Talk:Palestinian right of return/Archive 1

message: What, no boiling controversy here? This page sure does break protocol! Somebody Else's ProblemCatDog(aka Alethiophile) 03:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm disappointed 

message: Right now the "For" argument is not made, while there is extensive material in the "against".  --Abnn 19:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced presentation 

message: I would like to create a section titled "Historic Attempts at Resolution." Just as it sounds, this section would contain the various offers and negotiation processes that each side proffered in attempting to resolve the conflict. I doubt that I will be able to find them all, and so would like to keep a tally in this section of the discussion. Please add relevant historic events (make sure to keep them in chronological order): Screen stalker 23:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. Isarig 00:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget to add the 2000 Camp David Summit and Taba Summit.  --GHcool 05:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could do that, GHcool, that would be great. I don't want to be the only editor involved in this. :-( Screen stalker 21:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I haven't had much time recently to find more sources for this. I will go ahead and add it to the article, and if anyone want to add more, they are more than welcome to. Screen stalker 17:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic Attempts at Resolution 

message: I'm pretty sure that "Right of Return" shouldn't be capitalized since it isn't a proper name nor is it at the start of the article title.  Israel's "Law of Return" is capitalized because that is the name of the law, but right now we are talking about a specific desire or concept, and it isn't a proper noun.  I won't arbitrarily change the title myself right now, because I fear it could be contentious, but I must say that every time I read the title of this article it strikes me as improperly capitalized.  In my opinion, it should be "Palestinian right of return."  --Abnn 16:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper title capitalization? 

message: * BBC News | Middle East | Right of return: Palestinian dream
* AlJazeera.Net - The right of return
* Human Rights Watch: Right to Return policy
* AFP: Baker panel's mention of Palestinian "right of return" raises eyebrows
* New York Times: Olmert Rejects Right of Return for Palestinians
--Abnn 16:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional sources 

message: is not a wp:rs source for anythingh except on itself. it is an advocay organization which goes by: "No return= no peace" (which means "no return = continued war" Zeq 21:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  al-awda.org 

message: You can't bring your own research from any sources you like to try to counter stuff you see in the article. The sources need to explicitly discuss "The Palestinian right of return", otherwise it's WP:SYNTH. Jayjg (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Screen stalker, please read WP:SYNTH well. Do any of your sources mention the "Palestinian right of return"? Jayjg (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: in such sensitive article we need to be very strict on accuracy, sources and NPOV. maybe it is better to use a sandbox before changes that violate NPOV. we don't want this to end up as bas as the nakba article. Zeq 05:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I am misunderstanding the issue of Synthesis. I see your point as to why sources that are very specific to the issue at hand are necessary. Let's try to find some of those, since these are major issues that have to do with the right of return. Screen stalker 10:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of them do now; I had to remove one non-specific that had somehow gotten back in. Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Of the approximately 700,000 Palestinians who fled Israel 60 years ago, perhaps 300,000 at most are still alive. The number of Palestinian refugees is estimated at over 4,000,000. Thus the people who actually fled, and wish to return to their homes, represent well under 10% of the total who demand a right of return. The article lead cannot make misleading claims, including the claim that the people now demanding a "right of return" actually fled Israel, when the vast majority of them have never lived there begin with. Jayjg (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jay is correct. this is by now a political demand not an individual one. Zeq 05:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is demanding a "right of return"? 

message: Why is the PLO in that template/box? Shouldn't it be the P.A.? --Shuki 22:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Screen stalker 12:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So do I. Alithien 10:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negotiating parties 

message: Jorditxei has recently added a list of international instruments and statements to the "For" section of the article, indicating that they are conventions relevant to the "Palestinian right of return". However, the document in question lists them as "Other applicable instruments of international law concerning the rights of Palestinian refugees." "Rights" and "Right of return" are two different things. Please make sure that material added to the article is specific to the "right of return". Jayjg (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I accept your point. Thanks. Cheers. --Jorditxei 18:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian "rights" vs. Palestinian "right of return" 

message: I believe the "return to property prior to 1948..." version is more NPOV, accurate, academic and encyclopedic. I therefore reverted the unintelligible revert of user:Ian Pitchford on the issue. Amoruso 21:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I just reverted the revert of CJCurrie... same edit, same issue, same reason.  6SJ7 01:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the NPOV version so I reverted to it. Please avoid a foolish edit-war over a blant POV. Zeq 16:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would sugest we has the issue here in talk instead of making moer changes about "place of origin" (an unsusbstentiated claim and also POV) Zeq 20:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Right of Return asserts an individual right (covered by "property," "places of residence," etc.) and a collective national right ("land of origin").  I do not see how "land of origin" is POV, but those who don't like it need to suggest alternate phrases that cover the (asserted) collective national right.--G-Dett 15:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Land of origin" is vague. Presumably, it can be Earth. Beit Or 18:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the current phrasing, while it was altered somewhat to take into account one of my concerns, is still far too vague, and I'm confused by this whole dichotomy between the concepts of "individual" and "national" rights - such ideas are not even mentioned in the text. TewfikTalk 06:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I fixed it and hope I satisfied everybody. :-) Alithien 10:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I clarified it to amek it a bit more accurate . The issue is that they want to "return" into Israel - which would make Israel a country with majority Palestinians. I, as many Israelis, have no obhection that they live in Palestine, but not inside Israel. Zeq 19:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I'd swear that that sounds just like a system of apartheid. Tarc 20:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  to their property vs land of origin 

