Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive 8

message: Palestine is a country, and was a country way before Israel. There is a Palestinian government and Palestinians have elections and more importantly the UN recognizes Palestine as a country. Unfortunately, from this article and looking at the history of edits, numerous Jewish and Israeli vandalists who can't see anything but 2 triangles, are trying to change history, twist and bend facts. I don't blame them though, its those poisonous rabbi's who keep teaching the poor Jewish people illicit non-torah violent and defaming views. Its only when they let go of the Talmud and perverted Rabbi's they will see God. Right now, they are praying to no other than their own minds. Stop vandalizing and messing up what you consider Goyims. God is not Jewish. --78.86.117.164 20:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is Wikipedia Zionism at its best 

message: So the country is now being called a region? For hundreds of years pre-Israel the concerned area of land was and even today is known as Palestine (UN). To call it a region is rather funny, how can a region then not posses countries? Asia is a so called region, rather a continent due to its size and bears many countries. If Palestine was a region, surely it must bear countries likewise, but that is rather false, since Palestine was and is a country. Please revise the writing; I will soon add meaningful information to this article, as most of the key writings are sourced from israeli materials and writers whom of many do not see nor accept the existence of Palestine as a country prior to the formation of the Israel state or after. 
Pales5tine is for israel.
:This is the most absurd argument I've heard in a long time.  Antarctica is just as much a region as Asia, and yet it holds no countries.  I'm not saying that Palestine is not a country.  In fact, I would argue that it is.  However, your argument as to why it is...is well, silly. In fact, since the modern understanding of "country" is  (shockingly) modern, one could easily (and IMHO validly) argue that there really were no countries, as we currently understand them, before 1789 (the French revolution).  Before that, there were Empires and Kingdoms and some City States.  You point (which I believe is valid) is not strengthened by stating your case in this manner.159.153.4.50 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Palestine is opressed and deprived of rights but please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a battlefield, so feel free to edit but please maintain equality while doing so, direct attacks at any state or person will be considered vandalism. Add only what is fact. Thank you. (Ahnaf 11:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This article talks about Palestine the region , not the proposed state that doesn't exist yet but will apparently choose palestine for its name. So any additions which will talk about this state are meaningless and irrelevant to the article, and won't be included obviously. The article you're actually looking for is here: State of Palestine. Amoruso 13:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually I dont think "most" is true.  It is given observer status at the UN, but otherwise very few countries consider it a state.  Remember, a worldwide view is not just muslim countries.  The current worldwide view is that it is not a state but pieces of former territory of Egypt or Jordan that will in the future (hopefully) be a state. Gtadoc 18:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PALESTINE NOT A COUNTRY?? WHO IS THE KID HERE? 

message: Robin Hood 1212 20:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Palestine is a historical geographic region. It is not a country and never has been. If you suggest to discard its rich history (that goes millennia before the Arab conquest in the 7th century) and start with today's situation on the ground, that would be completely unworkable idea. But even if we follow it, I suspect that you won't like the result. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Israel never existed as a country neither, with only citations being the Jewish books themselves. No one else in the world knew even the word Israel. Suddenly in 1945 it popped on earth like gonorrhea fungi designed to infect others. Palestine has always existed, and Houmous, why do you think before Israel, there was the "British Mandate of Palestine"? I can show you maps that age 1000 years showing Palestine, with no sites of words such as "israel". Ooops im sorry, those historical map makers were anti-Semites too I guess. Or, israel was always there, but people have always been cruel to the jews. Awwwwwwww. Like the saying is, if someone is kicked out by more than 1, then the problem is not with the kickers, but the kickee. They must be doing something wrong to have faced so much cruelty through out history. --78.86.117.164 20:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How does that wash with the fact that arabs living within the Holy Land have been kicked out by more than 1 too?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.56.228 (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestine means the WB and GS, not the history  

message: [Sanremo] is the Italian city where the conference was held, at least according to Wikipedia. If this is incorrect please post here before reverting. Arker 01:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanremo 

message: The "Current Map of Israel" needs to be renewed. Gaza is no longer under Israeli occupation.
:Good point. But it doesnt really have "final" status yet. --Haldrik 06:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map needs to be renewed 

message: Those who are deleting sourced material from either Katz, Pipes, Mark Twain, De Haas and so on, please stop doing so. The fact you don't like it, don't give you persmission to delete it. I'm talking about the known WP:POV pushers who remove sourced material here. Amoruso 13:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors are obliged to write their own material for Wikipedia citing reliable sources. A direct quotation must cite the source from which you took it. Katz is not a reliable source but if you want to check what he says copies of his book are very cheap second-hand. --Ian Pitchford 14:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about Katz's book ? I have it right here beside me and I'm quoting directly from it. (Have it in two langauges, 3 differnet versions right here). Katz is a reliable source of course. And I've checked the secondary quotes as well just to be sure. Hence, stop your vandalism immediately or be blocked. Amoruso 14:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You should throw away Katz and go to a good bookshop and buy yourself some modern history books.  Nearly everything you copy out of Katz is discredited by modern scholarship.  For example the population of Palestine was already in the 200,000-300,000 range by 1800 (Bacchi's estimate was 275,000).  It declined a bit during the middle of the century then recovered by the end.  When the Ottomans started doing censuses in 1878, the population was over 230,000 (McCarthy, Population of Palestine).   The worthlessness of the game of quotations can easily be shown by quotations saying the opposite.  For example Ahad Ha'am wrote in 1891: "From abroad, we are accustomed to believe that Eretz Israel is presently almost totally desolate, an uncultivated desert, and that anyone wishing to buy land there can come and buy all he wants. But in truth it is not so. In the entire land, it is hard to find tillable land that is not already tilled; only sandy fields or stony hills, suitable at best for planting trees or vines and, even that after considerable work and expense in clearing and preparing them-only these remain unworked" (Alan Dowty's translation of "Truth from Eretz Yisrael").  Of course one can be sure without looking that this quotation is not presented by Katz, because Katz wanted to present the racist viewpoint that the inferior Arabs neglected and destroyed Palestine until the superior Jews returned and repaired it.  We don't need that sort of rubbish here, thank you. --Zerotalk 14:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  if you have soruces Zero that apply to the WP:RS sources you can use them. Katz's last version of the book is very modern and verified. There's no doubt among historians that the land was mostly desolate. of course you find a fringe view here and there. The cannaties thing needs ref too, we're writing an encyclopedia here, not your personal WP:POV - do not blank out sourced material that you don't like. I repeat, you're endlessly violating wikipedia policy again and again. Amoruso 14:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keep your cherry-picked "quotations" out of Wikipedia.  --Zerotalk 14:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep these kind of comments out of discussion pages. Try not to vandlize pages again in the future because there's WP:RS that you don't like, especially when it's based on secondary sources as well. Your continuing vandalizm is disruptive. Amoruso 15:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: btw, your vandalism is even more staggering since the "citations" you brought here don't contradict what I said. 200,000 around 1800 then further decline, then rise again. Your comments are are ridicilous and your attitude is so distruptive that it's not even funny. Amoruso 15:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fully sourced demographic material 

message: I can emphasise that Zero0000 reasoning is made in bad faith and his allegations were already proven false. Yes, Shmuel Katz is a former politician and belongs to the right wing part of the map. Many others, like Yehoshua Porath  who is cited in the article, are also politicans - Porath is a member of an exteme left political party. Katz is a WP:RS historian with credentials fully cited on google scholar, appreciated and discussed, referenced his works fully and never had a critic question its authenticity or sources - on the contrary, his books are regarded in the highest historical accuracy. Furthermore, the quotations are based on secondary sources, fully verified and reliable and objective. Furthermore, there are also citations that have nothing to do with Katz, for example Pipes, but Zero has vandalised them as well. Lastly, the claims are not even controversial, proven by Zero's comments himself. Echad Haam saying at the end of the 19th century that the country is not desolate is exactly what Katz has said that in the middle of the 19th century already between 50,000 to 100,000 people. These are official estimates. There may be other estimates that have 100,000 people more. Even this 200,000-300,000 estimate which we don't if it's reliable doesn't refute anything that Katz said except perhaps the last sentence contradicting it to a certain extent. In fact, if this is the highest estimate in existence, it even strengths Katz's thesis, and especially the issue of the population up until the ottoman empire. Amoruso 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not to mention that Zero0000 has refuted himself by saying that in 1800 the population was 275,000 and then in 1878 it was 230,000. Interesting. Perhaps he should research more on reliable sources next time. Amoruso 02:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: btw Mccharty also denys the Armenian genocide because of his loyalty to Turkey and is obviously biased towards muslim and arab ends, which is the reason he is cited in Palestinian cites as propaganda. Amoruso 02:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: ignoring useless personal attacks. the information will therefore be added and any deletion of it will be regarded as vandalism by Zero0000 which should prompt blocking. btw, it's true that Porath made a shift towards netanyahu at the time, but it's irrelevant, since at the time of this comment he was on his most extreme left. Further irrelevance from you then. Amoruso 03:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  in conclusion 

