Jump to content

Talk:Occupied Palestinian territories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Avigoldstein (talk | contribs) at 19:36, 26 October 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proper Noun =

Should it not be Palestinian Territories? Territories is part of a proper noun! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.9.216 (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (Outline of Palestine)

There are currently several articles, some of which are in bad shape, that merely reiterate the same information over and over again. They even contradict one another to some extent. We have an article about Palestine as a geographical region (fair enough), we have an article called Palestinian Territories, another one called Outline of Palestine which simply reiterates the same information in other words (it doesn't mention Israel, so it is not really different from the Palestinian Territories article). Then we have Proposals for a Palestinian state, which reiterate a lot of information already given here and in other articles, and we have a strange article called State of Palestine which includes a lot of false information based on a very broad interpretation of a certain user to a few sources. So, instead of spreading the information on so many articles, and having false and/or contradicting information on some of them, why won't we have one or two reasonably written articles? And by the way, the article about the State of Israel and the Land of Israel also include information about this very region, so we actually have at least six overlapping articles (maybe more). I know some bigger countries in Africa that didn't gain so much Wikipedian honor. DrorK (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you suggesting we do? What's to be merged with what? Tiamuttalk 13:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. You want to merge Outline of Palestine into this article. In that case:
Perhaps the best candidate for deletion would be Proposals for a Palestinian state which isn't really an encyclopedic topic as it is and which ignores that there is a State of Palestine (though the latter lacks full independence and its claimed territories remain undefined). Tiamuttalk 17:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back to fantasy land, eh? Everybody's talking about the need to establish a state, but in the magical world of badly written wiki articles - it already exists... okedem (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't mock me Okedem. Most of the sources in the article State of Palestine, all of which are WP:RS, express the idea that the Palestinian state has been declared and recognized but has yet to be fully implemented. Its a work in progress. This is not a difficult concept to understand. As the latest PA statement reads: ""We call upon all our people to work together on the basis of full partnership in the process of completing and building the institutions of a free, democratic and stable state of Palestine." Something can exist but not be fully implemented. Simple really. Tiamuttalk 18:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something can be declared, and even recognized, and yet not exist. No Palestinian State exists today, regardless of how much you (or I, for that matter) may want it to. Now there exists a concept, an idea, with quite wide support, by the name of "State of Palestine", yet it is most clearly not a state in the normal sense of the word, which is why everyone (including Arab leaders, even Palestinian leaders) speak of the need to establish a Palestinian State. okedem (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it really depends on how you define "exists". To me, the declaration of a State of Palestine and its recognition means that it exists, at least as a concept, and arguably as something more, given that there is Palestinian self-government in parts of Palestine. Those calling for its establishment are really asking for the state that has been declared and recognized to be allowed to be implemented without obstruction. In any case, this discussion is more relevant to the page on the State of Palestine and has little to do with this merger discussion. So perhaps it is better to take it up there, with sources you would like to see incorporated into the article? Tiamuttalk 19:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained in details why the article "State of Palestine" is poorly written and misleading. The person who wrote it gave a very broad interpretation to statements taken out of context. Of course all statements are sourced, but most of them are either exceptional interpretations or taken out of context. This article could be a nice thesis for a beginner class of Political Science, but it is not a WP article. Now, back to the point, I fail to see the purpose of the article "Outline of Palestine" - what sort of information does it suppose to convey? In fact, what's the meaning of its title? Do we also have an article "Outline of Asia Minor"? or "Outline of the British Isles"? The region known as Palestine or Land of Israel is indeed an interesting place with a lot of historical and political background, but does a region of ~27,000 sq km and a population of some 11 million people deserve six or seven articles, most of which reiterate the same information over and over again? DrorK (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but then the article should be called "Outline of the Palestinian Territories" or "Outline of the Palestinian National Authority" and it should not include information relevant to Israel. Right now the articles seems as if the Palestinian Authority is a sovereign state that covers the Israeli territory too. That's an absurd. DrorK (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles entitled Outline of Abkhazia, Outline of Somaliland, and Outline of Taiwan. These are political entities that enjoy limited recognition as states, as does the State of Palestine. The Palestinian territories is not the name of the state of Palestinians, and the Palestinian Authority is a temporary administrative body (not a geographical area or national home). You are free to suggest renaming at the Outline of Palestine page, but I would note that the article has surived an AfD under its present name because even states with limited recognition do deserve to have organized lists outlining what they are about. Tiamuttalk 09:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan and Abkhazia are de facto states that do not enjoy full international recognition. Palestine is the other way around - it is a proclaimed state that gained some recognition, but has no defined territory nor permanent population (these criteria appear in the Montevideo Convention and are generally accepted for most purposes). The PA has some control over certain territories according to the Oslo Accords. These territories are officially called "The Palestinian Authority Territories" or in short "The Palestinian Territories". Now, if we want to have an outline article about these territories, that's fine, but it should include information only about these territories (not about Israel, for example), and it cannot present them as an independent state. That would be giving false information to the reader (this is not a political issue - those who strive for such a state should know that their mission is not yet accomplished, those who object should know that they can save their panic for later). And still we have a lot of articles about one subject, even if we keep the "outline" article. DrorK (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thee arguments were made in the AfD and rejected as in any way affecting the need for the article. If you insist on revisiting that discussion, I would suggest you open a renaming proposal at Outline of Palestine where it can take place. Tiamuttalk 16:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that consensus is to not merge. But I agree it needs a rewrite, and a rename proposal has been suggested. I think this discussion needs continuing at it's own talk page, not here, and same with all the other articles mentioned. Highfields (talk, contribs) 16:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you may transfer this discussion to the appropriate place. BTW, I am not aware of an AfD debate about the subject, but in any case, there was a consensus that "State of Palestine" should direct to the article "Proposals for a Palestinian state" and then someone just ignored that consensus and wrote a (problematic) article with that title, so apparently no decision is permanent in WP. DrorK (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a reasonable redirect, I'll set up a discussion at Talk:Outline of Palestine Highfields (talk, contribs) 17:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May I remove the merge tags? Highfields (talk, contribs) 18:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (Occupied Palestinian Territory)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
reviewing the merge proposal will respond with my take at Talk:Occupied Palestinian Territory. ---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POVFORK. Enough said. Breein1007 (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same thing. Please see the discussion at Talk:Occupied Palestinian Territory. This article, by the way, seems to be WP:OR, as none of the sources cited actually define what the "Palestinian territories" are, and the sources I have seen use a different definition than the one given here. Tiamuttalk 19:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Breein1007. This forking of articles about the Palestinian Territories has become a trend. DrorK (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link in the template might need to be changed to the other discussion since there are certainly similarities and it appears to have more feedback. So with whatever the proposal is, Occupied Palestinian Territories should not be an independent article and should instead be merged into Palestinian Territories. The info that cannot be merged directly into existing subsections (which to me appears to be an unlikely scenario) might be better off with a subsection. This isn't solely based on neutrality concerns. It will be easier to navigate and the reader will more likely see the information. "Occupied" might have some good sourcing but it is a good candidate for a POV check (or at the very least someone with a kneejerk reaction wold say) which means that effort should be brought over to this article.Cptnono (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem like WP:POVFORK; however, I think conceptually there is enough differnce between the two to justify two seperate articles. Note that Occupied France and France have seperate articles. Is that wrong? NickCT (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean German occupation of France during World War II. How is that the same? Breein1007 (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it time to merge this article. It is clearly a POV-forking. DrorK (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could have a string of articles under the heading of "Territories occupied by Israel"..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Int21h (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it qualifies as a POV fork. It covers the exact same topic, however. Merge.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 22:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per my reading of consensus at Talk:Occupied Palestinian Territory, I've gone ahead and merged the two articles. I do not claim that my merge is perfect or ideal and fully expect others to improve upon it. But, as the request was raised on my talk page, I suspect that if left alone, that the two articles would continue to exist with everybody worried about making a bold edit on this controversial subject.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis of 1967 - US involvement

