable sources are best ones, since they demonstrate notability and in most cases neutral point of view. The Wiki-editing ecosystem has many niches. Here for instance, description of WP:WikiKnight heavy weaponary:

The WikiKnight has no magical powers - it is the pureness of their WikiHeart that gives them their WikiStrength... Their only weapons are the ordinary ones - the Sword of Reversion, the Shield of Neutrality and the Helmet of References...

Hope it helps, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: I need to know the rules for how to proceed. Can someone just remove edits they don't like? Is there a hierarchy among Wikipedia users that permits some contributors to decide what they like or don't like? Nab, besides resorting to what amounts to street language in his comments, has decided to delete my comment. How do I proceed to restore my edit? thanks.Avigoldstein (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a helpful guide. And here. Veritable troves and wardrorkes of guides! Enjoy. Sol (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not remove an edit "I did not like", I removed an edit for which the source was both not reliable and did not support the text in the article. You can try to use FTI as a source, I would be very interested in seeing how long both the source lasted and how long until you would be banned from the article. FTI is discredited propaganda. There are requirements on sourcing for Wikipedia articles, and such garbage sources do not meet those requirements. nableezy - 21:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Avi, any material you source to FTI will certainly be removed, since a reliable source is required and that one isn't. Any editor is entitled to remove material from unreliable sources. Also, as a general principle, material which is hotly contested should be discussed before insertion, so that it doesn't become an insert-delete contest. Zero^talk 21:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Avi, we're in the middle of a Bold, revert, discuss sequence. Your bold edit has been reverted. Nableezy is in the terms of that article the "Most Interested Person." I'm equally interested, frankly, since your sentence is simply not backed up by the citation provided. FTI is simply not a RS, per the numerous critiques from scholars on all sides of the issue discussed at From Time Immemorial.

Avi and Agada, we can treat Gottheil as a reliable source unless and until there's something saying that indicates it too is "discredited." However, we have to weigh people who work on Palestinian demography with greater weight because this is quite clearly not his specialty. The same thing would go for Noam Chomsky, who whatever his prestige is not a specialist in Middle East studies (although he is regarded as an extremely experienced dissector of the diplomatic record, and of media discourse, something which is the bulk of his writing on Israel/Palestine).

Also, Avi, your comments on Chomsky and Yehoshua (who is now a Likud supporter) are not relevant to discussions of reliability. At best, you're suggesting these sources are WP:FRINGE, which they clearly are not (particularly in the global context). You're also ignoring the academic constraints under which the historian Yehoshua wrote. At worst, you're engaging in I just don't like it as argument.

I stand by my suggested alternate text above, concerning disagreement about whether immigration is significant. However, it's not clear that such text is necessary here on this page. So, Avi, the next step would be to explain what you think of the alternate text, or to present some evidence to convince me that your text is supported by RSs.--Carwil (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Carwil, I think I could live with your edit, especially if it links to the Demographics of Palestine wiki, where the controversy is aired out.Avigoldstein (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

To restate: It is debated by scholars whether the level of Arab immigration to Palestine in this period was significant or not.

Nab, does this work for you? Agada?--Carwil (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I guess this is getting a little bit out of hand and reminds me an unnamed brand accelerating car without breaks at this point and not a proper discussion ;) So let's just all chill out, take a deep breath and try to hear to each other carefully. After all Wikipedia is a community effort, and peer review of editors is our strength. More eyeballs better. I have to agree that there were number of problems with the removed content:

1. It did not reflect the source, in accordance with the provided source. Main issue imho, it reflected author opinion as fact, instead of, well as opinion of that author.
2. It did not balance author's opinion with opposing opinions. Actually what we have is debate between scholars which definitely not fully agree with each other.

However I'm having hard time to digest unreliable source claim, without proper procedure, i.e. WP:RSN. So what we can add is content about immigration dispute and let's concentrate on the topic and agree not to talk about Big Bang or Balfour declaration or Moral rights. All those are irrelevant and do not help this discussion. We, as Wikipedia, do not know what is the truth, we generally do not care and only publish verifiable content. I guess we're talking about addition to History section of this article. So how about this text which would come after Jewish immigration note:

There is a debate whether there was a significant Arab immigration into Palestine during first half of the XX century. American economist Fred Gottheil argues that there likely was significant Arab immigration. Martin Gilbert estimated that about 50,000 Arabs immigrated to Palestine from the neighboring lands between 1919 and 1939. Roberto Bachi has concluded that there was a small but significant unrecorded Muslim immigration into Palestine estimated at around 900 people per year or approximately 13,500 in total between 1931 and 1945.

However McCarthy argues that there is no significant Arab immigration. Gad Gilbar has also concluded that growth of the reasons for growth were "primarily local Arab Muslims and Christians." The official British Census data for Palestine concluded that Arab population growth was attributable to "natural increase", not to any substantial immigration.

