The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. Parts of this page relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this page (except in limited circumstances)
If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
This template was considered for deletion on 2006 October 11. The result of the discussion was "to keep.".
First Comments
Well the colours are pretty ugly at the moment but that can be fixed... As for the rest of it, I wanted to make a navigation box that would make it easy to navigate around all things "Palestine". By this I mean the historic land of Palestine (non-political, pre '48), and the Palestinian Territories (West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem) as I believe when most people talk about Palestine this is what they mean. I don't see the point in making a box called Palestinian Territories or West Bank & Gaza Strip & Jerusalem as these are geographical areas and this would exclude far too much Palestinian-related content. I want to include as much as possible about the people, culture, conflict, diaspora etc. so please help.
I decided not to put it on any of the relevant pages yet so it can be edited until people are pretty happy with it. Pockets2313:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for starting this template, from previous experience I know that it is time consuming and boring to start a new template. This is a template we need very much. I agree that the colors are not very inviting, using the red, green, black in a nice way will be a good idea. --Thameen17:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, wasn't sure whether, red green black would invite accusations of POV but I seeing as it was officially adopted as the flag of the Palestinian people in 1964 then I'll assume it's okay. I'll get working on it. Anything's better than what it's like now.
I'll add that under "Land of Palestine" At the moment, there's not enough to give it it's own section?
Nice work! I would just suggest that the font for text be changed to black or green if possible since the blue seems to be not so pretty. I don't know if that's possible or even how to do it myself. But excellent work! Tiamut09:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pockets23, I haven't bothered to go back and look at how you originally designed the template, nor what its original contents were, but its contents as of this writing demonstrate what's fundamentally wrong with it... namely, that your stated goal has been completely abbrogated by [I assume, subsequent, and not by you] additions which have turned a noble goal into a vehicle for POV-pushing. By way of example, let me just point out that the present template, at this time, contains links to "First Intifada", "Second Intifada" and "Barrier"...and there is no mention whatsoever of Idumea, Siege of Jerusalem (70), Syria Palaestina, Aelia Capitolina, etc. This template has a noble goal, but one that will forever attract destructive editors, and ultimately, at least with its present name, never accomplish the goal you set out to achieve. Brushing aside all history, the current template makes history begin with Balfour. Sadly, that's how "Palestinian" textbooks like to read, but that kind of "history" is patently unencyclopedic, and has, therefore, no place here. Tomertalk08:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no-one ever said it was going to be easy... Even the most contentious issues can be resolved. You should have added those articles yourself if you feel they should be included, this is how wikipedia works is it not? Pockets2317:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that more suggestions need be done in various sections. For example in history we need to start from pre-history and there are good articles about that. In political section we need to include all relevant articles mentioned above by by Tom.
However I do not agree that this template is inherentaly problematic. This has been said about every thing related to Palestine in wiki. some people just want to se Palestine disappear from wiki pages. We should not listen to this POV. There is a land called Palestine. This land has people called Palestinians. They have history. They have present. there are many wiki articles about the land and people in Palestine. So obviously we need a template. --Thameen13:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Title of Template
I personally think the current title is appropriate to cover all the topics with the link leading to Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian Do people think it needs to change? Suggestions? Reasons?