message: If the text is properly attributed and is described as a quotation or paraphrase, then it is not a copyright violation. A violation is when person A is attempting to pass off person B's work as his or her own. If full credit is given to the author, as well as the source, it does not violate the copyright to the best of my understanding.
Secondly, Shmuel Katz was quoting others, whose texts are verifiable and reliable; the text you removed contained no opinons of Katz's own, so his own political beliefs are irrelevant for that portion.
Thirdly, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan, religious and extremist websites. The fact that someone has beliefs does not exclude them from being a WP:RS, unless they are “Widely acknowledged [as an] extremist or even terrorist groups”, and then can only be used as a source about their belief. Shmuel Katz does not fit that mold, and as such is eligible, especially in light of his source being a collection of other sources. Thank you. -- Avi 14:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wholesale copying of material (including references) from a webpage without (a) citing that page and (b) checking the sources is a copyvio, plagiarism and a violation of Wikipedia policy. We cite reliable sources so that others can go and check them. We don't hide the true source by slightly re-writing material to make it appear that we're citing the original sources ourselves. It's fundamentally a question of honesty. The works cited by Katz might well be reliable sources, but his work is certainly not a reliable source for them. BTW when was the Irgun not a terrorist group? - see Perliger, Arie and Weinberg, Leonard (2003). Jewish Self-Defence and Terrorist Groups Prior to the Establishment of the State of Israel: Roots and Traditions. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Volume 4, Number 3,  pp. 91-118. --Ian Pitchford 15:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Irgun was a terrorist group according to everyone except the Irgun.  Would we care if Al-Qaeda claimed to not be a terrorist group?  Katz was not only a member but its chief propagandist.  He remained a propagandist for the extreme right all his life.  If Katz is a reliable source then every seource on the extreme right is reliable. --Zerotalk 10:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm copying straight from the book. I can use for reference any sources but I have the actual book and can quote you anything you want from it, versions, pages, everything. I'm usually using the Hebrew versions for my own comfort but I have the english versions as well, and btw, permisson from the author. Your allegations as proven as false . Please stop your vandalism. Amoruso 22:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So you agree to all writings by the propaganda chiefs of terrorist organizations being used in articles on Israeli history? --Ian Pitchford 18:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beitar and Etzel is a political organization with militant activities in the 1940's. Since then members of Etzel (and Lehi) have already had 2 prime ministers + the current PM the son of a prominent beitar member and, + the entire likud party in its bulk and a big part of kadima today. Etzel is the mainstream of Israeli right, and is no way a terrorist organization. Needless to say Katz was never a "terrorist" or a fighter himself. In fact, anyone old enough and belonging to the right wing of the map will belong most likely or be affiliated with Beitar and Etzel. Your comments are entirely irrelevant, a violation of wikipedia policy, and you are advised , again, to cease your consistent vandalism and blanking. Most of the historians are affiliated with political parties or have showed support or even run for parliament, 90% of them belonging to the left wing or even the extreme left wing, usually communist wing.  Amoruso 22:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Katz doesn't qualify as a historian and was chief propagandist of an extremist organisation. Evidence from him is not credible. Copying material from a source without attribution is plagiarism. I thought you were a lawyer. --Ian Pitchford 17:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Plagiarism is not a matter of personal opinion, and you don't become a historian by claiming to be one. If you look at the article as it stands there is no indication that material has been copied from Katz. We're obliged to use reliable sources, not to hide the fact that we're copying material from unreliable sources. As the policy states "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence"; propaganda sources like Katz are used precisely because the material can't be found in standard reliable sources - such as decent history books. --Ian Pitchford 19:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That wont make him a reliable source or make plagiarism acceptable. --Ian Pitchford 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect we're talking past each other. Do you know what plagiarism is and what you would be checking in Katz's book? --Ian Pitchford 20:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well exactly. Do you know from looking at the article what is actually supposed to be from Katz? --Ian Pitchford 21:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ian I suggest you open a dictionary and read what plagiarism is. You're embarrassing yourself. Also, your repetitive accusations about Katz are embarrassing and have been all refuted already. Btw, I can get you permission from Katz himself is you wish. Amoruso 04:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've opened a dictionary: plagiarize. "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own: use (another's production) without crediting the source"  Here's your edit  quoting Alphonse de Lamartine, Volney and De Hass.  Where do you indicate that the material is copied from the Katz and not from the original sources? All of it is copied from Katz (1973) pp. 106-109. --Ian Pitchford 17:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think every intelligent person could have understood that this is based on Katz since I wrote his name quite a few times. Anyway, per your request, I added more references to his book. The thing is I have permission to use it the way I did + I've previously checked the secondary sources and therefore one can use them directly - credit was given to Katz for the analysis in the beginning. The secondary sources are listed very throughly at the end of Katz's book and he encourages and in fact provides readers with the access to those books, so it's all been verified. But it's now academic anyway, since the refs were added. I respect your admiration for Katz and your diligent care to protect his rights. Amoruso 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katz et al 

message: this issue is dealt in the current times section. One can add info there although I don't see a reason fot a template. both templates might be used if one wants. 
btw, for these editors I refer you to the correct page in the disambuigation page : Amoruso 22:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare State of Palestine and State of Israel. Palestine refers to a geographic term. --Haldrik 22:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  state of palestine 

message: Please stop stuffing the history section with nonsense about Canaanites being the earliest inhabitanats - as explained in History of Palestine there were the Mousterian, Yarmukian, Ghassulian and Natufian cultures well before the Canaanites and the Hebrews didn't arrive at the time of Moses - what about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? All this is covered quite well in History of Palestine etc so there is no need to stuff this article with half-truth history when the article is primarily about Palestine as a geographic region. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuffing the history section

message: the Hebrew Bible (a k a the Old Testament) calls the land most of the time  see Catholic Encyclopedia or go to one of the many online bibles and count -- and report the results in the footnootes to this aricle!
:Of course. Nevertheless, the Hebrew cognates are necessary elements in the etymology of the word "Palestine". The article is about this name, and other names, and the shifting borders of this geographical region. --Haldrik 05:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canaan כנען 

message: Immanuel Velikovsky suggested that the ancient Egyptian name for Canaan-Israel-Palestine, Retenu, was the Egyptian version of Hebrew Artsenu, "Our Land." Das Baz 20:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Retenu

message: Palestine should lead to Palestine (disambiguation) and not to this page. This will minimize a lot of the recent vandalism and prevent confusion. Amoruso 14:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion 