I'm not married to this phrasing and would like to see other editors come forward with suggestions. I guess it is still bloated, and for sure need more work. I, personally, would like to see no more than two sentences about this dispute. It is also a good idea to provide wiki link to Demographics of Palestine on top of the History section. However, generally the dispute is notable per provided sources. Those scholars do their researches in this topic area and argue with each other, sometimes border civilly, instead of complaining on Scientology church, for instance, which is imho much more serious problem. The proposed phrasing, is neutral, hopefully reflecting all notable points of view, in accordance with due weight. I guess this is the proper Wikipedia way. Feel free to improve. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As an univolved editor who has been monitoring this debate, I see AgadaUrbanit's compromise as a fair summation of the argument that does not give undue weight to either side. The Interior(Talk) 00:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, but let's hold on a minute. If you read the FTM wiki, you will find that the book most certainly was not discredited. If one reads the FTM wiki, one finds that among its sources (perhaps the primary source) is an article in CounterPunch, which states that "a number of scholars" condemned the book. Yet he fails to cite these scholars, except for one, the anti-Zionist Norman Finkelstein. Who are these eminent scholars? Does he mean the post-Zionist Avi Shlaim? Or Robert Olson, whose credentials in this area I have been unable to determine? Or Yehoshua Porath, who at least at the time was prominent in Peace Now (this does not discredit him, but it does establish his POV). How about Barbara Tuchman, a truly eminent historian who supported Peters? Or Ted White? Or Alan Dershowitz? To say that FTM is discredited and then to repeat the statement as common knowledge does not make the statement true. So I continue to maintain, Nab, that FTM is a credible source. And so is Uriel Schmelz, who long ago chronicled the Arab migration into Palestine. Avigoldstein (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Avi, without going into reliability discussion which should be made elsewhere, i.e. WP:RSN, there is a dispute in question of immigration, per provided sources. So generally, we have to reflect also opposing view, per Wikipedia standards. This is how this project works. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Finkelstein is not a popular figure by any stretch of the imagination but he made his academic bones eviscerating FTI for it's shoddy research and creation of facts from whole cloth. Albert Hourani, Edward Said, Alexander Cockburn in the Nation, Avishai Margalit (Hebrew University), Yehoshua Porath, any British book review, the NYT (eventually), all agreed that the book is largely fictitious. Sol (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sol, Cockburn is, and Said was, radically anti-Zionist and anti-Israel. Yet if one wants to question FTI, that is fine. But to simply discredit based on specious sources is untenable.Avigoldstein (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude, it doesn't matter if all of the above academics are the earthly incarnations of Beelzebub and Yog-Sothoth, FTI still wouldn't be a reliable source. Perhaps you could find the same data from a more reliable one? Sol (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sol, you are just repeating yourself; and no matter how often you say it, repetition does not make something true.Avigoldstein (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I do favor compromise wording that gives voice to both sides of the debate, linking to the Demographics of Palestine wiki. Should I try a more concise wording than above suggestion? Will be happy to, but exhausted and not feeling well and could probably do so tomorrow.Avigoldstein (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I pointed out that a)people who's views we don't like can still be correct and b)you could probably use the material if sourced reliably. Neither of those things I've said before.

Back on topic, I think Agada's proposal looks pretty fair unless there's something I'm missing. Sol (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

See below. nableezy - 04:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How does this sound? "A body of opinion maintains that significant Arab immigration into Palestine accompanied the influx of Jews. The matter is not settled, with other scholars insisting that the Arab population increase is mostly attributable to natural increase." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine for a detailed discussion.Avigoldstein (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

All of these supposed "options" are placing greater weight on the opinions of less reliable sources as opposed to experts in the field. The source presented here is by an economics professor and was published in a journal that was not peer-reviewed at the time. The other "source" that is being discussed is what a large number of reliable sources call a complete fraud. And all this to do what exactly? To push the line that there arent really any Palestinians, that these are all just Arabs from other places claiming what is rightfully Israels. Please, which "scholars" are among this "body of opinion"? An economics professor? Joan Peters? And why would this line even belong in the article anyway? Does anybody dispute that the what is now known as the West Bank and Gaza Strip were overwhelmingly populated by Palestinian Arabs from well before the British Mandate? How would Arab immigration into those territories alter the demographic makeup of those territories? Why should that, even if it werent based on discredited propaganda, be included in the article? nableezy - 04:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

First, Nableezy continues to repeat the line that "reliable sources" call this a fraud, yet almost every source yet produced by those who disagree with me is far from reliable and certainly not peer-reviewed. I thought we had put this part to rest, but I guess not. Second, no one disputes that there was an Arab majority in large parts of Mandatory Palestine for a considerable period. Moreover, it is not my intention to imply that "these are all just Arabs from other places." Neither do I think that Arabs had no right to move into Palestine (if indeed they did).The issue here is whether the sentences describing Jewish immigration lend the impression that the Jews are interlopers when there may have been a significant consequent Arab immigration. I think this is a legitimate concern of mine. I thought we were moving to consensus; looks like Nableezy is not yet part of that consensus. Perhaps we can have input from the other interested parties.Avigoldstein (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

We're putting the output of this discussion alongside the following single sentence. "Large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place during the British Mandate, though Jewish immigration started during the Ottoman period.[18]" No one disputes whether Jewish immigration was significant, but quite a few people do dispute (as we're seeing here) whether Arab immigration was significant. Wouldn't an extended discussion of the issue be undue weight for this page? So, while I appreciate Agada's text, I don't see why it should be here instead of in a link.