I have removed the statement "The US believes in territorial integrity, withdrawal, and recognition of secure boundaries." from what is currently paragraph 3 in this section based on several factors: Firstly, the use of present tense is ambiguous (is this supposed to be a quote from a contemporary source, or it it supposed to refer to the present day?); secondly, at least at first glance it appears to be editorial opinion; thirdly, it's worded as a blanket statement that is so broad as to probably be factually wrong (it may be correct in reference to this particular issue, but that's not self-evident). If someone really believes it should be there, let me suggest As of 2010, the official position of the US government was that blah blah blah blah (insert source) or Mr. XYZ of the US State Department stated in 1967 that "(insert quote)".(insert source). It's possible that the sentence was a quotation from the reference cited for the entire paragraph, but if so that's not at all clear from the wording. 68.105.71.75 (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of life

Massive synthesis/POV push inviting the reader to consider the merits of being occupied by Israel. Never mind the billions in international aid, the section links the rise of Palestinian living standards with military occupation while managing to say nothing about the situation since 1990 which just might be germane to the article. Information is from a few questionable sources and the legit sources don't include all of the information presented. Sol (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synth? Information comes from reliable sources and is unchallenged. The UNRWA didn't show up in 1967, it had been around for more than 20 years. The international aid didn't start flowing until the peace process began. "Question sources" vs. "legit sources?" What does this mean? The information is very specific. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Natalia Zawidowski does not cite any reliable sources, has no credentials as a demographer, and Scoop News only credits her as the author of six columns or editorials:
A quick plagarism check with Dupli Checker indicates that the information was copied verbatim from the now-defunct meimad.org Hasbara Central blog. For example Middle East Facts sources it to http://www.meimad.org/default.asp?id=8&ACT=5&content=128&mnu=8 You can now consider this source as challenged. See the new WP:RSN discussion on Natalia Zawidowski [1]
In 2003 the Jewish Chronicle reported that Zawidowski was a student at London Metropolitan University and that she co-founded an anti-terrorism website with the "aim to educate people about different types of terrorism, particularly the raising of children to be suicide bombers." [2]
The World Bank report contradicts many of Zawidowski's assumptions regarding the quality of life. See [3] and [4] harlan (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the information is not predicated on the scoop cite. Health, UNICIF, and JVL. I don't have time to sort through a 116 page world bank report. Which claim specifically is being disputed by the World Bank? The Palestinian standard of living isn't much of a debate. United Nations has published plenty of reports placing the life expectancy and standard of living greater than numerous Arab nations. I think Harlan just likes following me around, he is my special Wikipedia stalker. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside, for the moment, the verbatim copy/pasted partisan rhetoric from the questionable and copyrighted sources ("Israel rule"?), the factual issues (pre-67 literacy isn't mentioned in the sources given for it), and contrasting certain facts in a novel manner (literacy) it's still POV pushing with no real relation to the article's topic. WP:COATRACK The number debunking doesn't help. Sol (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be more explicit. "POV pushing" (the gist of your complaint) is not very challenging. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So we are agreeing that the sub-section isn't really related to the topic? =) The POV push is that occupation by Israel is/was a good thing and people are just kvetching and biting the hand that feeds them and that the Palestinians themselves aren't worth discussing except in the greater context of Arab-Israeli relations. It's presenting information about the Palestinian occupiers, not about the Palestinians. It's presented in the same "Arab vs. Israel" format of the original (and questionably accurate)source. It's not talking about present conditions, trends in quality of life, other factors influencing living conditions and metrics or any timely information. Israel just might have dumped tons of cash into fixing up the territories as a mitzvah; that's important information and worth including but this isn't the article for it. Sol (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the section does not say the "occupation was a good thing." It is saying when Israel captured the West Bank/Gaza the standard of living of the Arabs occupied rose substantially as a result of Israeli policy - building hospitals, universities, eradicating disease, etc. Israel did not dump a "ton of cash into fixing the territories." The sources speak for themselves. If anything, the section could be expanded. Talk about Israel moving Palestinians out of refugee camps in Gaza and building homes (condemned by the UN), training Palestinian farmers in advanced agriculture techniques, etc. This isn't controversial material. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources don't speak for themselves. The bulk of the section comes from blatantly partisan articles in obscure publications that give no sources and, according to what Harlan found, aren't right. This isn't the topic. This is WP:COATRACK writ large. There is no policy reason to keep this material even if it didn't plagiarize phrases from the authors. Sol (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What partisan articles and obscure publications? Harlan is complaining about the Scoop article written by Zawidowski. I looked through the world bank PDF and couldn't find what Harlan was referring too. The sources do speak for themselves. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Wikifan if you think that I followed you to this article, I suggest that you check the article and talk page revision history again. Mitchell G. Bard has degrees in political science and economics, but he is not an authority on public health. The analysis provided by the authors of the Lancet article completely contradicts Bard. So I'm going to insist that any narrative analysis come from Lancet or UNICEF. Neither Lancet nor UNICEF attribute improvements in the statistical indicators to the Israeli occupation or any Israeli policy. Both reports are in-line with fact finding missions which report that Israel has created a humanitarian crisis in the territories. They report stunted growth and other permanent developmental problems in an inordinate percentage of the children reflecting chronic malnutrition. Lancet also describes extreme emotional problems and clinical depression in the general population.