message: As entertaining as much of the above debate is, let me try to clarify some things:
#The family origins of Muslim and Christian natives of the land between the river and the sea (LBRS for short) can be easily traced based via both family name and family tree. For example, if a "Majali" has lived in LBRS for decades or more, that individual would still be regarded as Jordanian because Majali is a Jordanian name and a Majali family member would most probably have roots in Jordan. Same is true for families with roots within LBRS. So unless one is prepared to either bring up a genealogical study of the current family names of LBRS, or bring forth a reference that does, one is in no position to make any grand proclamations about the history of demographics in the area.
#It is in the interest of one party to belittle the claims of the other to LBRS. Many publications have been brought forth that argue that there was massive Arab immigration into Palestine (and why not, Palestine was a beautiful country compared to, say, Transjordan). Other scholars have refuted and even ridiculed the quality of data that supports the mass Arab immigration theory. In reality, immigration or not, in our culture you usually remain identified to your region of origin, which again is easily traced using your family name and family tree. The more scientifically sound studies do not support the mass Arab immigration theory. Even if it existed, it would not have made the immigrants 'Palestinian' automatically; far from it. Either way, this argument is futile. The current native Jews, Christians, and Muslims of LBRS are here to stay. No peoples of the world have to prove that their family tree extends more than 50 years in a particular land in order to have basic human rights there. Insisting that the Muslims and Christians of LBRS have proof of presence going back not 50 but 5000 years in order for their basic human rights to merely be considered (let alone recognized) is degrading, psychologically dangerous, and inherently racist (in my opinion).
#Statements like "The Arabs tend to feel the region is a small part of a larger sacred Islamic empire and ethnic Arab territory and they are relocating within it" may be gross oversimplifications. The Arab culture is traditionally a lot more rooted in ones own region of origin, and internal migration between Arabic-speaking countries is not as common as one might think (especially as it is illegal for a citizen of one Arab League country to obtain citizenship of another Arab League country). Furthermore, notwithstanding the recent resurgence of radical Islam, the peoples of the levant are traditionally secular. This is also true regarding the early Zionists. In either case, it is the data that counts. Without actual data, people are free to propagate and teach their kids to believe whatever is more comfortable for their own ideology for them to believe. But it doesn't make it true.
#Some scholars believe that Zionism created not one but two national movements: Israeli and Palestinian. Other scholars site evidence (which is very easily obtained) of Arab Palestinian nationalism taking shape towards the closing years of the Ottoman empire and/or the arrival of the colonial (British) powers, or sometimes even before. For example, Muslim clerics in Jerusalem were heavily defensive about European intrusion in their lands and affairs as early as the 1700s, and protested this strongly to the Ottoman authorities. An Arab nationalist newspaper appeared in LBRS (Jaffa I think) in the first decade of the 1900s; it was called "Filasteen" and it heavily criticized the Zionist movement. Again, what's really the point of arguing about this? Most of the people from these eras are dead. 
:So you're also admitting it's recent. At any case, it's recent. Major notion of Palestinians being a seperate nation didn't come before 1900, in other words it came along the time that the Zionist movement started being practical. This is not a coincidence. Amoruso 07:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice funny comment, but just saying it's disputed etc is not enough. The data is undisputed. It's in the statitistics. Amoruso 07:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well one thing Brazil speak a different language than the rest of the south american countries. For another, they also have different rich histories and very different cultures. This is not a case of one people who were divided due to political power shiftings along the same FAMILY !!!! (see abdallah/faisal...) and who share the same language, FLAG, culture, ideas and so on. Arab states were also ONE in the past (syria-egypt-and almost libya), jordan-iraq... and I don't remember Palestinains throwing molotov bottles on cars in the west bank during Jordan's occupation, and when they did try a coup in 1970 it was to rule JORDAN ! So don't whitewash these facts. What you say is exactly this - your love is for the land, for the village, NOT for a nation - therefore you can happily live in an autonomy, other state affiliation (like Jordan) and not as a seperate political state. Amoruso 07:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is ridicilous. When did 10,000 arabs were expelled and thrown out with their cemeteries (with dead jews from terrorist actions and with holocaust survivors), parks, schools, garden, work places, synagogues (mosques) like in gush katif ?? yamit ?? ofira ?? homesh ? sa nur ? Dugit ? Amona  ? Jews are the ones being thrown out and expelled because Arabs are killing them. Amoruso 07:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is what's happening - you have 1.5 almost million palestinains living happily with all the rights (and more ! they don't have to do army service) in Israel. Jews can't do the same without being murdered in Palestinian territories - oh yes, unless they're very sympathetic to the Palestinian Authority/Hamas and don't make any criticism or anything, they might be allowed some 50 people of neturei karta or tali fahimas. Amoruso 07:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The dispute is whether who's the occupying force. I see the occupiers as the Arab Legions as a whole and in all the area not of Arabia. Arabia is like the United Kingdom - and since they have relinquished their force on India, Hong Kong , Palestine and so on, so should Arabia. The fact that Arabia split into differnet political sub categories should not change this. At the very least, Jews should have the little strip of what you call LBRS, and what I call Western Eretz Israel. And a final note, this is NOT a political forum, I didn't reply to everything you said, and I won't reply to more of it I think... because it's just not appropriate, and we had the same discussions before on user page. And who really has time for this anyway now, and it's just not relevant, and we can just read the sources etc. Amoruso 07:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: But are there reliable sources regarding ancestry? We know the Jews are tied to the land, but do we have data of genetic testing on the local non-Jewish population? I always bring the example that, for example, native Hebronites have green eyes (something not typically found elsewhere in the middle east south of the levant), and we have some red-heads too and fairer-skin. I seem to recall reading about genetic tests on the current Palestinian Arabs, confirming to a large extent that we are not the descendants of Arabian Arabs but more a mix of all the peoples who lived in the LBRS over the centuries. But lacking such data, any other assertion remains pure speculation; a case of the powerful re-writing history. As for Palestinian nationalism, there is an excellent book by Rashid Khalidi (whom you may respect or vilify depending on your own biases), Palestinian Identity, which I'm sure you are familiar with. If not, it's definitely a good read even if you don't like the guy. He definitely has good examples of pre-Zionist "nationalism" and in fact, one of his central arguments is that the notion that Palestinian nationalism only formed after the Zionist influence is a myth. Ramallite (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: oh, and we would much rather be of orphaned identity than be citizens of a country like Jordan, believe me, although sadly everybody needs a passport to travel. Ramallite (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I just want to point out that the genetic evidence is limited, and caution is necessary when interpreting it. For example, when looking at some of the same evidence in a slightly different way, it suggests that 70% of Jews and 50% of Palestinian Muslims have the same father who lived during the Neolithic Period. --Haldrik 06:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Egypt isnt part of Erets Yisrael. They border eachother. --Haldrik 08:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks again Haldrik! Almaqdisi 09:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Your description aboive Almaqdisi is BS. There's no doubt among scholars and researchers (including genetic tests) that the Jews are the Hebrews, it's the same thing (composing the tribes of Jehuda, Binyamin and Levi) and not because of religion but because of ethnicity. This is why Jews have a right for a nation in their homeland. And they're the only ones who made this claim for thousands of years over Palestine. As for Eretz Israel, the Promised Land went from Sinai to very far. In practice, the land of the United Monarchy was smaller and eventually the land of Judah itself was far smaller than that. The heart, the cradle of our nation, is the Judea region where David first came to Hebron and later estbalished Jeruslaem as the eternal capital of the Jewish people after conquering it from the  Jebusites and building the city as we know it. That's why this land is holier than all other parts of Eretz Israel.  The other parts of settlement were also in the Palestine region with a few tribes on the eastern side of the river and a few tribes further up north in today's lebanon. Amoruso 00:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Almaqdisi, I can refer you to political discussion boards if you like. This is not the forum for this talk. Just to answer your "question", As to the "low" number of jews, it's because Jews don't encourage conversion like Islam - Jews went through genocides from Roman times to Nazi times, and so the people is at its number - which is not small for a people at all in comparison to other peoples, it's an ok number. Jews didn't convert much, it's why we survived in our homeland. Yes, there were people before us in Eretz Israel but now they're no longer. Arabs are newer invaders and their homeland is Arabia, Palestine is one of their empirical states. Jews were in Arabia too you know, yet aftrer being massacred there, we don't claim it - you can have that. Amoruso 15:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Most Palestinian Christians descend from the Nabateans, who mass converted to Christianity around the start of the Byzantine Period. Of course, some Christians descend from ancient Jews. Their percentages are probably small but certain to exist. I havent heard of any genetic tests yet about the Palestinian Christians. Obviously they are very interesting. (My guess is something like 60% Nabatean, 15% various Europeans/Armenians, 10% Samaritans/Jews, 5% Assyrian, 5% Coptic, and 5% Arabs -- being Christians from Arabia who had never converted to Islam. Muslims have a history of punishing and murdering Muslims who convert to Christianity. I expect near zero Arab Christians from Muslim converts. I'll wait for the genetic testing tho.)--Haldrik 07:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My goodness, what other nation would agree to go through such meticulous lab-rat testing? In the meantime, what about Palestinian Muslims converted from Christianity or Judaism, I wonder... Haldrik are you getting enough specimens? I feel so cheapened now (pretty standard, sigh) :) Ramallite (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "What other nation would agree to go through such meticulous lab-rat testing?" Definitely Iceland. They love this stuff! :D --Haldrik 07:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm. Perhaps one way to estimate the percentage of Palestinian Christians who descend from ancient Jews is to test the Palestinian Christians for the "Kohen gene" and extrapolate from that, for a very rough approximation. (Apparently, Jewish Kohanim can be distinguished from Samaritan ones.) --Haldrik 08:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding Israelites. Jews are Israelites. Jews include the twelve tribes of Israel, all of them being the citizens of the Kingdom of Judah. The Kingdom of Judah is in the southern part of Israel (the modern geographic area of Judea including the southern part of the Westbank). The ancient capital of the Kingdom of Judah is Jerusalem. Its kings were from the tribe of Judah, which was prominant in the south. Other tribes in this kingdom's territory include Binyamin, Shimon, and the sacred tribe of Levi. However, when the Assyrians destroyed the northern kingdom, mass refugees from all the ten tribes of Israel fled to Jerusalem, so that Jerusalem came to include all twelve tribes. Thus there are Jews today who trace their ancestry to these other tribes. The Samaritans descend from the survivors of the Ten Tribes of northern kingdom, who remained in the area, didnt joined the Kingdom of Judah, and thus arent Jews. Both Jews and Samaritans are Israelites. Genetic testing shows the Samaritans are descendents of Israel (including Kohens) and Assyrians. (I've heard in lectures that Israel became the official name of the modern state, in part to include the ancient Samaritans too.) --Haldrik 07:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section divider