Also, Agada and Avi, I don't see why you begin with what seem to be the less reliable of the sources (for reasons discussed above concerning areas of expertise). The following sentence, alone, however seems equally acceptable as my own: "There is a debate whether there was a significant Arab immigration into Palestine during first half of the XX century." vs. "It is debated by scholars whether the level of Arab immigration to Palestine in this period was significant or not." The pipe to Demographics of Palestine seems a little less clear, but it could work.

Gottheil's work continues to be a caution against all definitive statements, "As compelling as the arguments and evidence supporting consequential illegal immigration may be to some scholars, they are clearly unconvincing to others." "Lack of completeness in Ottoman registration lists and British Mandatory censuses, and the immeasurable illegal, unreported, and undetected immigration during both periods make any estimate a bold venture into creative analysis. In most cases, those venturing into the realm of Palestinian demography—or other demographic analyses based on very crude data—acknowledge its limitations and the tentativeness of the conclusions that may be drawn."--Carwil (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

p.s. The Gilbert quote (not fully referenced on Demographics_of_Palestine) comes from The Routledge atlas of the Arab-Israeli conflict By Martín Gilbert, and is uncited there. It reads, "As well as 360 000 Jewish immigrants between 1919 and 1939, over 50 000 Arabs also immigrated to Palestine (from nearby Arab States) attracted by the improving agricultural conditions and growing job opportunities, most of them created by the Jews." It's on page 16. It's doubtful that an atlas which is not stating a citation should be used as our extreme, or most reliable source, but these issues ultimately, in my view, affect Demographics_of_Palestine, not this page.--Carwil (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

p.p.s. This discussion of reliability roughly follows the issues discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#History.--Carwil (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: It turns out the state of the field is summarized by Mark A. Tessler, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Tessler is a respected scholar with centrist American connections, and the book "won national honors and was named a “Notable Book of 1994” by The New York Times." On page 211, he summarizes the entire controversy and the relative reliability of the sources involved. Everyone I've put in brackets is mentioned in the footnotes on pages 780-81.

At least some of the Arab population growth was the result of immigration from neighboring Arab countries, This immigration, most of which originated in Sinai, Lebanon, Syria, and Transjordan, was stimulated by the relatively favorable economic conditions of Palestine, not only in the Jewish sector but in the Arab sector as well. Most analysis report that this immigration was not of substantial magnitude. According to one scholarly estimate, for example, based on an analysis of census data from 1922 and 1931, Arab immigration represented only 7 percent of the 1922-1931 Arab population growth, and only about 4 percent of the settled Arab population in the latter year had been born outside the country.[Janet Abu Lughod] A few scholars and other observers have challenged these figures, contending that they are much too low. For example, making reference to the came census data, another analyst [Gottheil] asserts that Arab immigration represented as much as 38.7 percent of the 1922-1931 Arab population growth and, consequently, that approximately 11.8 percent of the 1931 Arab population was foreign-born. The significance of this discrepancy lies, in part, in its implications for compering claims about Arab and Jewish rights in Palestine, with some supporters of Zionism [notably Peters] asserting that heavy Arab immigration undermines the Arabs' claim to be the indigenous population of the country. Israeli as well as Palestinian scholars have disputed this assertion, however, concluding that it is at best a theory and in all probability a myth. As expressed by a highly respected Israeli analyst [Porath], who writes in direct response to Zionist arguments about large-scale Arab immigration, "one cannot escape the conclusion that most of the growth of the Palestinian Arab community resulted from a process of natural increase."

This should clarify the majority view per Wikipedia policy.--Carwil (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Carwil, I can live with your phrasing with a link to Demographics. What do the rest of you think? (I wonder, as an aside, what Tessler means by "born outside the country." The terminology seems anachronistic, since there technically was a Mandate, not a country. And does he include the three-quarters of Palestine that had been chopped off the promised Jewish national home in 1922 and made into Jordan as part of the country or outside the country?) At any rate, sounds good, Carwil.Avigoldstein (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Carwil phrasing and a link to Demographics. Generally I guess we should show that this talk page does have a purpose. I really appreciate Avi and Carwil efforts to read into sources and reaching a compromise neutral secondary wording, which does not favor any side if this dispute. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Agada, looks like more credit to Carwil for creating this formulation. Very interesting process here, as we seek to present verifiable information and avoid ... um... urban legends.Avigoldstein (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've boldly added the relevant content, feel free to review ("Mark A. Tessler", See also). We all have to thank to Carwil for digging deep into sources, to make this as neutral as possible. 10x again to everybody. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

I believe the infobox on Palestinian National Authority should be moved to this page, but would like to prompt discussion on the matter on its page, first, so feel free to head over there and voice your thoughts. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 18:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

After having left this topic open for several months and not eliciting any feedback, I have moved the infobox over. Other territories, such as Puerto Rico and Aceh, have the infoboxes, so I don't think this is radical at all. Please feel free to update the infobox as necessary to reflect the move. Also, at the same time I am removing it from Palestinian National Authority, as this is a governing political body of sorts, not the country/territory/region itself. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 16:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy of map at top of page

The map currently featured at the top of this page ('West Bank & Gaza Map 2007 (Settlements).png') inaccurately represents the extent of the area controlled by the Palestinian National Authority. Areas under PNA control in the West Bank are significantly exaggerated on the map, as is apparent from reviewing the source materials listed on the map file's own info page. I suggest that the green areas on the map be changed to more accurately represent the extent of Areas A and B, or be replaced with a map that does so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evzob (talk • contribs) 07:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this encyclopaedic?

