You should open discussion, wait for responses, and then edit. Unless something is obviously trying to push a conclusion into reader's heads. Consider the following... 

 "The history of a distinct Palestinian national identity is a disputed issue amongst scholars with some arguing that it can be traced to the 1834 Arab revolt in Palestine while others argue that it didn't emerge until after the Mandate Palestine period.[19] The prevailing view is that Palestinian identity orginated in the early decades of the twentieth century" 

 Is this good encyclopedia material? We present two views, and then say "but most people think it started in the Early Twentieth." I don't think that is the prevailing notion. I think a lot of Palestinians will trace themselves further back, sometimes centuries or more. Some, like myself, don't see the modern term "Palestinian" being used like it is today until 1948, at least. 

 So there is not a prevailing view for the early decades of the twentieth. That is just a compromise position that few actually hold. This paragraph is OR, so I am going to delete it and also streamline the reference to this failed notion in the lead. 

 The source that holds this up is a book by a Jew. If a Jew says something that Palestinian nationalists can use, does that mean this is an ironclad source? No, its just one source. We can't make summaries of world opinion because we linked a statement to a book, even if its by a Jew. 

 "Widespread" is a weasel word in the context it was used in. The statement, paraphrased from another online encyclopedia, makes the claim that Arabs commonly called themselves Palestinian in the early twentieth. It can't be disproven, because widespread can mean anything.  

 Now about that Palestinian political violence. The PLO is mostly known as a terrorist organization/political violence group. They do diplomacy too, but to not mention the many lively armed groups that constitute the PLO would be biased. 

 I'll admit Palestinian political violence is an awkward phrase, and we shouldn't contribute to the untrue stereotype that every Palestinian is a terrorist. But the PLO is not just a diplomatic organ. It is an umbrella group for terror organizations. 

 I'm going to say that the PLO has a history connected to Pally political violence. That doesn't need a source. It doesn't make a suggestion about whether or not the group is STILL connected to terror. But its past is indisputable. 

 Replacing a POV statement with an opposite POV statement is not progress. I try to change material into something better, instead of just more palatable to my ideas. Look at the pictures on this page and tell me that you and other editors aren't trying to create sympathy for the abused fellahin.