message: It is quite ridiculous to have THREE separate passages from Mark Twain.  There were actually hundreds of travel books describing Palestine during that century, and even works of a scientific nature.  Twain had no particular skills in judging Middle Eastern landscapes. One passage is more than enough. It is also ridiculous to disallow palestineremembered.com while allowing Shmuel Katz.  Either allow all propagandists or allow none.  (However, this particular article in palestineremembered.com is quite reasonable.) -— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zerotalk  09:00, 2006 September 24
:Mark Twain is a notable eyewitness of a disputed period. All the quotes from Twain can be consolidated into one block tho. --Haldrik 09:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed Mark Twain is a very important source. The difference between Katz and Palestinerememberd.com is that the first one is WP:RS and the second one isn't, but WP:RS is a policy Zero you never seemed to understand. Amoruso 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: you can only add RS that criticize him. The quote from the cia operative concerning nablus is biased but it's RS enough for balance. Amoruso 01:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: the site is a personal non encyclopedic site. if you find a similar claim in a serious book, and you read it yourself and checked the quotation, then it's ok. it's hardly truth. Amoruso 02:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Same goes for Golden Bough! Find a similar claim in a more serious book (by today's scientific standards). :) --Haldrik 07:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What you said about the old city proved how not populated the place was. David built his city in a differnet place altogether, and if you have any people you live outside this small area which is only 1km square. This is the reason that when Jews became too many they started building neighbourhoods outside the city walls, that weren't there before. In other words, you can't deny that Jews built this country. A lot of the country on the shores and in the north were all swamps. Malaria was present in the valleys and in the places the first agricultural settlements were built. They were there because the place was empty. This is undeniable fact. Sure there were small communities in nablus and in other cities, but in general the country was dead. The small communities are represented in the numbers given, but it's very small compared to the numbers of other places - the country was in many ways dead not only because of lack of people but because of the deadly mosquitoes who took up these parts. You can go to Safed and see the work of the Jewish doctor who treated malaria to the arab citizens, the few that were - they called him "The free doctor" because he didn't take any money for the treatments... then with hard work from the pioneers, the country was slowly built again. Amoruso 08:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you mean - same happened ? I think you're proving the point.  Amoruso 09:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This happened because of the Jewish immigration... Arabs started to fear that there will be a new political entity that will be more western non islamic and different. That's when Palestine was discovered and they took the interest in the region. I agree with you in general. Amoruso 09:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, the Palestine region specifically was sparse and ruined. Baghdad and Damscus were thriving Moslem centers. This is the whole point. It's this region which was seen as very neglible to the Arabs until Jews came in masses with national aspirations, and so they starting doing the same, during which reversion of history also took place. Amoruso 09:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I realise you're gonna repeat that forever, but it's just not true.  Damascus, Baghdad, Cairo - these were the great, at times glittering, political and cultural centres of the Moslem Empire. Israel was nothing for them, not to mention Jerusalem which didn't even had a designation as high as a sub capital like Ramle etc. Amoruso 09:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Still a very small number considering than in Roman times there were millions of people in Palestine (Jews). Amoruso 01:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, 200 million in the world and 3-10 million in Palestine makes you realise how fertile this land actually was, and this was after the Roman massacre. So you can begin to understand what went through this land. Amoruso 01:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Almaqdisi, if you have other information on early demographics you can add it. this section is sourced and it precedes the census in 1900. nobody is arguing the numbers have inflated in time. It's not "by a propogandist", numerous sources are mentioned in the section. you don't like it but that's what the sources have said, sorry. and nobody says the population was all jewish of course. but certainly you can see what happened after the second exile. The first exile was very brief. Amoruso 01:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Only one source talks about 3 million jews. the other don't mention it was jews. It's not about jewish population, it's about the time when the land prospered. Romans completely destroyed the country when they conquered it. And later it went from destruction to destruction. This led to the neglect and the state of the place . By the late 19th century, the country was again more populated no doubt. I think the article shows differnet views now on the issue of the late population. if you have other sources taling about early populaton go ahead. Amoruso 01:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, good. I replaced katz's quote in the end like you did, as he deals with both early and modern in that paragraph. Amoruso 11:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: cheers.  Amoruso 11:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark Twain 

message: I am unable to find that "The Qur'an refers to the geographic region in various ways." and that it is mentioned four times. I am using this search engine and can see only one in 5:21. Where are the remaining 3? Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it easy, no hurry. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks much. I responded there. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy Land in the Qur'an 

message: I've made major changes to the "UN Partition" section. I've acted on the principle that the history of partition belongs here in this article and not somewhere else.
I believe that what I've written is a reasonable description of events, and conforms to NPOV.
There may be people who will object ...... here are a few parts which may be controversial, or are only partially referenced:
1) I've said the Zionists always intended to seize the land of Palestine. Benny Morris is convinced of it: "Righteous Victims", p. 49: For decades the Zionists tried to camouflage their real aspirations, for fear of angering the authorities and the Arabs. They were, however, certain of their aims and of the means needed to achieve them. Internal correspondence amongst the olim from the very beginning of the Zionist enterprise leaves little room for doubt. 
2) I'm not denying that Israelis felt under real threat in 1948, and I'm not claiming that Israel and Jordan were in cahoots. (Although the latter is a claim being made by Benny Morris in 2002 "The Road to Jerusalem : Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews"). I'm claiming that Israel was not in much danger in 1948, based on the fact that the Zionists were very well armed, well practised, and the only serious army they faced didn't intend to fight.
3) Some Zionists claim that Israel never promised to let the refugees back, either when accepted as a member of the UN or at other times. Unfortunately, I can't immediately lay my hands on what I've collected previously. As best I understand it, Israel was definitely going to allow the refugees back, and has failed to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomrawlinson (talk • contribs) 
: I find the latest edits horribly POV. Besides, this article is about a geographic region, not the Arab-Israeli conflict. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN Partition - serious re-write 

message: There was only one interesting thing I could find about this person. She writes for the anti-Israel website "Counterpunch".  Not quite a reliable source when you quote someone who denies Israel's right to exist.
:Opinions don't have to be reliable. They simply have to be noteable or significant enough for inclusion. Okay let me start again, that didn't come out right. The fact that someone is biased doesn't mean they're not a reliable source. Opinions often come from people who are biased. For example, Asher Ginsberg was a zionist so he is similarly a biased sourced. But his opinion is noteable and significant enough to be included. I don't know if this applies to Kathleen but the fact that she's biased doesn't mean her opinion should be excluded. You're welcome to write the article on Kathleen so people know more about here Nil Einne 07:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw your comments and wrote an article on Kathleen Christison, but it was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Christison -- Kendrick7 20:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who the Hell is Kathleen Christison? 