The Lancet report says Palestinians have the worst quality of life of any country in a WHO survey. It condemns the occupation, Israeli policy, and Israel's neglect of public health in the Occupied territories:

Between 1967 and 1993, health services for Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory were neglected and starved of funds by the Israeli military administration, with shortages of staff, hospital beds, medications, and essential and specialised services, forcing Palestinians to depend on health services in Israel. For example, in 1975 the West Bank health budget was substantially lower than that of one Israeli hospital for the same year. The Palestinian response was to create independent Palestinian services through health, women’s, agricultural, and student social-action groups, all promoting community steadfastness on the land (sumud). This response also led to the development of a Palestinian health and medical care infrastructure, independent of the Israeli military, that still helps to meet the health needs of the population, especially during emergencies.

The story in the field of education is the same. Palestinians built their own institutions of higher learning without any Israeli funding - and despite Israeli attempts to close them dowm. See The Palestinian uprising: a war by other means, by F. Robert Hunter, page 22 [5] I'll be happy to add the World Bank information on curfews and closures, health, poverty, and subsistence poverty. The majority viewpoint is that Israel is illegally depriving the Palestinians of their right to work, right to an education, right to health, right to adequate sources of food and water, right to adequate housing, right to an adequate standard of living, right to freedom of movement, and in many cases the right to life itself. As a civil matter, most of that was contained in the ICJ's findings of fact in the Wall case. harlan (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Myths&Facts is just about the most junky unreliable load of propaganda that is out there. It should never be used on Wikipedia as a source. As for scoop.ac.nz, that doesn't look like a reliable source to me. Why not take it to WP:RSN? Zerotalk 06:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero See the WP:RSN discussion from yesterday on Natalia Zawidowski (scoop.ac.nz) [6] There is no editorial oversight of the content, so it amounts to self-publication. harlan (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life expectancy is increasing almost everywhere and infant mortality is decreasing almost everywhere. It is extremely misleading to just report that some indicators were better after 1967 than before. They were also better in Jordan and Egypt, and would have gotten better in WB/Gaza without the occupation too. It would be more sensible to compare WB/Gaza to other populations during the same time period, such as Egypt, Jordan and Israeli Arabs. Zerotalk 06:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Harlan, you are misrepresenting the Lancet survey, and your rant isn't helping the discussion. The lancet survey is very explicit about how Palestinians see themselves in terms of quality of life. The "life-satisfaction" measurements are non-scientific and shouldn't be considered reliable in this case. POV claims:

  • Palestinians are people who were never safe,95 even before the 1967 Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The trauma of the 1948 nakba—the dispossession and dispersion of Palestinians—is imprinted in the collective consciousness to this day. (pg 854) The hyperbole doesn't exactly scream neutrality.

For example, the "quality of life" stats were pulled from the "Palestinian Quality of Life Study" using the "Palestinian life quality dataset. (pg 842)" So really, we don't how this information is being gathered and what standards are being used. Palestinian officials are notorious for fudging stats on population, humanitarian aid, and economic policy. Lancet is a rock-star journal but we have to look at what is being cited.

  • The lancet surveys makes political claims and inferences, contrary to human rights assessments (i.e, buzzwords such as colonization, etc..).

And yet...

  • Lancet survey confirms higher life expectancy than Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon (pg 840).

More facts:

  • The prevalence of HIV/AIDS is very low, and the population is deemed

free of poliomyelitis, as judged by WHO criteria. Communicable diseases of childhood have already been mostly controlled with eff ective immunisation programmes. Standards of health, literacy, and education are generally higher in the occupied Palestinian territory than in several Arab countries, but substantially lower than in Israel (table 1) pg 842.

The lancet study says nothing about hospitals built by Israel or confirms or denies trends regarding Israel's presence in the West Bank/Gaza and improvements in quality of life. The JVL source on the other hand is very explicit and clear. Claiming it is "junky unreliable load of propaganda" is dubious at best. The lancet survey is far more questionable because it relies almost exclusively on unsubstantiated Palestinian complaints. Standard of living is defined by very clear parameters: Life expectancy, infant mortality, social-mobility, and per-capita income. But the authors invent their own rubric to meet a pre-determined agenda. The study puts a lot of attention on recent effects and largely avoids trends between 1967-1980s when violence was sparse. As an occupying power of course Israel had influence over the lives of Palestinians so it is nonsense to say the improved system of health care, construction of universities (banned by Jordan), and increased quality of life was simply part of the general increases in living among Arab nations.

Remember, the lancet survey was authored almost entirely by Palestinian officials and experts.

And Harlan, the claim that the Palestinians have the "the worst quality of life of any country" is patently false. I don't see that in the Lancet report. I'm guessing that is just you SOAPING as usual. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifan Bard and Tom Gross/Efraim Karsh are certainly making political claims and inferences that represent an unscientific minority viewpoint, i.e. Commentary said Karsh was challenging the prevailing views held in the US and EU. Bard merely says "universities were opened", but he does not say by whom. There is no reason to credit Israel with building hospitals or schools that were really foreign donor-funded projects. The Quality of Life subsection was an editorial that endorsed a minority view, and it did not mention the prevailing viewpoint at all.
The UNICEF website says "Today, over 10,000 children start their school year in tents, caravans, or tin shacks throughout Area C, and at least one third of government schools in these areas have poor and inadequate water and sanitation facilities. Constant pressure and harassment by settlers and Israeli military forces experienced by so many school children, as well as forced displacements and house demolitions, result in psychological distress. “We are deeply concerned that many children will suffer from devastating long-term consequences and lost educational chances” [7]
The Lancet authors reviewed the 1948 expulsions and the conditions in the refugee camps and said that "Palestinian identity has been reinforced through resistance to dispossession and extinction."
From page 842-843 of the Lancet article "To assess the quality of life in Palestinians living in the occupied Palestinian territory, the WHO quality of life-Bref was used in a 2005 survey, containing a representative sample of adults from the general population, after addition of some questions relevant to the Palestinian context. Life quality in the occupied Palestinian territory proved lower than that in almost all other countries included in the WHO study.

