Talk:Palestinians/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Fewer pictures

There are too many pictures on this page. Many contribute nothing. Some are politicized. Several have errors. I'm gonna take off that picture of "Palestinian Arab family of Ramallah" and the Palestinian Bedouin. Both pictures have captions that can not be verified. We don't know how those people described themselves. I'm gonna leave Arafat with the girl, thats adorable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.162 (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

wrong

the article of the palestinian people have an error on it and i dont know how to fix it can someone else fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.121.52 (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you point out the specific error? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian diplomacy

"Over 130 nations recognize Palestine as a state" Can we say that? It seems to me like many countries recognize the "State of Palestine" but that number is less that 130. A lot of the countries recognize the PLO or a government-in-exile but in some way have reservations about a full recognition. But the article makes it seem like there isn't any confusion.

Someone changed the number from 100 to 130. Good on them if thats the case, but I think the statement needs to be qualified more. The reference that this number, 130, comes from is a blatantly biased, non-journalistic website called "War is Crime."

I think it is obvious that the website is being flippant with its words. Lets not let the article do the same.

How about saying "Over a hundred nations recognize a Palestinian state in some form" or "Most nations recognize an independant Palestinian state, but many, like the United States, do not extend full recognition."

Either way, that reference has got to go. If a reliable reference can't be found, a general statement must be used instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.147 (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Source distortions - writing out Palestine and Palestinians

Reading this article after a long wikibreak, I was surprised by some of the terminology and emphases that have been introduced over the last many months. Doing a comparison with the last time I edited it, to see what changes had since been made [1], I noticed a pattern whereby "Palestinian" has been replaced with "Arab", "Palestine" has been evaded, and material sourced to high quality sources and relevant to the subject at hand removed with no valid reasoning provided. I will be restoring some of what was lost and reworking the article as time permits over the next little while. Heads up. Tiamut^talk 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if you're going to use Arab at all, you should at least say Palestinian Arab. For the other stuff, idk and I am biased ofc. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some Palestinians are not Arabs. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of that fact, but it appears the Arab thing was about the Palestinians that are Arabs (unless someone was saying that all Palestinians are Arabs, but I am going to stick with the idea they just meant the Palestinians that are Arabs), hence my suggestion of the designation of Palestinian Arab, or does Arab Palestinian work? That sounds like it conveys the idea of ethnically Arab members of Palestinian society better. Thoughts? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it depends, if the text is exclusively about the Palestinians who happen to be Arabs, and not about the non-Arab Palestinians, and their is a reason in the text to point out ethnicity, then "Palestinian Arabs" can be used, but otherwise, just "Palestinian" should be used. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if it is about the Arab ones specifically (to the exclusion of other groups), then you gotta point it ouf of course. =p That makes the most sense, ya, if it is about a group, say the group if about all, say Palestinian. Still, which is better? Palestinian Arab or Arab Palestinian? Palestinian Arab seems to have some connotation to it that I cannot put my finger on (like the usage of that term itself). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We are all biased, though we try not to let it overrule policy. That you admit it means you are better off than most editors here. Cheers. Tiamut^talk 08:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I try not to either, but I am not sure that my own knowledge on the subject would clash with what is needed for the article, and I don't want to put in any WP:OR as I would not remember what source I had learned the info from or if it would be helpful here. =( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Tiamut, please stop calling yourself unbiased when you most certainly are.

I understand you have passionate beliefs, but your passion doesn't make your beliefs fact.

I changed "Palestinian" to "Arab" in many cases because the sources they were quoting were refering to Arabs. There is a genetic study that talks about Arabs, but is quoted in the article and twisted around to make an untrue statement about Palestinians. Did you just do a bunch of revision without reviewing why?

The reference to the PLO as a supporter of political violence is valid. We can't call it just a diplomatic organ, it is both. The US and EU both call it a terror org.

Your widespread edits reverting other peoples good works to conform to your nationalist ideas is highly innappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.169 (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Aloha, I'm going to try and stay out of this coming mess, but I do want to point out that he or she didn't say that he or she was unbiased, in fact he or she said, "::We are all biased, though we try not to let it overrule policy. That you admit it means you are better off than most editors here. Cheers. Tiamut^talk 08:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)" Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying my comment above Flinders Petrie. I think you understand what i meant.

To IP 132 ... the source cited did not support characterizing the PLO as a group that engages in pollitical violence (at least not presently). The EU and US most certainly do not categorize the PLO as a terrorist group. the organization currently represents Palestinians under the name of "Palestine" at the UN. If you need sources for that, you can find them at the pages on State of Palestine and PLO.

Both sources cited in the article for information on genetics in the introduction use the term "Palestinians" or "Palestinian Arabs". The second source, a newspaper article on the genetic study also uses the term "Arab", but if you read the study itself you will see the population examined were Palestinians.

Finally, please comment on content, not contributors. It helps to keep the discussion focused. Tiamut^talk 07:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As much as I dislike the PLO (though I prefer them over Hamas as they do not currently fire rockets at my girlfriend) and acknowledge that they play some role in the violenc, Tiamut is correct that they are not on the list. Here is the official list from the United States State Department. [2] Here is the harder to find EU one, which I couldn't find on an official site [3], never heard of Kach before, but they're too extreme (and kharedi for that matter) for me (more land (within reason), yes, but expulsion of all Arabs, khalactic law, etc, hell no). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Both lists contain organizations that fall under the umbrella of the PLO. In order to negotiate with them, the US and EU have to pretend that the snorting mud-rascals in the PLO aren't a bunch of pigs. Don't use loopholes to drive political trucks through.

It is wrong to mention the PLO as ONLY a diplomatic organization. It needs to be cited as both, or not at all. We are using the euphemism of political violence, why don't you want to mention that? Do you want to say they participate in the struggle by any means necessary?

As for the genetic info used in error, I was talking about 18. That study, of "Jews and Arabs," was used to say something about Palestinians. I changed Pally to Arab because thats what the sourced study was citing.

The one you are talking about, 17, is another bad source. The abstract is quoted and generalizations are drawn from it. That sounds like bad editing to me. Just because it looks sciency doesn't mean its legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.43.101 (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)