message: This section is full of non-academic sources.  I have provided two academic sources to help with this endeavour.  Furthermore, Alexander Scholch's work is full of concomitant population figures that could add to what is a sloppy article full of non-academic sources - such as mark Twain.  For the sake of credibility, I hope that this entire section be reviewed and purged of spurious sources and "data." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.202.15 (talk) 
: Yes, the article is full of non-academic nonsense cherry-picked from travelers' tales by known propagandists.  One thing about your additions: the 1920 figures were based on estimates that were not very accurate.  The 1922 census figures would be better.  It's a nice quotation, though.  --Zerotalk 03:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you should make yourself a username and start editing.  By the way, sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~ even if you don't have a username.  That will timestamp them.  --Zerotalk 06:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Zero however doesn't like adding stuff like we do, he likes removing stuff. I don't think he ever added anything to wikipedia. Amoruso 12:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sources have to be reliable, which eliminates Katz et al. --Zerotalk 12:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He's reliable per WP:RS of course, not per WP:ZERO0000 which is not yet a policy. Cheers. Amoruso 12:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The policy is very clear: WP:V "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources.... English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly... In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves." Katz and Mark Twain are not known for their peer-reviewed contributions on the history of Palestine. --Ian Pitchford 15:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear User:Wood345, thanks for your input. I am not a fan of Mark Twain neither or Katz and I think that their writings have been misused here. As it is evident, the demographics part have parts that contradits each other. I agree with User:Ian Pitchford on this issue, and I worked hard few months ago to bring more reliable academic sources to this section. Particularly because Mark Twain and Katz are taken out of context, see this . Please continue to contribute to this article. Also, I wonder if you can have a look at the article Palestinian people. All the best in your Wiki journey Almaqdisi talk to me 20:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too bad you feel that way. Palestineremebered is not a WP:RS since it's a personal web-site, and it's a politically motivated article about Twain, not Katz (how can he be taken out of context?). Twain is such a respected writer that we can trust what he saw as reliable. Of course there are myriad of other travells who saw the same desolation but he's one of the most noteable figures. Amoruso 20:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Amoruso, I appologise if this sounds bad. Also, I am not also implying that we should start blanking material here. I would love this to be better organised though. I will have more on this later, I am quite busy. Cheers to all. Almaqdisi talk to me 22:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There are no accurate estimates of population at the time so laregely scholars can relate to the observations of travelers at the time. Many did and therefore it made that material interesting and valuable for wikipedia. He need not be a demographer, just have a pair of eyes, notebook and an extensive verfiable tour that took place of the land. There's also no necessity to cite him directly , many academic sources used him as reference. Amoruso 01:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Quite so.  When we have the results of scholarly study, we should favor them over other writings.  This does not ignore the testimony of travellers at all, since academic demographers are perfectly aware of them and know how to interpret them better than we do (in any case, we are not supposed to do interpretations).  As for the ability of individuals to estimate population by looking around, it is well known that they can't do it.  There are some graphic examples given in the statistics collected by Kemal Karpat.  For example, for the vilayets of Erzeroum, Van and Bitlis around 1880, three different visitors or residents estimated the Muslim population at  528,000, 567,575 and 280,000.  The actual census showed the Muslim population was 821,476.  This degree of inaccuracy, or worse, is normal when populations are estimated by amateurs without actual counting.  I've been to most places in Israel but if I had to estimate the population just based on my observations I'd have to admit that I had hardly any idea.  That was just as much true in Mark Twain's day as it is today. --Zerotalk 06:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Avraham is correct, it has nothing to do with the context. Greece could have been depopulated too, it's not context, it's simply another issue altogether. Amoruso 19:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: Twain, is there any reason to bring in Greece over an excerpt from Huckleberry Finn? The only reason I can surmise, is to subtly bias the reader against the paragraph about Palestine, with the idea, somehow, that Twain's writing about Greece will discredit him, and anything that follows. There is nothing about Twain's writing about Greece that can be considered context about Palestine, any more than his writings about A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court will have bearing on his writings about Greece. I am afraid this is a sublte example of tyring to add a POV in an edit, as opposed to adding material that relates to Palestine. -- Avi 19:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a pressing need to have anything but scholarly sources in this section. This is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not a collection of travelogues. Palmiro | Talk 20:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a separate issue. Perhaps Twain doesn't belong here at all, perhaps he does. But if he does, only the part that relates to Palestine does. -- Avi 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Twain is being used here precisely because his impressions of Palestine in the 1860s are unreliable and biased against the Palestinian Arab population. In fact the economy of Palestine was booming at the time Twain visited as Gad Gilbar has explained: "The late 1860s mark the beginning of a new period in the economic and social development of Ottoman Palestine. During the 45-50 years prior to World War I Palestine's economy underwent a process of modernization and growth... The modernization and growth that resulted from the increase of inputs of the factors of production, including technological changes, were not only expressed in an increase in the national product, but in important structural changes as well in the sectors of agriculture, manufacture and services, in the patterns of consumption and savings, and in the distribution of capital and incomes.. At the root of these economic and social changes was...  the fact that at the time Palestine's economy became increasingly linked to the world economic system... visible foreign trade in current prices more than tripled over a span of about 50 years." Gilbar concludes that "the bearers of this growth were primarily local Arab-speaking Muslims and Christians". Gilbar, Gad G. (1986). The Growing Economic Involvement of Palestine with the West, 1865-1914. In Kusher, David (ed.). Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period: political, social and economic transformation (pp. 188-210). Brill Academic Publishers. . --Ian Pitchford 22:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If Mark Twain and Katz remarks are going to be used here to give the impression that Palestine is a Land with No People for People with no Land. Then I strongly recommend their removal. Else, they have to be put in context! Tale Travelre and an Irgun member! Almaqdisi talk to me 22:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree (again). First these figures you claim to be accurate are not accurate figures, they're all very doubtful. We have a first account of a respectable person who had no reason to lie and wasn't biased who wrote an extensive journal of his experiences in Palestine. He's very notable and it's in fact cited in many books and studies about Palestine and its demographics. There's no reason to censor it. It being Twain's OR is of course not WP:OR and it certainly applies to WP:RS since it's an account of what he saw. Of course all other sources are reliable as well - Shmuel Katz is conveying the opinion of demographers or historians from Josephus to Volney etc - there's no reason to censor any of them. The reader can decide which sources he prefer. This is how wikipedia works. In fact, if there's OR it's the suggestion we should pick whatever citations we like and drop others on lame excuses that some are more scholary and some can be dismissed very unconvincgly. Bottom line is there's absolutely no harm in representing the reader the entire scope of material available - There's no more detailed and notable account than Mark Twain on the subject. Amoruso 02:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Amoruso, I doubt that Mark Twain is the only one. McCarthy who compiled the Ottoman official data contradicts most of Mark Twain's impressions. After all these were his impressions. Finally, there are still much to look into like , and possibly this too . Also, I do not see why are you not interested in having a separate article on the Demographics of Palestine (region). Don't you think it is worthwhile, there we may allocate a section to all these Tale Travelers including Arab ones of course for whom there are many estimates and discription of the Holy Land. I hope that some are avaibale in english, but if not, I will just add these reference with mentioing (Arabic only)  Almaqdisi talk to me 02:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with such an article actually, but it needs to be in coordination with this one, that's all, perhaps remove all this and then link there, fine with me. Anyway, Twain's book is cited by many scholars, for example also in the book called "Jews"  By Rudolf Steiner, George E. Berkle (Professor Emeritus from Massachussets Boston)  obviously we're on not a position to dismiss him when he's used by scholars constantly. Amoruso 03:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course Mark Twain is well respected. They are just having an award in his name as I saw on TV yesterday on PBS. However, what we are saying here or what we think is that he might not be an authority on this particular subject. And that his remarks on a Desolate Palestine fits very well on a section that we may articulate and basicly prepare to collect the impressions from various European and Arab travelers. What makes me feel uncomfortable about his remarks is that they contradicts more reliable and more official Data. Moreover, they have been consistently used by those who believe in a "Land with no People" slogan. I think this requires from us therefore a position of resonsibility when dealing with Twain's input. See this also . I will take out sometime to read it before contributing more to this section. Cheers Almaqdisi talk to me 03:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the book 'Jews' the citation brought is of course the desolate one, so he's respected on this particular subject - see above. also, I think Benny Morris quoted him. And also we still didn't quote many other travellers like Herman Melville who after a visit there in 1860 said Jerusalem "is besieged by an army of the dead." etc etc - lots of sources. Most importantly, there's a misconception here - the sources don't contradict. There WERE people but the impression was desolate because the land was no longer cultivated, it was full of malaria and it was neglected. Yes there were Bedouin tribes and so on and there was some people in towns including Jews but not a lot - it's this info which is interesting and informative. Amoruso 03:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't seem to understand WP:RS since Mark Twain's book meets the criteria without any question. It's not one citation, look at the google scholar link, it's many. Most scholars write that Ottomans had one census not accurate and it's all just guesses that you provided.  You may file an RFC on the subject of twain if you wish. Amoruso 05:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There's nothing exceptional about Twain's account. It's the most notable and detailed account of Palestine demographics at the time. I find myself repeating themselves. I still don't understand why you feel it's important to quote the fact I said about no reliable sources of the time because the Ottomans only had one census and the fact that Twain's book is no "breach" at all of WP:RS no matter how much you repeat it. Amoruso 05:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Katz is a propagandist whose works are not cited by any reputable scholar; he has no expertise, no academic qualifications and has never held a post in an academic department of history or any other disicpline. He does not publish journal articles or scholarly material in peer-reviewed outlests. Twain is a novelist with an anti-Arab bias; not a demographer. Pleae abide by WP:V and cite only verifiable "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources.... English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly... In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. --Ian Pitchford 10:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know anything about this dispute, but with regards to Mark Twain as a reference, it is rather common to somewhat weigh the need for scholarly credentials with the notability of the source. If we could find the sources, we could explain whatever biases or nineteenth century sensibilities Twain may have held but I would think his opinion would be benficial to the article. I'm sure he did not have any enlightened beliefs about Muslims but his attitudes towards Jews were more of the "Jews may be evil rascals but I am not rascist because I have a Jewish friend" variety.