"Furthermore, the study showed that most responders had high levels of fear; threats to personal safety, safety of their families, and their ability to support their families; loss of incomes, homes, and land; and fear about their future and the future of their families. Feelings in the population include hamm — a local Arabic term that combines different feelings, such as the heaviness of worry, anxiety, grief, sorrow, and distress — frustration, incapacitation, and anger. Feelings of deprivation and suffering were also high. Most people reported being negatively affected by constant conflict and military occupation, closures and siege (including the separation wall), and inter-Palestinian violence.
"In a study based on 3415 adolescents of the Ramallah district, Palestinian students reported the lowest life-satisfaction scores compared with 35 other countries. Collective exposure to violence was associated with negative mental health. After adjustment for sex, residence, and other measures of exposure to violent events, exposure to humiliation was also significantly associated with increased subjective health complaints. Such subjective data should be interpreted with caution because subjective measures can be complicated by people understanding and responding to questions in different ways. However, self-rating of health measures offer “something more — and something less — than objective medical ratings”, especially because of the incomplete understanding of what true health is. In May, 2002, in a survey of a representative sample of households in the five West Bank towns invaded by the Israeli military during March and April, 2002, responders reported high psychological distress at home, including sleeplessness, uncontrollable fear and shaking episodes, fatigue, depression, and hopelessness, and enuresis and uncontrolled crying episodes in children. Distress was highest in Ramallah (93%), Tulkarm (91%), Jenin (89%), Bethlehem (87%), and Nablus (71%). It was also associated with the imposition of curfews, bombing and shooting, loss of home, displacement, degradation of quality of housing, including interruption of utilities such as electricity and water, and the consequent destruction of food supplies, shortages of food and cash, and no access to medical services."
That isn't me soapboxing that is the analysis from the source you cited. harlan (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing the surveys created by Palestinian rights groups. The section has nothing to do with the surveys. The self-reporting stats are totally non-scientific and cannot be considered reliable. Nigeria is supposedly the happiest country on the planet based on a survey, but it is still a cesspool.
Standard of living is defined by: Life expectancy, infant mortality, per-capita income, education, literacy, and social-mobility. These are universal standards. Testimonies taken by Palestinian academics can't be taken seriously. The Lancet study says nothing about trends, Israeli cooperation with Palestinian health care system, educational system, etc. I mean come'on, the West Bank has one of the fastest growing economies on the planet. Surveys don't matter, not in this context. Empirical data matters. The lancet survey does confirm the standard of living numbers, so does UNICIF, the UN, and Palestinian Authority.
The original data in the section is sound and not disputed by the World Bank or Lancet. The Israeli government continues to work with the Palestinian Authority and the state is one of their leading trading partners. And anyways, you are totally ignoring the other sources that support the information. Do you dispute the fact that the Israeli civil authority help build Palestinian hospitals? That Israel state eradicated malaria, polio, whooping cough, and dozens of other diseases that were endemic under the 20 year Arab occupation? Take a look at the Palestinians in Lebanon, they have one of the lowest standards of livings in the Arab world. Not even in the same league as the Palestinians in the West Bank/Gaza. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan you cannot cherry-pick data from studies for use in this article and exclude the analysis of the authors of those studies. There isn't the slightest possibility that you are going to add a quality of life subsection that excludes the published opinions of the inhabitants or the prevailing views contained in reliable mainstream and official sources. The fact that a political scientist and a military historian credit Israel with eradicating communicable diseases is hardly notable or reliable information.
The US government reported that as of January 1960 malaria eradication programs were operating in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Syria. The same report said that nearly all the population of Jordan that was at risk was already under protection by 1961 and that the eradication goal had been set for 1965. See Tropical health; a report on a study of needs and resources, by The National Research Council (U.S.). Division of Medical Sciences [8] The same book reports that reliable data for diseases like whooping cough and typhus were almost non-existent or that only very incomplete data was available from the countries of Southwest Asia. [9] [10] It also reported that in many areas of Southwest Asia, aside from Israel, polio was of little concern. It was uncommonly reported in Lebanon and Syria and caused little morbidity in Cyprus. [11] harlan (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Harlan, self-reported quality of life surveys don't matter. Like I said dozens of times, standard of living is defined by: Life expectancy, infant mortality, education, social mobility, etc. Yes, the Palestinians are special so they get their own unique aid agency and their PA-controlled universities invent rubrics that say Palestinians have the lowest quality of life on the planet. You are the one cherry-picking data and fail to recognize the fact that as an occupying authority Israel industrialized the Palestinian territories. This isn't controversial. Israel's occupation of the Palestinians was far more intense and intertwined than the Arab's, and this is proven by Israel's construction of hospitals, schools, and moving Palestinians out of refugee camps into cities - which was recognized and condemned by the United Nations. Your sources still don't disprove the information in the original section. JVL is a reliable source and Bard is hell of a lot more reliable than no-name Palestinian academics on the Palestinian National Authority payroll. This source cites Palestinian leaders themselves. It is explicit and fair. The Lancet survey has some interesting stats but most of the report is novel at best. Stories of the Nakba and starving Palestinians don't paint a neutral picture. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan including the published views of all the parties to the conflict and fairly representing them is not optional. Please re-read WP:ARBPIA. It says Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. I don't want to hear any more about your unpublished synthesis.
You have been advised by three other editors that the material from Hasbara Central/scoop.nz is a flagrant piece of WP:COATRACK propaganda, and that you are POV-pushing by trying to include it in this article. You have not made any attempt to include material that represents the majority viewpoint or the views of the indigenous population that I've brought to your attention. Right at the moment, Israeli officials are struggling to stay one step ahead of the law on a laundry list of charges including persecution, collective punishment, and crimes against humanity. Those charges are based upon many credible published reports that say "quality of life" is abysmal thanks to the Israeli occupation. If you insist, I'll be happy to open a thread at WP:RSN and see if anyone thinks JVL and Efraim Karsh are reliable sources on the issue of public health or if anyone thinks the peer review process at Lancet has been corrupted by the Palestinians. harlan (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh.

Yes, I agree Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encylopedia. There is nothing non-neutral about accurately describing Israel's relationship in the occupied territories between 1967-2010. I'll concede the scoop article might be questionable but you continue to ignore the sources that don't reflect your point of view. Buzzwords like "propaganda" don't help the discussion.

I've been extremely explicit in my posts, while you continue to rant and rave independent of facts. Here, a sample of your neutral, polite, cordial SOAP boxing.

The Lancet report says Palestinians have the worst quality of life of any country in a WHO survey. It condemns the occupation, Israeli policy, and Israel's neglect of public health in the Occupied territories

This is false. The lancet survey does not say the Palestinians have the worst quality of life of any country and nor does the WHO survey.

The majority viewpoint is that Israel is illegally depriving the Palestinians of their right to work, right to an education, right to health, right to adequate sources of food and water, right to adequate housing, right to an adequate standard of living, right to freedom of movement, and in many cases the right to life itself. As a civil matter, most of that was contained in the ICJ's findings of fact in the Wall case

This is also false and dishonest. There is no "majority viewpoint" other than the sources you cherry-pick. UN, UNICIF, and international aid agencies continue to state that the Palestinians, in spite of living under Israeli occupation, experience a much higher standard of living than many Arab nations. It seems you deny the culpability of the UNRWA, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon - states and organizations that have influence over the quality life of Palestinian refugees. Your passing reference of the ICJ finding is funny, considering it was non-binding. Notice your capitlization of "Wall." The Wall is 94% fence, but I guess subtle bias is okay on wikipedia.

says Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. I don't want to hear any more about your unpublished synthesis.

I've provided numerous sources to back general knowledge that you dubiously condemn as propaganda and a minority POV. You are one promoting synth, injecting your own language into the talk discuss (indigenous population, settlements=genocide, etc..)