I'm done. I was looking for a non-biased, non-partisan article. Guess I'll keep looking. The load of shit I found here reads more like something published by the PNA Public Relations Office.--72.47.85.22 (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

East Jerusalem

Is there a reason that East Jerusalem is excluded from this article in the definition and maps of the Palestinian Territories? 97.91.176.159 (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed a problem. Related to this, the line The Palestinian National Authority regards East Jerusalem as part of the West Bank, and consequently a part of the Palestinian territories may be accurate but it is woefully inadequate. It is not just the PNA that "regards" EJ as part of the oPt, but also the UN, the ICRC, and most states. The article needs several major modifications. nableezy - 20:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Israel/JNF owns land in Gaza and West Bank

Someone should add information because it is missing from the article but very relevant. Specifically, page 8: http://www.iasps.org/policystudies/ps49.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.77.156.152 (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect text in Map of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in relation to central Israel

The phrase "Under Israeli Occupation Since 1967" as part of the title of the map is not accurate. Being it a subjective statement, it should not be included in such map and in Wikipedia. Israeli forces withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 1994 [ref: http://www.actforpeace.org.au/What_We_Do/Where_We_Work/Middle_East/Israel_Palestine/Israel_Palestine_Timeline.aspx] and in 2005 from most areas of the West Bank. In spite of later sporadic and brief Israeli incursions into part of those territories as a response to Palestinian rocket bombardment of Israel, etc., those territories are actually under Palestinian control. Analogously for example, any blockade of American trade, flow of goods and sanctions we have against Cuba do not mean that we are occupying Cuba. (If Havana were to retaliate against the US by launching missiles into Florida, I would not be surprised if we punished Cuba severely.) If there are settlements and areas that are occupied by Israel, they can be specifically demarcated on the map, and the phrase in question could be used to qualify those specific areas only (for example, like Guantanamo is demarcated on a map of Cuba.) Therefore I request that the phrase in question be deleted from the title on the map, or the map itself be replaced with an updated one. 98.217.147.183 (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Asad112's revert

I think you are confused by saying "These are the territories of "Palestine" in which the Palestinians define as their own state and the majority of the recogni...", because this article is defined as geographic, while for the State of Palestine and the Palestinian National Authority you can find separate articles. By putting "country" template you are just hurting the reader's comprehension. Let's clarify:

State of Palestine, Palestinian National Authority - political entities with "country" template.

West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip, Palestinian territories, Israeli-occupied territories are geographical terms, without "country" template.

Can we be clear on this?Greyshark09 (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rico case

Well, Puerto Rico is the name of a Commonwealth, as well as "territory" (island). It is not the case for "Palestinian territories" - an area only theoretically identified with the State of Palestine, but actually controlled by three parties - Israel, PNA and Hamas-led government of Gaza. Claiming Palestinian Territories is a "state" you practically denounce the "State of Palestine", as the name of the entity. I bet you didn't mean to...Greyshark09 (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't claim to call it a state. It is an occupied territory (read "political region"), and thus it in my opinion justifies the infobox. This doesn't mean it is or isn't a country, but it does mean it acts, politically, more or less as one. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Palestinian territories" or "Israeli-occupied territories" don't act and don't do anything because this is a geographic term, while the entity which acts is the Palestinian National Authority (which has a country infobox), or if you like it might be the State of Palestine (which also has an infobox). Too many infoboxes just make a confusion whether the actual name of the current administration is the "State of Palestine", "PNA" or "Palestinian territories". I don't mind to leave State of Palestine and the PNA with country infobox, but "Palestinian territories" don't need one.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The State of Palestine is a political entity treated as independent of Israel. Palestinian territories is the equivalent geopolitical entity that is subject to Israel (hence being called a territory of Israel). The PNA is simply the "government", if you will, that governs the Palestinian territories. PNA is not a physical location. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 18:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what I mean to forward is that the infobox is used more as a regional/geographical infobox with statistics about that region instead of simply being just used for countries. Perhaps there is a more appropriate infobox. PNA definitely shouldn't have it in my opinion, though. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 18:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is the contrary - Palestinian National Authority status is somewhat similar to that of Puerto-Rico Commonwealth. Palestinian territories are 1967 borders of West Bank and Gaza strip. West Bank includes areas governed by Israel (Judea and Samaria area) and by PNA (area "C").Greyshark09 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

PNA is an "administrative organization", not a place...? I don't know how that correlates to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico? Not trying to argue, just trying to understand. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 00:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