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amoruso has already deleted these peer-reviewed sources on Twain's unreliability: "Kathleen Christison was critical of Twain and said that in Nablus the city had a population of 20,000 Arabs and a few hundred Samaritans (B. B. Doumani, The political economy of population counts in Ottoman Palestine: Nablus, Circa 1950, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol 26 (1994) 1-17.) yet Twain described the Samaritans at length without mentioning the Arabs at all.(K. Christison, Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy, Univ. of California Press, 1999; p20.) Hilton Obenzinger says that Twain doesn't mention Jews much either but shows no "'racial' animus" and adds that "his apparently unvarnished construction of Palestine is as partial and prejudiced as any of the other creedal travellers. (American Palestine: Melville, Twain, and the Holy Land Mania, Princeton University Press, 0691009732, p. 49). --Ian Pitchford 11:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No Woody, it's you who failed to address the points. I can also copy paste. Wood345, I don't know why you copy pasted the same thing after I refuted your allegations above. The article I provided clearly shows why it's impossible to have an accurate statistics of the era and therefore eye witness accounts of notable figures like Twain are of course very valuable and adhere completely to WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:V. Your suggestion that this actually an argument against is your personal WP:OR and it's illogical - the more sources the more comprehensive picture is available and it's advisable and serves the purpose. I'm not the one who wants to remove anything from the article except when it doesn't talk about the article or except when it's by someone no one knows who she is - other than that I don't want to remove anything - the more RS the better. I'm actually troubled by your excuses to censor information and it's becoming difficult to assume WP:AGF with you since this is a very weak non existant demand of you to delete well sourced material on the subject, quite disturbing and confusing. whether these two sources are allegdly peer reviewd or not it has no bearing on the subject in question. wikipedia cites as many RS sources as possible and Twain is one of them.  Amoruso 19:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. We cite peer-reviewed books by academics such as Christison, Gilbar, Obenzinger in accordance with WP:V. I suggest that you stop deleting such sources. Obscure, biased works by Revisionist politicians are not suitable sources for Wikipedia articles. With regard to Google scholar Rrburke has pointed out to you elsewhere that "Those 564 are raw Google search hits, not Google Scholar citation hits.  The citation hits in Google Scholar are here.  There are a total of six, and none appear to be from scholarly journals."  Colin Shindler writes of Katz's activities: "A founder of the Land of Israel Movement and a former high-ranking member of the Irgun, Katz had originally been appointed a Minister of Information in Begin's government. His attempts to propagate both a Revisionist interpretation of the previous thirty years and a hard-line version of contemporary events were consistently blocked by Dayan." Clearly, Katz is a politician who seeks to justify right-wing policies, not a scholar of any kind. I note that you fail to provide evidence to support your claim that he is a "very respected scholar" depite the fact that you have been challenged dozens of times by numerous editors. --Ian Pitchford 19:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're acting in bad faith again. I have no intention to remove any sources. We concluded here on talk that this Kathleen person is a non notable person and therefore should not be included and I removed her and her only - if by mistake something else was removed, I apologise. I also don't mind including her quote although it seemed pretty silly since nobody knows who she is and it's wrong to just quote anons - see above about her article being deleted from wikipedia for not being notable. I find it troubling that you keep lying (I would say mistaken per WP:AGF but it seems you repeat this depsite being showed the opposite over and over again) that I haven't provided evidence where evidence is provided here time and again. 6 google scholar links are a lot for goolge scholar history books and all of them are scholarly of course. I showed how people like Christopher Barder relate to Katz. Why are you pitchford more qualifed than Christopher Barder ? Did you also "gain a Foundation Scholarship in History at Pembroke College, Cambridge, and were you also for some years both head of history and politics at an Oxford Tutorial college, as well as a tutor for the University of Bath." Taking Barder as an example If he uses him as a source so can wikipedia . Katz is a scholar from the university of Johanesburg who knows a lot of the conflict and has written history books in regards to it. He's cited thoroughly, yes in those google links you can find many articles concerning his book and many positive looks on him as a biographer and historian (people relate to him as historian as here). This is all the facts you've been presented with and you choose to ignore and make your OR about his being in the etzel ( (why do we care that Dayan blocked his iniatives according to this writer? it has nothing to do with it-are you saying we shouldn't quote him because has political opinions ? WTF. And even if he was criticized on scholary basis , not in your quote - it means nothing... According to Efraim Karsh we should remove all citations by Benny Morris then).). So what... this is israeli society and yes he's a zionist belonging to the right wing map. It's allowed. You don't have to be post zionist, anti zionist or generally left wing sided to be included. Now this is all anal of course because Katz only relates to Volney and such historians so why don't you attack Volney now instead of just making things up ? You're just trying to find excuses for deleting sourced material and it's pathetic no offense. Cheers. Amoruso 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had to laugh when I read "Kathleen person is a non notable person and therefore should not be included", since I distinctly recall that you repeatedly inserted on Palestinian Exodus quotations from people who you can't even identify.  --Zerotalk 03:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're simply repeating spurious claims that have been addressed by other editors on the Palestinian refugee talk page here: . Katz is not a "a scholar from the university of Johanesburg ", he simply attended the university according to his Knesset page . Katz has written accounts of people he knew in the Revisionist movement and justifications of Revisionist policies. This H-Net review congratulates him on his "journalistic account of Jabotinksy's life" . According to Shindler, Katz was "a loyal adherent". Please find verifiable sources to back up your claims. Katz, as a politician involved in one side of ther debate, and particularly in spreading Revisionist ideas and interpretations, is not a reliable source for this article. Indeed, according to Ofira Seliktar, Katz "contended that the Palestinians were recent arrivals to the land of Israel and did not deserve self-determination." The man is an extremist; not a scholar who carefully weighs the evidence for a particular interpretation of history. --Ian Pitchford 21:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ? You don't address the issue there. Yes, he has political views. Porat for example run for Meretz. People in Israel are usually politically affilated. The fact you think these opinions are not worthy is of no interest. You're been seriously ridicilous as there's no doubt like I proved above that Katz has written a very notable and serious book about the conflict. He's been quoted by many scholars, something you failed to even relate to. Seems very low and bad faith from you to try to divert the conversation to the character of Shmuel Katz or his political opinions as if it's even remotely relevant. Everything Katz says is backed by references and we have cited his references on historians like Volney and Josephus and writers like Twain (who are very WP:RS like expalined, Wood) and it's perfectly all right no matter what you think of him. Amoruso 19:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Katz is a politician and not qualified to address such issues. As a propagandist any references he gives are not credible.  --Ian Pitchford 19:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: False. Yehoshua Porat is a politican as well and is quoted extensively. What you say has proven to be your false personal opinion and that's it. He has full references and it's perfectly all right to use his book as a secondary source, nobody ever claimed he misquoted references. Amoruso 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the fact that Porath is Professor Emeritus of Middle East History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem somewhat relevant? Katz is a nobody. In fact he's not even very significant as a propagandist or poltiician let alone anything else. --Ian Pitchford 19:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think by saying "nobody" when he his book is quoted by so many writers/scholars/historians clearly shows your extreme bias by this point... you need as an adult to accept opinions of people you don't like without calling them names. Katz is a man of practice so he didn't stay in the university but if he used references for what he said then it's only a secondary source and there's no need to censor him except to meet your political bias. Why are you trying to avoid the issue ? Are you questioning the references ? If not, please kindly shush. Amoruso 19:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just for fun, I'll recall that even the "Irgun web site" calls Katz a propgandist (twice), see . --Zerotalk 03:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wood345, you failed to address a single point or attempted to prove why we should remove historians like Volney or eye witness accounts like Mark Twian. Cheers. Amoruso 19:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You haven't explained even a bit why he's not a WP:RS and you're still failing to address the issue except throwing allegations that are a clear violation of WP:AGF. Please refrain from this behaviour in the future. Cheers. Amoruso 19:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll add Woddy345 two things - one is that the fact Twain is not a demographer etc is not grounds for his removal. Wikipedia uses many source even from popular culture - it's what makes wikipedia sch an extensive encyclopedia by using as many sources as possible as long as they're reliable and verified, and by reliable it doesn't mean we have to believe Twain or have Twain's credentials as a demographer - it means that we trust Twain to have written what he saw and that what he saw is notable enough in discussions over Palestine which cerainly is. I hope you can see that. second as to adminstrators etc - this is a content dispute and it's not determined by any higher power. I do believe the general consensus would be not to remove information that's cited directly to sources and concern the issue. Amoruso 22:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a consensus to remove Katz and Twain. We should get on with this. --Ian Pitchford 22:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly, we have a consensus to keep them perhaps. The funniest is you mention Katz while nobody questioned him but you and we established he only was used for secondary sources. What you'er actually asking is to remove the historian Volney and other notable historians for your political bias. Amoruso 23:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Amoruso, this article cannot be infinite in size. Now, if you may note, that I can easily flood that section with reports from Arab travelers whom will simply contradict most of Twain's speculations. There is just so much of that material. This is not my purpose though, I would love to see a concise and accurate section that is closest to truth. I do not see Twain any close to anything realistic here. His observations only represent his mood while on this trip. Is Twain giving any numbers of estimates for Palestine. I know he mentioned about 800,000 for greece. Do you find any numbers we can use for him in regard to Palestine? Was he a demographer also, and how he got his numbers. There is really no space just to qoute just any body here.  Almaqdisi talk to me 22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any notable accounts of Palestine would be welcome. There's no need to be a demographer in order to be included in the Palestine article I'm afraid. Amoruso 23:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Twain's detractors are included, but Twain's impression is notable both for his own standing and because it is one of few that detail that period. If there are really very many other equally notable sources to that extent that space would become an issue, then perhaps we should have a discussion about how best to summarise the multiple accounts. Let me know, TewfikTalk 06:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but Twain's account is not "one of the few that detail that period".  In that period of time there was a large industry of travel books written by Western visitors to the Middle East.  If you go to an old enough library that you will find dozens of examples; in total there were hundreds.  Twain's book is only remembered because Twain is famous.  As for the reason that Twain is notable, that doesn't work either since Twain is notable as a writer (the most common description is "humorist"), not as a historian, demographer, anthropologist, or any other relevant scholarly role. --Zerotalk 03:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed for the section "Demographics in the late Ottoman and British Mandate periods" 