Myths&Facts is just about the most junky unreliable load of propaganda that is out there. It should never be used on Wikipedia as a source

Wrong again. JVL is a reliable source and the myths/facts section contains a quite few telling excerpts from certified-statements by Palestinian officials, UN employees, and experts. I know you don't like it Harlan because it doesn't reduce the conflict from a neo-colonialist perspective.

There is no reason to credit Israel with building hospitals or schools that were really foreign donor-funded projects. The Quality of Life subsection was an editorial that endorsed a minority view, and it did not mention the prevailing viewpoint at all.

False. Israel built hospitals with Israeli-tax payers dollars and taxes collected from the the Palestinian community. For 20 years, when Israel had zero influence over the lives of Palestinian refugees, no universities were built, very few hospitals were maintained, and disease, poverty, etc...was sky-high. The Arab occupiers were condemned zero times by the UN for their policies. The Quality of Life section was not an editorial, it contains serious hard-facts with precise percentages.

Those charges are based upon many credible published reports that say "quality of life" is abysmal thanks to the Israeli occupation. If you insist, I'll be happy to open a thread at WP:RSN and see if anyone thinks JVL and Efraim Karsh are reliable sources on the issue of public health or if anyone thinks the peer review process at Lancet has been corrupted by the Palestinians

Harlan, I'll ask you one more time: Please find me in the Lancet study anything that remotely discuses Israel's physical relationship between the Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza. Stats about hospitals, diseases, trends in standards of livings, etc. I'll tell you - the lancet survey confirms educational stats, life expectancy stats, infant mortality stats, etc. And the statistics rank higher than Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.

I'm not disputing the self-reported quality of life surveys. 1,000+ cherry-picked anonymous Palestinians interviewed according to a non-scientific rubric *gasp* shows Palestinians have the lowest quality of life on the planet. This doesn't matter. If it makes you feel any better we could add something like, "Surveys collected by Palestinian universities x, y, and z claim Palestinians age x-z have low levels of happiness, blah blah. But the Lancet does not disprove the JVL source. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UN places Palestine ahead of Indonesia and below Turkmenistan in terms of Human Development. Life expectancy, education, and overall health is the top 30-25% of the world's states.
So language such as "worst quality of life on the planet" is hard to take seriously, especially when compared to nations such as Congo or Somalia where citizens are raped and murdered on a regular basis. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan, this isn't an article about Lebanon, Congo, or Somalia. I'm not suggesting that quality of life surveys are relevant to this article, you are the one who added the Lancet citation and then disputed the conclusions contained in it. You are still attempting to make WP:Synth claims about quality of life on the basis of statistical indicators of the standard of living. The former Yugoslavia had an adequate standard of living, but the quality of life there became completely intolerable. Many reliable sources say that Israel is running the largest open air prisons on the planet,[12] where Palestinians are forced to live in isolated enclaves behind concrete and barb wire fences backed-up by remote controlled gun towers deployed nearby and frequent military incursions.
Israel destroyed 28,000 homes in Gaza and, for almost two years, has blockaded humanitarian aid shipments and supplies of the necessary building materials needed to repair housing and public infrastructure. The UN and the EU both consider that situation, including the blockade and restrictions on freedom of movement, an illegal form of collective punishment and a crime against humanity. If you want to add a quality of life section, then all of that needs to be mentioned. harlan (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. You refuse to respond to my edit.
What statement in the Lancet report remotely conflicts with the original data in the section? The lancet survey confirms life expectancy, per capita income, social mobility, and infant mortality as indicators of quality of life. Controlled surveys taken by no-name Palestinian academics employed by the Palestinian Authority are non-scientific. That is what you continue to base your fantasy image of the Palestine. You accused me of promoting non-neutral material, but it is you Harlan that continues to force fringe, if not outright false information couched beneath "reliable sources." I've asked you DOZENS of times to find me any statement in the Lancet survey that disagrees with the original section. Please, point to me the study on trends, Israel's relationship with Palestinian universities, hospitals, army, agriculture, etc. The results are stunning, and you are trying to censor it by invoking obscene hyperbole and demonization rhetoric. I demonstrated quite clearly your history of making false statements and false claims. Misrepresenting the Lancet survey by saying it concluded that the Palestinians have the lowest quality of life on the planet (false), and dismissing reports by the UN, UNDP, and international rights groups that show time and time against the standard of living for Palestinians is not comparable to a prison or genocide.
I've provided decent sources, the JVL link is reliable and I will cite it in future edits. Writing it off as propaganda is offensive.
I'll ask one more time Harlan, can you discredit the fact that Israel helped construct hospitals, universities, trained Palestinian doctors and farmers, industrialized water resources and systems, eh? The Lancet report says NOTHING about that. All it talks about is current events, mixed in with POV-stories of a Palestinian Nakba and perpetual suffering under the thumb of Israel, with no mention of Hamas' control over Gaza. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing here to answer. In 2002 Efriam Karsh wrote a man bites dog article that challenged the prevailing mainstream view and entitled it "What Occupation?". That was long before the Gaza blockade or the decision in the Wall case that confirmed the existence of the occupation, and the applicability of the Geneva Conventions. According to his own publicity, Karsh is a representative of the right-wing Zionist political movement. The responsible treaty body reports on the Second Intifada in 2000 had already indicated "widespread, systematic and gross violations of human rights perpetrated by the Israeli occupying Power, in particular mass killings and collective punishments, such as demolition of houses and closure of the Palestinian territories, measures which constitute war crimes, flagrant violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity." See Grave and massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, E/CN.4/RES/S-5/1, 19 October 2000 [13] FYI, Francis Boyle recommended that a genocide case be brought in the ICJ against Israel.[14] Boyle represented Bosnia and Herzegovina in the ICJ genocide cases involving those former Yugoslavian states.
The World Bank, Lancet, and UNICEF do not credit the Israeli occupation with improving either the quality of life or standard of living in the Palestinian territories. That is an inference you are drawing from some statistical indicators. All of them do report on the detrimental effects of the Israeli occupation. You are conveniently ignoring the on-going tangible contributions made by the indigenous Jordanian government during the occupation until 1988. For example, the US government reports that after the Rabat summit the government of Jordan continued to pay the salaries of 6,000 civil servants and teachers in the West Bank which (at that time) amounted to about US$40 million a year.[15]
I provided another source above which explained that the Palestinians already had colleges and that Israel licensed them as universities. That source explained that Israel didn't build or provide funding for any of them and that it even tried to close them down. I provided another reliable source which says Jordanian health officials (including the West Bank Palestinians) had implemented their own eradication program years before the Israeli occupation and had already protected the at risk population from malaria in 1961. The same US government report said polio wasn't endemic in the region and that recent immigrants to Israel were the only source of concern in the region. It also said that there were no reliable WHO figures for the other diseases you mentioned. Bard is tendentiously citing unreliable estimates for the previous decades as if they were empirical facts. He gives Israel credit for improvements made by the Jordanians, Palestinians, and foreign donors before the occupation began, while completely ignoring the present humanitarian crisis reported by the World Bank, Lancet, and UNICEF. For example, the Lancet article points out that one in ten children now have permanent disabilities and health problems resulting from chronic malnutrition and that those problems are associated with shortened life expectancy.
I responded to your edit by deleting it and pointing out that the Lancet article said