PNA correlates to All-Palestine Government, which also has a suitable template. In the end, i imply Palestinian territories is a geographic term, even though it is sometimes used as a synonim to PNA. If you think Palestinian territories is interchangable with PNA, and we merge the articles, i would agree, yet territories as defined here shouldn't have a country template.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That isnt accurate, Palestinian territories i not interchangeable with PNA. The PNA is an interim administration that has certain administrative and governmental functions in parts of the Palestinian territories. It performs no actions in the majority of the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem), which remains classified as Area C, and has no status in East Jerusalem which is in the Palestinian territories. The oPt is not analogous to Puerto Rico. nableezy - 16:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, i guess you remark is for Araignee, with whom we try to understand each other. The question is however which one has to hold the "country-template" - PNA or Palestinian territories, because it doesn't make sense to have two articles with "country" template (it is very confusing to readers). My logic is that the PNA has to hold the country-template (like the case of All-Palestine Government, while Palestinian territories is a geographic article, thus we need to drop it here, and stop the confusion.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a trivial issue. The name of a template is irrelevant. Just remove the things that do not apply. I would say just remove the Government fields as most of the rest is pertinent information. Whether or not the template is named Infobox country really doesnt matter, the only people who even see that are those editing the article. nableezy - 17:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be for simply removing the government field if that is what is bothering you (Greyshark09). I don't quite understand your logic, but perhaps it's me being thick. Regardless, I'll not contest any changes at this point, though I imagine others might. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 22:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I would agree on the removal of "government" fields, leaving the rest of the template, though i'm concerned other users would quickly "add" the missing info, just like someone did two days ago. Anyway, let's try at this point.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Mahmoud Zahar

[4] "'Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip? When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable,' Zahar said." Retrieved from Ma'an News Agency, January 5, 2012

This statement was deleted from the article, on the premise that Zahar also said "since we are resisting occupation, we should use all means including armed resistance." But the full paragraph in which he says that is:

"We can't use the same means seen in Egypt, Syria, and Tunisia because they are inappropriate in the West Bank. Egypt got rid of the British occupation with arms, and since we are resisting occupation, we should use all means including armed resistance."

He is saying that the West Bank is occupied, not Gaza. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:State_of_Palestine#Mahmoud_Zahar. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, what was your justification for deleting a reliable source? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:State of Palestine#Mahmoud Zahar. It's silly to have this discussion in two places. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Attn: Malik

Which part of this edit that you reverted do you have a problem with? Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem with you edit-warring and gaming the 1RR rule. As I wrote in my edit summary, start a Talk page discussion about the language in question. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I started it. Now can you please tell me if you see anything substantively wrong with the edit? If you can't, kindly self revert or you may perhaps come across as wikilawyering and editing tendentiously, especially when you chose to revert my edits instead of those of some IP hopping sock/banned whatever. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

An IP who made two edits separated by three days as opposed to an experienced editor who made the same reversion twice in 27 hours? Give me a break. Now tell me again who's gaming the system?

Okay, whatever, I admit it. Let's move on please. Can you please tell me if you see anything substantively wrong with the edit? If you can't, kindly self revert. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

So in the time I asked you three times to explain the substance behind your removal of sourced content all you can do was add a CN tag to an article about a porn site.[5] Shameful.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Trying to force a prolific edit-warrior to discuss is far from "shameful". As for why it was reverted, the IP gave a pretty poor reason. I reverted it again for several reasons. Firstly, it's in the wrong place. The paragraph is about territorial claims and terminology. The edit split information with a clumsily written sentence about defence and security. As for the extra bit in the first disputed paragraph, it just elongates a two-part sentence into a three-parter with little need. Nightw 15:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The IP's reason ("completely unsourced hogwash") was moot because in my revert I added a source.[6] It was never "hogwash" and now it is sourced. So what it boils to is that content that was in the article since who knows when was removed twice by an IP on false grounds (it was not "hogwash"), removed again by Malik on spurious edit warring grounds, and now removed again by you because its in the "wrong place" and vague claims of bad grammar (move it and fix the grammar). So now, long standing content, now sourced, has been removed four times and each explanation given has been more nonsensical than the one prior. Welcome to Wikipedia.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll tell you what's hogwash. Making pretend that junk added last week by an IP is "content that was in the article since who knows when". Sheesh. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not up to me to "move it". It isn't relevant to the subject being discussed in that paragraph. As Malik indicates, it's not "long standing content". It was added for the first time about an hour before the IP that you edit-warred with reverted it. It was added with no care to a random paragraph that discusses a completely different topic. Nightw 13:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

First sentence in Lead

Currently, the first sentence does not say what "Palestinian territores" actually are. It just mention the historical fact that they're "part of the area predestined by the United Nations to become the territory of the future arabic/Palestinian state". While that certainly is an important fact which is approprate to include in the lead, I don't think it should be the first sentence the reader sees. The first sentence should say what the article topic actually is about.--Frederico1234 (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, do you have a proposal for the first sentence? Dlv999 (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Something like: "The Palestinian territories comprise the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip." --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the old sentence shortly. The new wording ("predestined"?) is nonsense. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

use of "international community"

Please state who makes which claims about terms such as "occupied", rather than simply asserting that the "international community" claims this. There is no way to gauge what the "international community" believes because countries do not speak with one voice and there is no world government to speak for them. Also, please be careful using citations that refer to the "Occupied Territories" as proof that a particular organization has a particular view. An organization like the EU is very big; if some press releases (perhaps only a few, cherry-picked) say "Occupied Terroritories" and some (perhaps a lot more) say "West Bank", does that "prove" that the EU has a particular view as a whole, or simply that whoever wrote the cherry-picked press release uses this term? Furthermore, if an EU press release says "Occupied" in reference to Gaza pre-2005, that is NOT in any way relevant to the situation post-2005.