message: before reading a section here I believed that israel's existance was one of the the greatest injustices in the modern world
but
the fact that so many jews fled arab lands was news to me and really changed my view of the whole conflict from a one sided right wing colonial attack on an innocent populace, an attack to be remedied eventually by way of compensations and apologies (like british colonisation of australia and present day sorry movement, compensation, return of land recognition of injustice etc) to one more like the expultion of innocent german peoples from checkoslavakia after ww2. I mean israel's actions were and are still inhumane and immoral victimising (mostly) innocent people for harm done to them by europeans and other arabs and for simple greed ethnocentrism ...
BUT
where is the outrage for the jewish refugees?
where is the call for their right of return (ie compensation for damages) 
I believe that large group of humans always act evil and selfishly 
it seems to me that evil selfrightous jewish leaders stole rights/property/land  from vulnerable palestinians , then some evil selfrightous arab leaders stole  rights/property/land from vulnerable jews then the jewish leaders gave some of the palestinian land to the vulnerable jews and generally treated them nicely and helped them back on their feet, but the arab leaders didn't or couldn't really help the palestinians. so they are still being harmed.
its not that the attacks of some powerful arabs on some weak jews justifies the reciprical response or absolves israel of its guilt, its just that condemnation has to be proportional and all societies are inherently savage and to focus so much on israel's crimes at the expense of other more serious crimes like vietnam or africa is not consistent.
anyway thats my thoughts.Esmehwp 16:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News to me 

message: Hi 6SJ7.  I'm still puzzling slightly over the lead.  It seems that we have two choices about how to present this topic: we can present it as a right defined by international human rights law, UN resolution 194 and so on, or we can present it as an assertion of a right that claims to be rooted in these things.  Every indication is that we've chosen the latter.  Given that we're talking about an assertion that's by definition POV, it seems gratuitous to put hedging qualifications into every clause; as a matter of tone, NPOV suffers from this.  To illustrate the point, look at the following sentence in Law of Return:
The purpose of the Law of Return, like that of the Zionist Movement, was to provide a solution to the Jewish people's problem--to re-establish a home for the entire Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel. 
Imagine if that sentence (which, like the one we're dealing with, describes a contentious claim) were rewritten with a disclaimer in every clause: 
The official purpose of the Law of Return, like the claimed purpose of the Zionist Movement, was to provide a solution to the Jewish people's alleged problem--to re-establish a "home" for the entire Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael, the greater Land of Israel as claimed by Zionists, which includes parts of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt as well as the West Bank and Gaza. 
Do you see what happens to the tone?
Here's the sentence we're discussing, with the contested word bolded:
The Palestinian right of return (Arabic: al-haq al-awda; Hebrew: זכות השיבה zkhut hashivah) refers to the demand that Palestinians who fled, were expelled, or born to Palestinian refugees in exile, during and after the Palestinian Civil War (1947-1948), the 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli War and the Six-Day War be allowed to return to their, or their ancestors' claimed homeland and to receive full restitution of their property or compensation in lieu.
What is "claimed" adding to this sentence, other than a kind of tonal well-poisoning?    We've already defined RoR as a "demand"; we've already pointed out that this demand of "return" is asserted by those who were born in exile (and hence have never set foot in Palestine); and on top of that we have a highly conspicuous clause, almost Jamesian in its syntax, redundantly emphasizing that these who were born in exile are asserting the right not to return to their homeland but to their ancestors'  homeland.  In addition to this, you want to emphasize that this is only a "claimed"  homeland?  Meaning that it's open to dispute whether Palestine is really the homeland of first-generation refugees who "fled" or "were expelled" from it?  This is at best redundant, at worst distortively tendentious, and in either case non-neutral in its tone.  Please consider self-reverting.--G-Dett 18:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Qualifying "homeland" is a compromise.  The better approach would be not to use "homeland" at all.  The Palestinians are claiming the right to return to their homes; why not just say so?  And I don't think the analogy to the Law of Return article is applicable, because there we are not talking about the intro to the article, which is completely factual and makes no mention of a homeland or national home.  6SJ7 04:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a more complex issue - legally and semantically - that people realize. Palestinians are classified as refugees merely on their claim that they resided in a certain area for 2 years or more before they left. (To make an illustrative comparison: I lived in Austria as a child for more than two years - if something similar had happened there, the conclusion would be that I and all my descendants could claim to be Austrian for all foreseeable future and demand that I be allowed to return to the village I lived.) This definition therefore includes individuals who have longstanding roots and connections to very specific areas; as well as people who were transient; and probably also individuals who are making fraudulent claims. I'm not going to claim anything about the proportions of each of these groups, nor am I going to question their conviction or emotional attachment to the area they wish to return to; but the qualifiers are important to make so readers can understand why it's complex. --Leifern (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me just go ahead and lose the argument here, but many people who claimed to be Holocaust survivors have been exposed as frauds. There are even partisan sources who point this out in order to criticize the conduct of many groups claiming compensation for the Holocaust (ask Norman Finkelstien) or even to deny that the Holocaust ever occurred at all (ask David Irving). That's relevant to note, but I would severely question the wisdom, not to mention the motives, of an editor who constantly edited Holocaust articles to read along the lines of, "compensation was provided to 170,000 Romanian Holocaust survivors and fraudulent claimants." <eleland/talkedits> 21:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: "Scope of the issue" and "Arguments" are essentially the same section. "Scope of the issue" should only discuss, well, the scope of the issue, rather than devolving into he-said-she-said style patter. <eleland/talkedits> 20:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section merge needed 