Between 1967 and 1993, health services for Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory were neglected and starved of funds by the Israeli military administration, with shortages of staff, hospital beds, medications, and essential and specialised services, forcing Palestinians to depend on health services in Israel. For example, in 1975 the West Bank health budget was substantially lower than that of one Israeli hospital for the same year. The Palestinian response was to create independent Palestinian services through health, women’s, agricultural, and student social-action groups, all promoting community steadfastness on the land (sumud). This response also led to the development of a Palestinian health and medical care infrastructure, independent of the Israeli military, that still helps to meet the health needs of the population, especially during emergencies.

Jordan and Egypt were members of the World Health Organization. After the Rabat summit and the dissolution of the union with Jordan, Israel actively campaigned to block Palestine's membership in the WHO. The responsible UN treaty bodies have routinely reported that Israel has violated the Palestinians right to work, to health, to education, and access to adequate supplies of food, safe drinking water, and shelter. The ICJ advisory opinion contained the same conclusions in its findings of fact (see paras 132-134 [16]. 80 per cent of the population of Gaza is totally dependent on international food aid and there is over 40 percent unemployment. Navi Pillay and Karl Hudson-Phillips are former judges with the International Criminal Court (ICC). Both of them have reported that Israel's blockade of Gaza is an illegal form of collective punishment and that states cannot use hunger or starvation as methods of warfare. Karsh and Bard are obviously not comparing that or the situation in the West Bank to the quality of life in other Arab countries. harlan (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm going to look around for stuff that talks about the quality of life in the OPT and put it in the article. The original objections haven't been addressed; non-RS narrative of how much better off the territories are being occupied. This still has no information in regards to current Palestinian standards of living. It's like leading the Economy of Israel section with a long discussion about how good billions of US dollars have been for the country over the past decades. Sol (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Sigh Sigh Sigh.

Harlan, you still have failed to address serious issues and continue to dance around.

I pretty much demolished your SOAPing and proved you continue to make subtle false accusations couched beneath your arguments, and then accuse others of not paying attention. I paid attention.

  • " That was long before the Gaza blockade or the decision in the Wall case that confirmed the existence of the occupation, and the applicability of the Geneva Conventions. According to his own publicity, Karsh is a representative of the right-wing Zionist political movement.."

Again Harlan, again again you insert your own fringe POV with buzzwords such as "Wall" (94% FENCE).

  • I don't dispute the findings of the second intifada. The second intifada was a war, and wars killed people and cause suffering. The section in question talks about historical trends - 1967-today, before the blockade. Before the curfews, check points, before Israel retook Area A and C from Palestinian administration.
  • "The World Bank, Lancet, and UNICEF do not credit the Israeli occupation with improving either the quality of life or standard of living in the Palestinian territories." The world bank, lancet, and UNICEF say actually nothing about the trends and quality of life in the Palestinian territories from an historical perspective.
  • "at is an inference you are drawing from some statistical indicators. All of them do report on the detrimental effects of the Israeli occupation. You are conveniently ignoring the on-going tangible contributions made by the indigenous Jordanian government during the occupation until 1988. For example, the US government reports that after the Rabat summit the government of Jordan continued to pay the salaries of 6,000 civil servants and teachers in the West Bank which (at that time) amounted to about US$40 million a year."
  • More ignorance. The money comes from the UNRWA, which comes from the United States and Europe. Jordan contributes next to nothing. The money is handed over to Jordan which administers the refugee camps in main Jordan. But again, 40% of all Palestinian refugees have Jordanian citizenship, and all Palestinian refugees in Jordan are refuses aside from ~100,000 according to the UNRWA. So again, leaving out important facts doesn't help your argument. "Indigenous." Lol. Jordan was a British proxy, the Hashemites are a minority people ruling over a majority. But that's just my opinion.


Finally, reliable sources. I love how you accuse me of using "propaganda" sources (JVL is a reliable source), but then...

  • Geez, is that unreliable source I smell? Yes, I believe it is.

Let me repeat myself:

The section has:

A) Nothing to do with recentism. We're talking about events between 1967-today, not recent casualties from wars instigated by the Palestinian leadership. Palestinian life improved exponentially when Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem. Palestinians had access to hospitals in Israel, up until 2009 when the PLO stopped paying. Israel did build hospitals in Gaza as well as universities.

B) None of the sources you provided dispute the findings of JVL. Palestinians living under ‘occupation’ have the lowest standard of living in the Middle East.” Your agenda is that Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza destroyed, not improved the quality of life for ordinary Palestinians. You refer to recent events, the second intifada - the Gaza blockade, and other closures.

I don't dispute any of that Harlan. But it is simply a red herring. The Palestinians still have a higher standard of living than most Arab nations, including Egypt. And up until the second intifada hundreds of thousands of Palestinians worked in Israel legally, while no Palestinians worked in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt (or very few at least).

As an occupying power Israel had serious influence and control over Palestinians and the government had no reason to continue the plight. This is why is tried to remove Palestinians out of refugee camps and expand social services. For 20 years the international aid agencies were largely absence, or barely noticeable, as the Arabs had total control. Only after 1967 did the situation start to improve. Had the Six Day War not happened, the Palestinians would be living under the same conditions as those in Lebanon and Egypt.

Again, I don't dispute the arguments from individuals in the UN or UNRWA. But it is truly laughable to deny Israel's relationship with the Palestinian authority since it is the only thing preventing the Palestinian territories from imploding. And we can't ignore the series of treaties sighed between Palestinian and Israelis - Cairo agreements, Oslo, Road Map, etc. All imperfect, but gave Palestinians more control than they had under Arab occupiers.