message: In "Righteous Victims", Morris give~s a description of that period. I am sure you can have access to this book. If not, I can give the numbers and some details (with page reference) but I have only the French version. Regards, Alithien 14:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morris as a source 

message: Some one added . It gives the impression that
1- Desolation was a fact. Something that can be contradicted very easily by many sources
2- That there was an Arab immigration just as there was Jewish immigration, something that is discussed in a separate section and can be correct/incorrect.
These edits are obviously POV and are removed. Almaqdisi talk to me 03:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing pov about it... it's good sources and deals with the demographic issue. restored. if you start questioning hard evidence like photos etc it'll be time to remove the refuted and highly ridicilous sir james fraser already. Amoruso 10:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is complete POV. It is a zioinist website. And talks about what you believe in from Desolation which is proven wrong. Stop your PROPGANDA User;Amoruso. Almaqdisi talk to me 11:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please maintain a cool head. In fact, it's propoganda to say it wasn't desolate. The photos add a lot and it's a good source. Amoruso 11:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Saying the country is Desloate when Ottomans show otherwise is the Propoganda. I am not sure what you are talking about. If Mark Twain's impression stay here, that is his impression. But his wrong ill informed judgmenent about the structures inside al-Aqsa mosque are not acceptable. Better sources are needed for his ridiculous claims. The temple stood 700 years before. You better find better resources than Mark Twain's in that case. In the Palestine article, his impressions only represent himself and are already shown to contradict major facts like the Ottoman statistics which clearly shows 411,000 people at least. According to Bernard Lewis who studied these, and myself, these Ottoman statistics are even an under estimate since many peasants escaped Taxations. Almaqdisi talk to me 12:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reader can decide for himself from the differnet sources then. I'm not removing anything. Ottoman stats were obviously corrupt though. Amoruso 12:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it is the best thing available at hand for the moment, their credibility is not questionable and they are not politically charged statistics. One should note here that the Ottoman statistics is mostly based on Tax registries, hence this is the reason we believe it is an underestimate of the actual status. But in anycase, we let the reader decide, but at the same time trying to avoid as much as possible politically charged statements. Cheers Almaqdisi talk to me 12:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, adding the word Arab after Caliphate was a smart edit to resolve the issue here. But I thought you were not considering the Ottomans as a Caliphate. I should tell you that I am very acquainted with Turkey and Turkish and hence found it quite interesting that one may sometimes claim that Ottomans were not a Caliphate. Almaqdisi talk to me 12:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not claim otherwise, but the period as in history of palestine and other articles deal with the Arab caliphate. Perhaps now you can undo your edit, because it's confusing. Amoruso 12:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me try to correct it then, have a look and let me know if I screwed up Almaqdisi talk to me 12:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, Mamluk aren't Arab caliphate. Personally I think this should be removed as I'm not aware of a categorized "Caliphate Period". So it should mention only the Arab Caliphates IMO. Amoruso 12:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Mamluks spoke Arabic just like did the Ayyubid and are therefore considered Arabs. But If we will talk about blood keenship, then things become hard and you have to look at each individual case. Almaqdisi talk to me 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The language is not what determines whether there are Arabs or not. Jews speak Arabic and they're not Arabs, same here. It's a differnet period. There's the Arab caliphaet period, then Mamluk then ottoman. All history books relate to this like that. Amoruso 13:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What is the ethnicity of Mamluks, in Arabic Mamluks means that owned as they were people raised for military purposes who later managed to rulse. The Ayybids for example also spoke Arabic, but if you want to consider them part of Kurds then this is also another issue. Many Arabs today in Egypt may be in origin Mamluks or Turks, if you do not which to use the most common definition of Arabs, then there will be a big problem really. Mamluks ruled from Egypt. Ottomans ruled from Istanbul, so it is safer to say that Ottomans are not Arabs, but not quite correct about Mamluks.  Almaqdisi talk to me 13:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, the Mamluks have their own section. This section doesn't deal with them or ottomans and shouldn't mention them there.  Amoruso 13:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be okay now. Almaqdisi talk to me 13:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think btw that Mamluk used a caliph system. Amoruso 13:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can simply say the Islamic rule, what do you say? remove Caliphate if it will generate troubles.. Almaqdisi talk to me 13:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Arab Caliphate" is a common used term already in other articles too and in general, which is why the earlier version was better ;) Amoruso 13:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again POV issues 

message: Just wondering if any of u could help me with an artical on History of Fatah/Hamas tensions, which i know very little about, but believe its an important subject--Boris Johnson VC 13:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help??? 

message: Professor Joseph Kickasola is a scholar of religion.  His publications are on religious studies and semitic linguistics.  See his home page.  He is entitled to express opinions outside his area of expertise but we are not obliged to quote them.  --Zerotalk 02:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A scholar of religion seems better source than a scholar of languages Nabil Matar, n'est pas... Amoruso 04:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph Kickasola 

message: I am taking out the paragraph starting with "In 1898, German Kaiser Wilhelm II..." that cites Palestine: The Original Sin , Meir Abelson <http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/issue1/Abelson-1.htm> because it is copied word for word and not put in quotes.  It should be rewritten or cited as a quote instead. 204.52.215.127 04:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blockquoted with attribution. -- Avi 17:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better 204.52.215.127 17:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I was always told it was the Phoenicians who cut down the forests a long time ago anyway. I have never heard the desertification of this part of the old fertile crescent blamed on Turks or goats. -- Kendrick7talk 22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright issues 

message: The line beginning with "There are photographs dating to the 19th century and early 20th century..." is nearly a direct quote being almost entirely word for word from palestinefacts.org.  Again, it should be either more accurately represented as a quote, rewritten or deleted. 204.52.215.127 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Issues 

message: Why is there a template saying it lacks refferences.. there are 2 articles at least that are cited here... In order to get them you have to pay so i don't know there content but I tend to believe that the 1st paragraph is based on them... we should contact the person who wrote this paragraph and ask him to put reference for the 1st paragraph... the other paragraphs has references. Histolo2 21:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the genitics section 

message: This article repeats the unfortunate modern fallacy that the name Palestine was invented by Romans at the time of Hadrian in order to de-judaize the country. The fact is that (as the article itself makes clear in another place) the country had been called Palestine for centuries. More specifically, it was ordinarily called Palaestina in Greek and Latin and Canaan in Hebrew and Aramaic. The article is also incorrect in saying that Josephus limited the name Palestine to refer only to the western coast of the country; Josephus in fact, writing in Greek, applied the name Palestine to the country that he would have called Canaan if he had been writing in Hebrew, just as a modern writer would refer to Germany or Deutschland, Greece or Hellas, depending on what language he was writing in. Philo always called the country Palestine, and noted that the country "is more anciently called Canaan." The term had no anti-Jewish connotation whatsoever. Jews as well as non-Jews called Palestine Palestine when they spoke Greek or Latin or indeed most languages other than Hebrew or Aramaic.
It's also not correct to say that Judaea, as anciently understood, included Galilee; these were two different regions. It is equally incorrect to say that Jews anciently referred to the country as Israel or as Eretz Israel; those terms were first used to mean Palestine/Canaan in Talmudic times. The references in Joshua and I Samuel to Eretz Israel refer to the parts of Canaan that were under the control of Israel as opposed to other peoples.
It is incorrect to argue that Palestine "is not a country" because it has never been a single sovereign state. Neither had Greece, Italy or Ireland prior to modern times, but everyone was aware of the existence of these countries and of the Greek, Italian and Irish nationalities. A sovereign state is not what makes a nationality OR a country.
The article on Palestine should not be done as a part of "Jewish history". This creates a bias. Tom129.93.29.10 23:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite any of that in accordance with our verifiability policy? And, moreover, can you explain why it shouldn't be treated as part of Jewish history? Palestine is a significant thing in Jewish history. Jewish history not the only subject Palestine is noteworthy in, but no one is saying that it is. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 00:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, a sovereign state IS what defines a country.  If there is no country, it cannot be referred to as a country. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That simply is mistaken. Scotland and Wales are countries, but not sovereign states.Itsmejudith 14:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The following questions are usually being asked when it comes to countries: 1) Name the sovereign rulers: kings, presidents, etc. 2) Within what borders and what time periods they exercised their sovereignty? 3) Coinage? ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Palestine is the name of a country, by any reasonable definition

message: I've combined the Shahin citations into brief references by page, and the full cite bulleted beneath. There are othet citations that need to be brough below as well; I'll try to get to them eventually. -- Avi 15:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: The way this article is sourced, the vast majority of references are pages of a smaller number of books. As such, I think that this article would greatly benefit switching from footnote-style referencing to Author-date/Harvard-style style referencing. It would take a significant amont of work, however. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. -- Avi 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Avi. I would prefer holding off on such a move for now. I plan to make some more additions and edits to the article and am not familiar with the use of this style of referencing at Wikipedia. There is a lot of material that seems to be obliquely and poorly sourced, and I will be adding a lot of online references that the Harvard referencing style might not jive with very well. Thanks for considering my two cents. Tiamut 20:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For an example of Harvard style referencing, see Actuary. The actual implementation in this article may be somewhat different. I can change a few and you can see, or we can wait until you are done, or we can not change at all . -- Avi 21:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation overhaul idea

message: Zero made a change which seems to contredict the souce used. We need to find more sources and clarify this source. In any case still to this day Jews are prevented from immigrating into jordan (and selling land to jews is punishable by death in both palestine and jordan) it seems we need to explore the issue of racial bias further. Zero: Please explain the change you would like to make and show how it is supported (by the source)  Zeq 18:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote from the source, please. El_C 18:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not. I see you again go stright to edit-war. I will let you self revert and explain  & justify your position. I don't see it as you do so if I am wrong please show me. Zeq 18:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinhas Rutenberg bought 6,000 dunums of land in Transjordan in 1927 and allowed Jews to settle there. In this case the Mandatory authorities induced the Transjordanian government to make the sale - see Michael Fishbach's State, Society, and Land in Jordan, Brill Academic Publishers, 2000. --Ian Pitchford 19:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transjordan 

message: I'm not habit to use en.wikipedia (I'm mostly a fr.wikipedia user), but something sounded me weird, in this article. Genetical demography study, I mean. Is this common in here?
I'm ok that palestinians and jews are all about ethnic, but when talking about the state, or population, or whatever, is this not reducing to speak in racial terms? And has really genetic a link with a nation and his history? (I mean, genetical pool always change and mix...)
OlivierEM 12:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  genetical demography 

message: The article says the British transferred Jewish immigrants to "refugee camps". They were not refugee camps but prison camps (you may prefer internment camps).  See the article on Cyprus internment camps. There needs to be a link to this article.
Telaviv1 19:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction to section on  post-war Jewish migration by Holocaust survivors (1946-1948). 