In short: Because this issue is so controversial, please hew closely to the undisputed facts. A claim that the EU has a particular view should be sourced to an EU statement asserting such a view, not simply a passing reference. A couple references by random NGO's is hardly evidence of the "international community"; I'm sure plenty of other NGO's have opposite views. Benwing (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is okay to use the words international community when over 90% of nations and a vast number of organizations all agree upon something. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not we should say "the international community" or not depends on wether reliable sources says so or not. It turns out that that is indeed the case. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

highly out-of-date and disputed section deleted

I deleted the following:

Israel's position has not been accepted by most countries and international bodies, and the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip are referred to as occupied territories (with Israel as the occupying power) by most international legal and political bodies, the rest of the Arab bloc, the UK, including the EU, the United States,([7], [8]), both the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the Israeli Supreme Court (see Israeli West Bank barrier).

The reason is that nearly all the links refer to pre-2005 (i.e. when Israel exited Gaza), and most are dead. As a result they are highly unlikely to be relevant today. I seriously doubt very many US government officials will claim that Gaza is occupied by Israel. The sole reference is to a CNN article with a claim to "some US government web sites" without identifying which ones. See my comment above about distinguishing official policy with occasional references. Benwing (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If you believe the situation has changed please provide references which prove the older references to be incorrect. Until then, the sourced information, which seems entirely correct to my knowledge, should stay. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

"Occupied Palestinian Territory" is standard terminology. I this has changed in the last 7 years, then please find a source for that. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is a state

Palestine officially declared statehood in the 80's. Only hostile countries refer to them as territories and not a state. This needs to be changed. 24.207.129.95 (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not an article on Palestine or the State of Palestine. This is an article about the geographical region, which is claimed by different parties to be subject to different groups. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 16:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

referencing of the legal claims of the israeli goverment

Hi,

I would like that who ever support the term "occupied" for those territories, will answer the legal claims of the Israeli goverment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLWUKwWo otherwise, it shouldn't be names as "occupied" but "controversial".

Wikipedia shouldn't decide by political intrests, but only a true justice. Exx8 (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox of the Palestinian Authority should not be used here as copy-paste - this is just confusing. This article is about geography and history of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, not the geopolitical entitities, currently existing there (PNA and Hamas Administration). "Palestinian territories" don't have President and government and a representative in the UN - this is the Palestinian Authority. In addition, oPt term had been largely in use before 1993, when the PA was established.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is one way of looking at it. There are others. Your description of the article is inconsistent with the actual article content as far as I can see. You were already reverted once. You are required to get consensus for the change. I have restored the infobox because there is no evidence of you having done that. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The long standing agreement was that only a partial infobox can be present here - it existed so for more than a year, let's assume WP:GF and restore the original form before the change few days ago into a "state" infobox with a flag and insignia [9]. It is pointless and confusing that Pt, State of Palestine and PNA all have the same infobox - this is simply a misuse of wikipedia. The PNA is presented in the UN, they have a government, demographics, economy etc. Unless you keep only the geographical and demographic issues in the infobox of Pt, the infobox should be removed, since today Pt includes two entities (PNA and Gaza Strip), with different governments and economies. Most of the sources don't use the term Pt any more, but rather PNA (or West Bank) and Hamas Administration (Gaza Strip).Greyshark09 (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

How does the flag and CoA turn this into a "state" infobox? The Flag it the undisputed flag for the PT, it's use isn't specifically government. You could make a case the the CoA is specifically government tough, but in my opinion, this would be taking be taking the "state" thing too rigidly. The reason the infobox is about both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, is because the article is about both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the reason the three articles have similar infoboxes is because the articles cover similar topics. There's nothing pointless or confusing about that. Also, where's this long standing agreement? It sounds like a good idea, but I found almost nothing about the infobox in the archives. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

See this discussion from December 2011 [10]. From December the infobox was agreed to hold no government fields (including flags etc.), because there is no single government for Palestinian territories (it is divided between PNA, Hamas and Israeli-occupied areas).Greyshark09 (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Continued below. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@Greyshark :Palestinian Territories is the name used to refer to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by International media organizations [11], [12], in academic literature [13], by the UN[14], [15], EU [16], individual Governments such as the UK[17] and US[18], international human rights organizations [19], [20], the International Court of Justice [21], and the International committee of the Red Cross [22] among others.

What is your evidence that this is a term "largely in use before 1993" and your statement that "Most of the sources don't use the term Pt any more, but rather PNA (or West Bank) and Hamas Administration (Gaza Strip)"? Dlv999 (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's go to the google books and see the use of terms "Pt" and "PNA" in 2000s, 1990s and before:

Results dated from 1984-1993 (before creation of the PNA):

Pt - [23] 9980 results

PA - [24] 10800 results

Conclusion - before the creation of the Palestinian Authority in 1993/4 the terms were used at about the same rate, with PA term largely used from early 1990s (when the PA became a possibility, following the Madrid Accords).

Results dated from 1994-present (following the creation of PNA):

Pt - [25] 96,500 results

PA - [26] 211,000 results

Conclusion - from 1994, there is a preference to use the term PA over Pt.