Do you want to continue this debate? You refuse to acknowledge basic facts and instead go on rants about the Gaza blockade. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what the conversation is now aboutbut if three of four editors agree that sources are not reliable and object to the content shouldn't we, just maybe, not put it back in? Sol (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan, I was simply giving you a free link to Boyle's comments about filing an ICJ lawsuit against Israel for genocide. He also wrote about that in Boyle, Francis Anthony, "Palestine, Palestinians, and international law", Clarity Press, 2003, ISBN 093286337X, page 160-163. Boyle has two earned PhDs in Law and Political Science from Harvard, and has participated in genocide cases in the ICJ and as counsel to parties involved in the UN Ad Hoc Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. He is a reliable source on the subject of the crime of genocide and the ICJ.
I'm not ignoring the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authorities. The agreements between them placed 93 percent of the population under the direct administration of the PNA, not Israel. After the Oslo Agreements expired in 2000, the representatives of the Palestinian Authority accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC for the purpose of identifying, prosecuting and judging the authors and accomplices of criminal acts committed on the territory of Palestine since 1 July 2002. They also co‑sponsored the earlier draft resolution requesting the ICJ advisory opinion.[17] In that case they submitted written statements and oral pleadings which said that the situation in the territories violated the provisions of the Rome Statute and met the Court's definition of apartheid (See pages 170 and 261 of 838). The written statement described the process of Bantusanization and the general violation of human rights laws and international humanitarian laws. See Chapter 10, pages 235-268). [18]
I've already mentioned that the Court found that Israel had created isolated enclaves without access to adequate supplies of food and water and had violated the Palestinians rights to work, to health, to education, and an adequate standard of living. From the outset I've stated that WP:ARBPIA requires those views be included in any quality of life subsection. You also cannot cite Lancet and UNICEF statistics while excluding the accompanying analysis. harlan (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Harlan, I'm not disputing any of that. Really, I agree with you. Don't you understand this? However I do find it quite odd you accuse me of citing unreliable sources when you in fact link blatantly unreliable references again and again. I really wish you would look at my comments and respond to them, nothing I've suggested is remotely controversial. For 40 years Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaza and for 40 years the Palestinians had to deal with Israeli resources whether they liked it or not. Energy, education, health, etc...all came with Israel's presence. Even today the Palestinians are highly dependent on Israel for resources as the Arab states have practically boycotted their economy monetarily-speaking. The facts on the ground are less intense as you dubiously describe, but I understand the buzzwords and will accept them as long as you accept my fair edits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should a section about quality of life in the present day OPT be injected with a pro-Israeli narrative about the correlation between occupation and quality of life metrics in decades past? Quality of life did improve during that time period; the reasons are multi-faceted. Using an op-ed from a less than neutral magazine (with no sources) and JVL has already been challenged as an RS problem by three editors. Factor in that some of the assertions are prima facie impossibilities (eradicating malaria via inoculation is amazing given that the vaccines are still in trials) and lovingly cherry-picked (you'll be interested to learn that the increase in life span and decrease in mortality occurred in most Arab countries in the region during the same time, even ones not invaded) and there just isn't any reason to keep including this. Sol (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with Sol. This is an obvious case of WP:COATRACK. Wikifan made no effort to incorporate opposing viewpoints even after they were brought to his attention. #orse still, he is using the neutral voice of the encyclopedia to recite a very controversial POV.
Bard's 2006 article only cited a UNDP-sponsored 2004 Global Human Development Report. It doesn't compare the Israeli occupation with the pre-1967 period at all, much less mention the opening of any universities & etc. This is nothing more than a self-published Op-Ed piece by a former AIPAC apparatchik. The Palestinian territories were only included in the global report for the first time in 2003, and the entries for most metrics were blank. See the explanation about "Data Gaps" on page 192 [19]. For example, there was no global ranking supplied on the Human Poverty Index HPI-1 report for the Palestinian territories in 2004. See page 148 [20]. The 2009 report that Wikifan linked to above indicates that Palestinians are much worse off than their Arab brethren. Palestine was ranked 24th worldwide on the Human Poverty Index; 36th for individuals not expected to reach age 40; 53rd in adult illiteracy rate; 72nd for individuals not using treated water sources; and 10th worldwide for stunted or underweight children.[21]
Karsh's editorial in Commentary Magazine mentions lots of unsourced statistics for years in which the WHO, UNICEF, and the World Bank say there are no sources of reliable data available. In other cases at WP:RSN Commentary Magazine editorials have not been considered reliable or fact-checked sources, e.g. a Nelson Mandela quote about Israeli apartheid appeared in several sources, including a Commentary editorial [22]. In any event, Karsh says everything that he described "took place against the backdrop of Israel's hands-off policy in the political and administrative spheres." Wikifan sourced the Karsh article to the Mideast Dispatch Archive, which by definition represents a minority view. The operator says "This email list was begun in the late 90s to correct what I saw as a serious and growing imbalance in the way the Middle East was being covered by many, indeed most, Western journalists." [23] . harlan (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Karsh editorial? I'm not the one posted links from fringe radical, Hamas-activist sites. You totally misrepresents the UNDP link.

  • The Palestinians are #66 in life expectancy at birth (73.3). Ahead of Hungary and below Saint Lucia. Nowhere does it so not likely to reach 40, that is mad. Palestine is not Africa.
  • Your links say nothing about untreated water, but according to Water supply and sanitation in the Palestinian territories and overwhelmingly majority of Palestinians have access to "improved" (drinkable) water. Remember, the Palestinian leadership have their own water authority. And Palestinians have to pay much less for water than regular Israelis.
  • I don't know why you're so obsessed with attacking Karsh, but I assume it is simply a red-herring to cover up your total lack of substance. None of the links you have provided disprove trends, and there is a direct relationship between Israel's occupation and Palestinian quality of life. All we need to do is compare the 20 year Arab occupation and 20 year Israeli occupation, observe the positives and negatives, see the trends. Sources say Israeli developed water treatment plants, constructed universities, provided access to hospitals, trained Palestinian doctors. Hell, Israel even tried to move Palestinian refugees out of their cesspool into real homes but the UN condemned it. How dare Israel try to move their enemies out of poverty!