message: I tried to use quotatins "Right of return" but someone did not liked it. I tried to use a descriptive name "deamnd for right to return" - all are accurate more than the current title but that got reverted and protected (highly unusual since protect is not suposed to do that) anyhow, we need a name that does not imply that this is actually a real right but a political demand.
We all know what this "right" is - a demand to make Israel an non-Jewish state. so the article should clearly say that. There is noting wrong in telling the truth. It is prefectky legitimate for some group (zionist) to want one thing and anoter group (anti-zionist) to want something else. NPOV means we use Neutral languge and describe the controversy. Zeq (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq, I know you feel you're improving the article, but your pagemoves were downright disruptive. Article titles are not qualified in this manner. Creation science is not a science, the Right to die is highly disputed, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is 0.5 for 4, the Sea of Galilee is not really a sea, Piltdown Man was an Orangutan... every one of these is literally the first example I thought to check, and they all prove my point. Zeq, you're welcome to your opinion, but this article is never going to be titled in the fashion you favour, and it's certainly not appropriate to try and move-war it in. <eleland/talkedits> 17:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Compare Law of Return, which is at its appropriate title regardless of whether someone born in Tasmania to a Christian father who had a Jewish mother whose seventieth-generation grandparent lived in Jerusalem is "returning" to Israel in all but a spiritual or allegorical sense. <eleland/talkedits> 19:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "even those who regard it as a demand know it by the term "right of return."  - exactly and this is why quotations should be used. Comparison to "law of return" is not appropriate as this is the name of the law and does not imply some "right". The problem here is not the word "return" but the word "right" which is highly POV. Zeq (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it does imply a "return" which is not, in fact, a return. That's fine, since the title reflects the name of the thing itself, regardless of whether that name is misleading. <eleland/talkedits> 20:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the article is highly POV 

message: I don't mind who wrote this : "You disagreed with the fact that they want to return into Israel. In exchange you offered the word "political"." but it is "out of question" of working with such a philosophy.
There are no negociation on wikipedia. There are discussions where the different point of views coming from relevant sources are introduced.
I don't have any source on this topic but reporting pov's (definition, minds, analysis, ...) from relevant sources is the only way to work.
Ceedjee (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negociations 

message: The mandate was finished on 1948 but not in wkipedia:  - some Palestinains still want to go back there... Zeq (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: zeq, it's logical to refer to British Mandate Palestine here since that term aptly designates was the geographical area from whence the majority of refugees today derive. It also is much less wordy than "Israel and the pieces that are to form part of a Palestinian state" or "Israel, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem" or whatever other contentious configuration. Tiamut 02:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The demand is current and the geographical unit that is  now  in that place is called Israel. If I am not mistaken you yourself are actually a citizen of that state. As for "mush less wordy" - I agree that finding accuare descriptions which are less wordy is better but not at the price of being current with history. We also must keep in mind that all this description - who are  the refugees, where they came from, where they want to be, what they really want are all part of a POV representing only one side. When a wikipedia article ends up looking like this:  http://www.al-awda.org/facts.html we surly have a problem. Zeq (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: you wrote yourself that the main pov was that Cisjordan and Gaza are not in Israel. Ceedjee (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible edit by anon 