Is this clear enough?Greyshark09 (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The most you can conclude from that data is that there is a preference to use the term Pt to talk about Pt and a preference to use the term PA to talk about PA, and you can't even really reliably draw that conclusion because it's based on the premise that in each case they are talking about the same thing and making a binary choice based on a "preference". Given that Pt != PA that assumption is dubious. Either way, contextless google hits isn't a valid way to make decisions. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User @Emmette Hernandez Coleman, i herewith assume WP:GF and kindly ask you to return the infobox to its original structure prior your edit a few days ago [27], in accordance with editors' consensus from December 2011 [28].If a new consensus is reached then you would be able to change the infobox contents.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark, this is nonsense. I'm not denying that the PA will be discussed by RS. The point is that it is not used to describe the same thing as the Palestinian Territories. Comparing google hits for two terms that describe different things makes no sense at all. Dlv999 (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The point is that Palestinian territories don't have a flag and an anthem, those are belonging to the PNA, which executes limited authority over parts of the West Bank (part of the Pt), and is recognized by the UN as observer entity. Are you denying the existance of PNA?Greyshark09 (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear, the PA exists, but is not the same thing as the Palestinian Territories, they are two separate concepts and should not be conflated. The topic of this article is the Palestinian Territories. You are plain wrong in asserting that the Flag belongs to the Palestinian Authority. The Flag predates the Authority by some 30 years. the Flag's primary association is with the Palestinian people - not the PA - which is merely an administrative organization created to temporarily govern the Palestinian territories prior to the formation of a Palestinian State. Dlv999 (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You are also wrong, the flag of the PNA is the second flag of the Arab Revolt, so it is not 30 years older than the PNA but much more. Originally (from early 20th century), the Palestinian Arab nationalists were using the first flag of the Arab revolt - see Palestinian flag, Flag of the Arab Revolt, Kingdom of Hejaz. The second flag was adopted by the PLO in 1964 as a result of political alliances in the Arab world (see also Arab Federation and Ba'ath party), and transferred to the PA as PLO transformed itself from government-in-exile into an existing autonomy in 1993.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this edit, and archive 6 of the talk page, the consensus was to remove the gov fields, not the flag/CoA, or the infobox. As far as I can tell, the only person who wants to remove the flag/CoA, or the whole infobox is Greyshark09. I agree with Dlv999, this is the Palestinian Flag, not specifically the PA flag. From Palestinian flag: "The Palestinian flag [...] is used to represent the Palestinian people (since 1964), and the Palestinian Authority", not "The Palestinian flag [...] is used to represent the Palestinian Authority". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all CoA is clearly a PNA insignia. Except that you can see that there was no flag in the infobox from December last year. End of story. Currently, indeed i'm in minority opinion here, but the "majority" is consisting only of 3 editors so far, which is effectively low to imply a consensus. Let's wait for more opinions, and i have already asked for an editor from last years discussion to reply on this thread. Maybe it would help to publish it on the Wikiproject Palestine if anyone is interested.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the PNA CoA, this is the Palestinian CoA. The Flag is indisputably the flag of the Palestinian people, nation, and that nations land, not just the PNA. Greyshark09, if you really want me to I could list this on Wikiproject Palestine, but I don't see much point in doing so. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Listed on Wikiproject Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Coleman, are you joking? you bring the CoA of the State of Palestine and claim that it belongs to the so called "Palestinian territories" entity??? WP:SYNTH???Greyshark09 (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Palestine.svg clearly says on its page that it's the "Coat of arms of Palestine". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that Palestinian territories and the unrecognized State of Palestine is one and same??? Fine, then lets merge them, no need for two articles with same history, politics, flags and CoA and statistics.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Not quite the same, the State of Palestine article is about the largely unrecognized state that claims the PT. Note that the PT article would probably be named "Palestine", but that name is used for the article about the geographic Israel/Palestine region. It's rather like to PT vs PNA. It's why they have similar infoboxes and similar or the same Flag/CoA. To adapt Dlv999's statement, all three exist, but are not the same thing, they are three separate concepts and should not be conflated. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, except PNA and Hamas administration, all are virtual concepts, which cannot have "demographics", "economy" and "foreign relations", not speaking of government and flag. Never heard of the president of the Palestinian territories or the president of West Bank or Gaza Strip and the president of the State of Palestine (sometimes Abbas is presented as the President of Palestine, but that is when PNA is taking the role of the State of Palestine [29]). Palestinian territories and State of Palestine should have articles, but cannot have country infoboxes, because they are not countries or autonomous regions in reality. There is a "Ministry of Palestinian economy" in the PNA [30], there is no "Ministry of Palestinian economy in the Palestinian territories". Also, last year it was the PNA who approached the UN to get recognition as a full state, and currently plans to ask for a non-member state recognition [31]; never heard of a representative of the "Palestinian territories" approaching UN to get recognition as a state. Palestinian territories is something pre-1993 era, when the PNA was created. Today parts of former oPt are governed by PNA (40% of the WB), Hamas administration (Gaza) and the rest still occupied by Israel (60% of the WB, which is known as the "Judea and Samaria area" and "East Jerusalem").Greyshark09 (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Gryshark, the PA is an administrative organization originally set up in 1993 to provisionally administer the Palestinian Territories prior to the foundation of a Palestinian State. See e.g. the NYT [32] for a fairly standard description "The Palestinian Authority was created by the 1993 Oslo peace accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. It was meant to be a provisional government of the occupied territories in Gaza and the West Bank, which would eventually be replaced by a sovereign Palestinian state after a final settlement was reached with Israel." Now obviously the situation is a little more complicated because a settlement has not been reached and Hamas has been in control in Gaza since 2007. But this does not alter the fundamentals: The PA is an administrative body created to administer the Palestinian Territories - it is not itself a geopolitical entity. As an administrative body it has a "Ministry of National Economy", whose remit includes (if you look at your own link [33]) the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. As an administrative body it does not itself have an economy. (Correct me if I am wrong on this but) looking at your edits across a number of articles it appears you seem to be trying to define the PA as a geopolitical entity that is the 40% or so of the West Bank that is currently under PA control. I have not seen any sources to support this position. Dlv999 (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Uh, Palestine and Israel have flags, CoA's, economies, foreign relations, etc. Some countries don't recognize Palestine or Israel, but that doesn't mean they don't have flags, economies, etc. You've never heard of X from/of the Palestinian territories, because it's usually called X from/of Palestine. My understanding is that we call this article "Palestinian territories" instead of "Palestine" because the Palestine article is about the Israel/Palestine region, not because Palestine isn't a country. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