So really, the onus is on you. I'm expecting another lengthy reply attacking my character and accusing me of promoting Hasbara. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Development Report employs two different systems for ranking developed and developing countries. No direct comparisons between developed and developing countries are possible. The Palestinian Territories rank high, 24th out of 135 other countries, on the HPI-1 poverty index and 10th highest for stunted or underweight children. FYI the latter statistic was contained in both the Lancet and UNICEF studies you cited and I've pointed out that Lancet says that is a marker for permanent disabilities and shortened life expectancy.
The Human Poverty Index HPI-1 is a key measure of the standard of living. The HDR says that the Human Poverty Index measures (a) severe deprivation in health by the proportion of people who are not expected to survive to age 40; (b) the adult illiteracy rate; and (c) a decent standard of living as measured by the unweighted average of people not using an improved water source and the proportion of children under age 5 who are underweight for their age. Try scrolling down the page and reading the report that you keep citing: [24] harlan (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Harlan, do you disagree with anything I wrote above? All I did was go through the sources you provided and copied and pasted the facts mentioned. You must have misread the sources because it said absolutely nothing about water, sanitation, and claims that Palestinians are less like to reach age 40. How absurd, considering the Palestinians have a higher life expectancy than 90% of the world's population, including many Arab nations. I don't dispute the effects of the second intifada, but it is dubious to deny the realities of Israel's relationship with the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel ruled and controlled Palestinian life for quite awhile and spent a considerable amount of time shaping infrastructure, land, and resources. The fact is the standard of living and per capita income rose significantly following the Six Day War as Palestinians could now access Jerusalem and work in Israel. Some even qualify for citizenship. I don't remember the exact statistics, but I think it was 1 in 3 or 5 Palestinian families worked for Israeli employers prior to the second intifada. Like I've said and proven numerous times, there are very specific and universal parameters for quality of life. The billions poured into the territories on an annual basis can't possibly lead to the kind of suffering you frequently describe. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Harlan's talking about this link you posted, table 2. And yes, Palestinian quality of life isn't like Medieval Europe level but I'm not sure what that has to do with including POV pushes or why magical malaria vaccine sources are ok. Sol (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan I cite things that are reported by mainstream published sources. It isn't very difficult when so many sources are in agreement. For example, in the 2004 Wall case the Secretary General submitted a 1000 page dossier that reported on widespread unemployment and malnutrition. [25] Among other things, it reported that the Barrier had already separated 30 localities from health services, 22 from schools, 8 from primary water sources and 3 from electricity networks. It contained reports from rapporteurs on the resulting rise in water borne diseases and illnesses when Palestinians were forced to resort to unsafe or contaminated water supplies.
The 2004 Human Development Report that Bard cited [26] mentioned that:
  • Movements for cultural domination are exclusionary and seek to impose their ideology on others. It said "The Jewish Gush Emunim, a militant settler group, aims to recreate Biblical Israel and has used violence to expel Palestinians." and that "Movements for cultural domination are supremacist and often predatory. They espouse an ideology that demonizes other identities to justify the creation of a “pure”, sacred and homogeneous homeland." See page 75
  • States have resorted to torture, arguing that it is justified under certain circumstances. No matter how infrequent or moderate the use, there is always the danger of abuse when the law condones such actions. In 1987 an Israeli judicial commission recommended allowing “moderate physical pressure” in interrogations. See page 80
FYI, Kav LaOved has published a number of reports which say that Palestinian workers were exploited by the state of Israel [27], e.g. See "Israel Owes Billions of Shekels to Palestinian Workers [28]; the Jerusalem Post ‘State siphoned off Palestinian workers’ insurance money’ [29]; and Al Jezeerah 'Israel accused of 'tax theft' [30] harlan (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harlan, you're going off-topic. Yes, Palestinian workers are exploited and the security barrier has disrupted the lives of ordinary Palestinians. Okay, so what? What does this have to do with you constantly misrepresenting, if not outright making up facts to support a narrative that isn't connected with reality? I've showed with serious sources that Israel built up and developed much of today's Palestine infrastructure independent of the UN and aid organizations. And Israel's presence facilitated a much more comprehensive and efficient manner of moving aid into the territories as the Arab occupiers refused international meddling and handled all UNRWA payments on their own. Even today Israel is the one escorting aid and resources into Gaza while Egypt does nothing.

I really don't understand what you are trying to prove or discredit. It's a recognized fact that Israel implemented policies following the Six Day War that significantly reduced poverty and improved the standard of living and quality of life for ordinary Palestinians. If it weren't for Israel there would be independent Palestinian organizations to measure the "quality of life" according to the special, secret-rubric designed by native academics. I don't dispute the symptoms of the second intifada and recent conflicts, but you continue to ignore history and UN stats that disagree with your thesis. I'm still waiting for you to find me the source that says Palestinians are one of the most likely people to not reach age 40. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion now has no bearing on the removed sections. You are asking Harlan to refute statements he didn't make ("36th for individuals not expected to reach age 40" is not equal to "says Palestinians are one of the most likely people to not reach age 40.") and disputing information not in the article. Sol (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the source said absolutely nothing about age 40. Harlan has a habit of going off-topic when things don't go the way he planned. Overwhelmingly editors with his skilled and competent understanding of the Palestinians from the Palestinian POV. IMO I wouldn't be surprised if he was a lawyer in RL. But his ramblings have nothing to do with what I've been trying to demonstrate. Sol, do you want me to copy and paste my elementary-level bullet points, so you can see Harlan did not address a single one? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan I deleted a very poorly sourced WP:COATRACK/POV editorial from the article space because you did not include the opposing/majority viewpoints - even after they were brought to your attention here on the talk page. In the case of the Lancet article you did not include the views of the authors regarding Israel's neglect of the health care system in the Palestinian territories. There is no need to address your bullet lists until you take a stab at complying with Wikipedia:Five pillars. harlan (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Harlan, feel free to include the "opposing view." I enumerated quite clearly your editor bias and invoking seriously amusing buzzwords, as well as stating false information like Palestinians are 36th for not expecting to reach age 40, or Palestinians have the worst quality of life on the planet. Removing a cited paragraph because you think the fringe side is not fairly represents means you as an editor should balance it, not delete the information until the original editor can be more neutral (from your perspective). I went ahead and revised the section, removed the scoop refs and included the gist of the lancet study. What more do you want? Palestinians are starving to death and being subject to colonial genocide as you have claimed in numerous other talk discussions? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan this article has existed without a quality of life or standard of living subsection for a number of years. I believe that information about the contents of the ICJ opinion has been removed from this article. You are apparently the only editor who thinks that this article needs to contain this information, or that Bard or Commentary Magazine editorials are relevant, reliable, fact-checked sources of information that can be presented in the neutral voice of the encyclopedia. BTW, which official or scholarly sources cite these claims by Bard and Karsh? The HDR report does not represent the official views or policies of the United Nations. According to its sponsor, UNDP, it is known for its controversial analysis. [31] The authors of the HDR admit it is based upon unreliable statistical sources, incomplete data, and that many UN member states are not even included.
The World Court considered the evidence from fact finding missions with legal mandates to report on economic and health conditions and about compliance with human rights conventions in these particular territories. The Court's findings of fact stated that Israel has been illegally depriving the Palestinians of their rights to self-determination, to work, to an education, to health, to adequate sources of food and water, to adequate housing, and the right to an adequate standard of living. The narrative accounts contained in the periodic WHO, UNICEF, World Bank reports and the multi-discipline multi-part peer-reviewed Lancet series [32] contain similar conclusions about conditions in the territories. harlan (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The guidelines on naming conventions for the West Bank are located here [33] harlan (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That information is mentioned in the first, "Name", subsection of the article. [34] harlan (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

NPOV policy on naming articles is pretty clear.[35] "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

Uncivil side discussion
You really need to read a book or two. nableezy - 18:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Again, Nab, feel free to approach Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, disputing reliability here is useless. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
My bad Nab, thank you for clarifying. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. Zerotalk 05:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupied_Palestinian_territories&oldid=393053088"