message: A lot of people have put a lot of effort into making the demographics section. It is a controversial subject that has important ramifications. 
There is no need for duplication. Duplications are not just a mess they are dangerous - eg someone will alter one copy and not the other.The demography section logically and rightly belongs to the Palestinian People article. How do you discuss a people if not through its demography?
Therefore I propose that the demography section in Palestine be replaced by a summary and a reference to the demography section at Palestinian People. This will be neater, more logical and easier to use. Benqish 09:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  moving the demographics section to Palestinain People article 

message: I am tagging this article for unreliable sources in view of its extensive reliance on Shahin's travel guide. Beit Or 20:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag is unwarranted. Shahin's book is not a travel guide. See this article in the Journal for Palestine Studies, reviewing the work: . Further, whenever Shahin has been challenged as a source and alternatives have had to be found, they were eventually found (after considerable work, based on an opinion of some editors that the work is not sufficiently reliable - and yet, no sources have been provided by these editors to support this assertion). Please remove the tag. Shahin's book is an overall historical and cultural guide that draws on the work of Palestinian research institutes and the expertise of many different authors. If there are specific sentences containing claims that are highly controversial, please point them out and I will find additional sources. The tag is, however, unnecessary.Tiamat 00:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must confess, though I haven't looked in depth, that my initial thoughts after reading concurred with Beit Or. Fmehdi 19:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the tag. Shahin's Palestine: A Guide is a historical and cultural overview of Palestine. It was positively reviewed in an academic journal and the information that is used here from her book is standard, basic history. If editors continue to be skeptical, they can place fact tags on items they feel require another source and I will look for one. WP:RS says that items need to be sourced; only when exceptional claims are made do they need exceptional sources. Tiamat 09:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:RS and WP:V again. Travel guides by authors with no scholarly standing are not acceptable as sources. Shahin was rejected as a source on Palestinian people; please do not attempt to sneak it here with a straight face as if you didn't know the problems with this book. Beit Or 10:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't cite policy and ignore that I provided you with a link to scholarly journal reviewing the book. It is clearly not a "travel guide". The title is Palestine: A Guide and it is imminently relevant to this article. Do you have a source that takes issue with Shahin's reliability? If you do, furnish it, and we can discuss. If you don't, your opinion of Shahin's work is largely irrelevant. Tiamat 08:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Instead of leaving essay-length edit summaries , engaging in discussion over Shahin on the talk page might be of more use. Her books cites multiple resources but according to the review could use better inline referencing. This is no way undermines the credibility of the text, which has been proven thus far to be correct. Why the insistence on questioning Shahin? Lots of material in the article lacks sources completely and was not tagged by the editors who are tagging Shahin. What's the fixation based on? What evidence at all is there that she is unreliable? Tiamat 22:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable sources 

message: I had suggested moving the demographics section from here to the article on the Palestinian People. After publicizing the suggestion and checking that no one objects to it I returned and carried it out. Sadly TWICE somebody undid this move. This is an open encyclopaedia and anyone can undo, re-edit, delete etc. anything. Sadly though the person who undid - what I consider a sensible move and is totally devoid of any political/controversial - does not identify him/herself and does not reason his/her actions. Please join in the discussion here, tell me why this move is bad in you opinion and stop playing silly games. Benqish 07:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is manifold, but the major issue is that this demographic information concerns the population of Palestine through many time periods. As such, it belongs here. There is information that covers the Mandatory period and the rise in Jewish immigration and it would be inappropriate to place this information under an article entitled Palestinian people. Most Palestinian Jews ceased calling themselves such after the establishment of Israel, and many of the European Jewish immigrants to Palestine never identified as Palestinians. In short, the scope of the Palestinian people article is much more circumscribed and the information in the section Demographics goes way beyond its scope. Most, if not all of it, should stay here. Tiamat 11:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The "Palestine" on this article refers to the region, not the state. The region would include Israelis along with Arabs. The Palestinian people seems to refer to the people in West Bank, Gaza etc. mirageinred 23:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The original inhabitants of Palestine are the Canaanites, semitic people from Arabia. The Philistines lived with the Canaanites, and the Greeks apparently gave the name Palestine and Phonecia to the Lands which the Canaanites inhabited... Phonecians are also Canaanites. Some Jews are semitic of course, but not all of them... Jewish simply means your religion is Jewish. There were Arabs who were Jewish in faith like Herod's the Great for example... 24.60.190.157 23:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  moving the demographics section to Palestinian People article 

message: Please check the accuracy of this statement: "which includes Haran in modern Turkey, from where Abraham the ancestor of the Israelites departed."
I am not sure if this is really correct... Abraham's birth place is most likely in Ur located in today's Iraq...Almaqdisi talk to me 00:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haran 

message: There is currently a debate at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance about whether or not the Mongols captured Jerusalem in 1300.  We would appreciate opinions from other editors who are familiar with the subject matter. --Elonka 16:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (followup) This dispute has continued and expanded, and a formal RfC has been filed. Disputed issues include (1) Was there a major alliance between the Crusaders and the Mongols?  (2) How should the Wikipedia article be titled?  "Franco-Mongol alliance"?  Or "Crusader-Mongol relations" or something else? (3) Did the Mongols conquer Jerusalem in 1300?  (4) How many and what types of primary source quotes are appropriate to use for this subject? (5) Were the Knights Templar major proponents of an alliance with the Mongols?  (6) Was Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, present at a combined Christian-Mongol capture of Jerusalem in 1299/1300?  Any opinions on any of these questions would be appreciated at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Request for comment. --Elonka 10:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment

message: 'the Romans sought to wipe out all Jewish claim to the land' changing its name. Well this is complex, and POV, since I don't know of an ancient source which attributes the name change to an intention to extirpate the Jewish 'claim'. They massacred the various Jewish populations, not only there but also throughout Egypt. But Roman historians of the conquest under Titus and Vespasian still use the term 'Judea'. Perhaps an ancient source does exist for the motivation in the name change. I'd like to see it, and if it does exist, let's put it back in. Nishidani 16:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: have removed the word 'remarkable' evidence for Israel as described in Bible, for the period. Actually, despite the most intensive efforts over a half a century, there is very little evidence available for the Bible account, as the Israel of Archeology article itself admits. The epithet was appropriate to the current of opinion in Albright's day, but is no longer mainstream.Nishidani 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rome/Palestine

message: The text read that Yehoshua Porath had not replied, nor had anyone else, to Pipes remarks in the NYRB. As anyone familiar with the exchange of letters will recall, Porath did reply, not so much to Pipes who, unlike Porath, is not a demographer, but to Sanders, and supplied detailed reasons not given in his earlier review for affirming the position he took on the question. Since the letter by Porath is underneath Pipes' missive, there is no need to change the link.Nishidani 21:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be confused. Porath commented on From Time Immemorial and Daniel Pipes responded to him. That's presenting both sides, and that's it... please see WP:NPOV, we can't choose sides like you do. Some are trying not to be biased. Amoruso (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel Pipes 

message: Anyone have an opinion about this? -- Kendrick7talk 04:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on image caption 

message: I noticed that Wikipedia:Naming_convention has manual of styles for several nations. Obviously, some will try to nix "Palestine" having a manual at all since not yet technically a nation.  Or maybe there should be a "Israel-Palestine" manual until there is a clear separation. Just an idea also putting at State of Palestine in case someone wants to do it!
Carol Moore 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Should "Palestine" Have Own Manual of Style?

message: This talk page is quite clear about this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.26.161.7 (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The neutrality of this article should be marked as disputed 

message: Has the climate changed, or did armies ravage the entire area to turn it into a desert?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.248.15 (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a desert (though Israel's climate today isn't the same as 3,000 years ago). okedem (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land of milk and honey 

message: The use of this name for descriptions of Judea, namely when applied prior to 135 CE, is incorrect, dis-historical and misleading.
The term Palestine appeared when this ancient name was resurrected by Rome, after the destruction of Judea and the Bar K Revolt.
While it is also true that the Greeks called the coast as Syria-Palestina, this applied to the original Philistine invasion, and is not associated with the term Palestine as used and applied to Judea and its surrounds in 135 CE. The original Philistines were not associated with the name resurrected by Rome.
The allocation of the name Palestine/Palestinian by increasing media and net sites, which condones a more incline of it to today's Arab Muslim peoples, makes it a double whamy for misrepresentation, because it allocates a greater incline to them than to the Jews - upon whom this name was exclusively applied, and one which was disdained by the Arabs as is the name Zionist today, untill only 30 years ago. This misrep led to such claims that Jesus was a Palestinian, which is an historical impossibility: Jesus died in 31 CE, while this name was not initiated till 135 CE.
Thus there is no ancient connection of today's Arabs with either the original Philistines - or the resurrected name by the Romans.
Yes/No?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodash (talk • contribs) 11:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're saying is, of course, true. However, I don't know how much of a problem this is with this article. Are there specific places in the article you feel should be treated? Does the name of the article bother you? okedem (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  THERE WAS NO PALESTINE PRE-135 CE! 

message: palastine is all the map border between syria Egipt jordan lebanon and the mid sea before israel invaded and renamed it 
please note this real pice of info , before israeal  invation this country that was the map and after invation they are changing  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.53.18 (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  palastine is all the map included in the UN partition 1947 with all colors before israeel ocupation