All the things which "Palestine" has are in fact Palestinian National Authority - Ministries, government, passports, foreign relations (embassies of Palestine are in fact PNA embassies, not Pt embassies). I'm not speaking on Palestine (region), but the State of Palestine article - please look at it before continuing this conversation.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Government of Palestine is a compacted topic, hence why we have all these PLO/PNA/SOP articles instead of having a government of Palestine article, like we do for Government of the United States, but my point stands. Palestine has a Flag/CoA, an economy, etc, just as the United States and Israel do. Just like the flag/CoA of America is the same as the flag/CoA of the American government, the flag/CoA of Palestine is the same (or almost the same) as the the Flag/CoA of the SOP/PNA/etc. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Government of Palestine is not the same as Government of the United States, because United States is a UN-member state, and Palestine is not. The only thing close to its is PNA, which is an observer in the UN, so technically Government of Palestine is Government of the Palestinian National Authority.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Also Just to note, you mention the Palestinian bid at the UN. The UN bid was asking for full membership based on pre-June 1967 borders AKA the Palestinian Territories. Source: [34] "Palestinian territories is something pre-1993 era" - This statement has already been refuted, please do not bring it up again unless you are going to address the multitude of high quality sources that I have cited above that currently use the term. Dlv999 (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Dlv, apparently, you forgot the article State of Palestine, which is claiming the entire Pt, but de-facto is not recognized as state yet (in the UN i mean), and on the ground is represented by the PNA. You base yourself too much on jouranilist sources rather than academics and government official positions. You cannot compare "State of Palestine" and "State of Israel", because the first is not existent except for the PNA. The PNA is claiming to be the State of Palestine in many occasions and in its internal documents. We are going nowhere, apparently we have a completely polarized point of view on the situation in this area of the world.

I'm not basing my case solely on journalistic sources, please see my comment at 9:03 [35]. Perhaps our views are polarized, but if we only present views as they appear in RS (and not our own) and do not stray from what the RS says we should be able to collaborate. Dlv999 (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read your own sources - EU [36] says "The EU has been working with the Palestinian Authority to build up the institutions of a future democratic, independent and viable Palestinian State"; UN [37] says "In the West Bank, an emergency Palestinian Authority Government (PA) enjoys international recognition and pledges of support,while in the Gaza Strip the international community and the United Nations do not recognize the legitimacy of Hamas’ June 2007 military takeover." Please read your sources before you put them.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Dlv, I'm speaking only of WP:RS, but i also would like you to see the whole picture per WP:COMMONNAME. Let's try this simplified - The President of PNA (geopolitical entity) came to the UN last year and asked that the UN will recognize PNA rights over Pt (geographic area) and the PNA (current geopolitical entity) will become promoted to be the State of Palestine (currently not existent). In case UN does so and promotes PNA status from autonomy to statehood, then parts of Palestinian territories (their status now being disputed), which are not under actual control of the State of Palestine will be defined as Palestinian state territories occupied by Israel (a.k.a Judea and Samaria area) and Hamas (Gaza administration). And please don't base yourself too much on journalist reviews - this is improper. And if speaking of BBC - see this map [38]. Here are some sources treating PNA as an entity:

"Palestinian crisis set to deepen without more aid: World Bank... The World Bank said in a report released ahead of a meeting on Palestinian aid in Brussels next week that the Palestinian Authority has received..." TheDailyStar

"Palestinian Authority to push for UN non-member state status 'within weeks'" Telegraph.

In any case, if so many people don't see PNA as an entity, i guess its Palestinian cause is lost - occupied forever.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

---

I don't think there's a real problem with including the flag in the infobox, since that's been a general broad "movement" symbol for more than 40 years. However, including a coat of arms is a different question, since each such emblem is associated with one specific political grouping, and not with the "Palestinian territories" in general... AnonMoos (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian territories is not a nationalist movement, see Palestinian nationalism for this.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)