message: Someone has introduced a subtle-but-significant change to this page in the last few hours, adjusting the language in a way that suggests only the first generation of Palestinian refugees are properly classified as "refugees" to begin with.  This is not how the term is usually defined, and I've changed the wording back accordingly.  (Please note that I'm not making any comment as to whether or not this shift was deliberate.)  CJCurrie (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And they won't discuss it, either. All they'll do is revert. As you can see from the talk page, this has been a fairly long-term campaign. <eleland/talkedits> 05:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  the distinction is important in light of the time that has passed. Israel in the past exprssed a willingness to absorb a small number of people who were refugees themself. Their grand children and grand grand children born elsewhere emigrated elsewqhere and may had the possibility to build new life to themselfs (or if not we must describe why) are a different issue in the eyes of Israel. So there are two POVs here: The one Palestinian POV which makes no distinction and the Israeli one which does. You have been doing a good jon presenting the Palestinian POV. Now maybe you can add the other side ? Zeq (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comments in the section below. The "Palestinian POV" (as you term it) is supported by the international community. The "Israeli POV" is held by the government of Israel and the United States, against the consensus of the international community and international law - i.e. it is a minority viewpoint. Tiamut 12:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus - explain that this is a conflict related issue that there are two positions.
Next paragraph summerize those two positions one for each side and give some critism of each.
We should follow that example.
everything else is not WP:NPOV and together we will get this article to follow this policy. Zeq (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Tiamut. Hope your hand feels better soon. sorry if it's injured. I don';t wish to make you strain it further. however, the whole point here is that this is not a universal right. where have you seen this applied? there are numerous cases of refugees in the world, and many cases where refugees are NOT able to return. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said before, I do not think this is a question of "viewpoints" and therefore WP:UNDUE does not apply.  However, I do not have time to write anything about this today.  I do think that the Israeli position, however, it is written, should not be buried at the bottom of a very long introduction.  It should be much nearer the top, to counterbalance the claim of a "right of return" (or if you wish, the claim that the "right of return" applies so as to require Israeli acceptance of unlimited immigration to its own territory.)  6SJ7 (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I disagree. the main points here are the Palestinians and Israeli viewpoints. as far as neutral legal scholars, there are plenty on each side. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An example of how NPOV lead should look like 

message: The section Palestinian_right_of_return#Absentees.27_property is aabout the roots of a law. The law has it's own article. It is more encyclopedic that origins of this law will be in the article about that law and not here in an article about a diffrent term. Zeq (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is part of the background. If Palestinian require compensation, it is important to know compensation of what. Don't worry. This is not finished. I will add more material in the near future. Ceedjee (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  absantee section 

message: I removed 'controversial' in 'the P-RoR is a controversial political position'. The nature of any 'political position' is that there is some kind of opposite position, otherwise it would not be called a political position. So there is no need to add the word 'controversial' here. To stress this here makes the article pov. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The original text in the source was "highly controersial" - so maybe the word highly was in ppace. After all the RoR is not just your average Run of the mill Political position - it is at the center of the Israeli-palestinian conflict and as such it is "highly controersial". Please restore this important charterization. I am disapointed that since Ceddjee have left you a nore you too joined the tag-team revert and edits which make this article more POV. Zeq (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'controversial' 

message: Zeq (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Palestinian source 

message: Regarding the Right of Return discussion - not intended to set off any debates here. I was just wondering if anyone knows of any research done as to whether or not the Israel/Palestine region can actually support an additional 10 million people 4.2 million people, sorry, was looking at the wrong statistic. I'm wondering in particular if there's sufficient water in the area to allow for such a population increase. --Brasswatchman (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Information: Water Resources and Right of Return? 

message: It seems to me there is a lot of edit warring over what is NOT a WP:RS source. The source http://wais.stanford.edu/Israel/israel_andthepalestinerightofreturn51603.html is just one of a bunch of self-published discussion papers on http://wais.stanford.edu/Israel/, a not very official Stanford outlet. This one is by - who? Ronald Hilton - 5/16/03 did this one. Is he a freshman? A PhD? No information.  It's acceptable to use information he quotes from - if you independently verify that it is true. But he should not be used as a source. We don't really have to go to WP:RSN on this, do we?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i viewed the page, and agree that it isn't a RS.  some of the links he provides may be, but any info relying on this ref should be scrapped and rewritten with attribution to the correct sources. untwirl(talk) 16:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: hm. well, i kinda messed that up by duplicating a ref.  lets see if i can fix it.  untwirl(talk) 17:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: ==Who is a refugee?==
This indicates that descendants are covered under the definition.  I realize that some people object to this definition; nevertheless, it's the definition the UN uses in this particular case.  Linking to a more general UN resolution on the definition of refugees is original research and inappropriate.  CJCurrie (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

text: No, what you're doing is original research. Some people are of the opinion that descendants are not refugees. You don't get to hide their opinion just because you don't like it.   No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

text: By the way, UNRWA can only decide who they consider a refugee for the purpose of distributing aid. They don't make international law. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hilton not WP:RS