I think the current title is fine. People often come by Wikipedia looking for information about Palestine, even if it is not a country. Some are looking for historical info, some for political info, some for cultural info. I have added some things, but my formatting skills are zero. So if someone can fix the code, that would be great. Tiamut14:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that it is going to get deleted because of the pro-Israel Wikipedia faction if you don't clarify the name a bit. If you can modify the name slightly to avoid looking like you want to refer to the region of Israel and Gaza Strip and the West Bank, then their issues will be addressed or easily refuted as invalid. I recommend the renaming occurs ASAP. --Ben12:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will change the name to Palestinians, I think Palestine is the most direct and straightforward way to title it but Palestinians is also good. Pockets2304:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was a wrong thing to change the title. To name the template Palestinians is wrong cuz this template is about Palestine and not Palestinians. I do not see the need for the name change. This template was named for deletion and was voted to stay as template:Palestine, so the name was accepted as such. --Thameen10:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to rename the template to Palestinian Territories? This way, the main objection in the AfD is addressed. The problem is there is no formal palestinian state and the historic name of the region of Israel and the Palestinian Territories is Palestine -- thus it is confusing as to what exactly the template refers to. If you rename it Palestinian Territories it make clear that it does not refer to Israel and thus it does not overlap with that territory. The contents can still remain virtually the same -- especially the politics and nationalist aspirations. I would very much like to do this rename in the near future. --Ben12:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't rename it to Palestinian Territories and the template is kept it is likely to be transformed away from just focusing on the territories and instead it will end up overlapping significantly with the Israel template. This will reduce its value -- we don't need more templates on the same topic. I could not more strongly recommend that you rename this template to PalestinianTerritories ASAP. --Ben12:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ben, I know your suggestion is a good faith one, but unfortunately "Palestinian territories" will not meet the need for a template that covers all things Palestinian. For example, will I be able to include information on Palestinian refugees outside of the Palestinian territories in such a template? Will I be able to include diaspora writers like Edward Said? Will such a template be able to include information on Arab citizens of Israel, who consider themselves Palestinians with Israeli citizenship? The title "Palestine" allows us to put a broad range of topics related to the issue of Palestine without claiming lands or borders to a country in that name. In fact, if you look at the section on Land of Palestine as it is currently, it gives a good overview of the territories that are to form part of a Palestinian state to be, if it ever comes into existence. Not everything to do with Palestine and its people is related to the Palestiniant territories themselves and that is actually the crux of the issue/conflict; i.e. the lack of a homeland for Palestinians. It would be misleading to pretend that all Palestinians view only the Palestinian territories as their home. I live in Nazareth. I identify myself as Palestinian. I carry Israeli citizenship. When I advocate for a template on Palestine it is not so that I can claim that I live in Palestine, it is so I can adequately represent the realities of identity, nationality, history and the present-day issues surrounding the issue of Palestine. I know I've rambled, but do you see what I'm trying to say? Thanks. Tiamut11:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be extremely unfortunate if this template was deleted because of a simple naming issue, which would just mean that the whole process of creation and discussion would be repeated later anyways. If we wanted to meet the standard of all the other "country templates," then the points you mention wouldn't be an issue. If the analogue to Edward Said would be included in template:Israel (or Botswana, for that matter), then it would be included in template:Palestinian territories/Palestinian National Authority/whatever compromise is worked out. If not, then it would be included in the relevant category or whatever other organisational strategy may be utilised by for the analogous purpose for Israel or Botswana. I too consider myself a Palestinian, but remember that the template isn't supposed to make a point, but rather it should fulfil a very specific function. Cheers, TewfikTalk01:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tewfik. I feel that the threat of deletion is insufficient grounds to change the name of the template. This is not about trying to create a "country template". It is a template on the issue of Palestine, a contentious issue to be sure, but one that includes people, some territory, culture, history, language, and a conflict over something that was once and still is called Palestine by some, and Israel by others. Keeping the name as Palestine is not designed to score political points, or make it more of country. It is rather to be faithful to the correct naming of the issue at hand. The Palestinian National Authority (PNA) is not the issue. Nor are the "Palestinian territories" the issue. The issue is something called Palestine. Please look at the content of the template more closely and tell me how the history section can be included under PNA or Palestinian territories. And how about Arab citizens of Israel who mostly identify as Palestinian? Can we put them under a template named as you have suggested? Seriously? Tiamut01:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not any collection of articles in a template is necessarily legitimate. I tried to convey the point that this template should exist as any "country template" would, with the reservation that it would be called something other than "Palestine." I'm sure you would agree that if there was now a State of Palestine and Israelis identifying with it were included in its template, then we should do so here, and that if there was an argument against including them there, then we shouldn't include them here. However there is no need to include a central directory of all things with the word "Palestine" in them - that is what disambiguation is for. The history of whatever areas are currently under Palestinian control [in terms of the greater pre-1948 Palestine] could be written in much the same way as the history of the areas under Israeli control. But I feel that making a template about someplace "called Palestine by some, and Israel by others" would be needlessly controversial, wouldn't fit within the convention of other such templates, and would unfairly create a nonexistent alternative to the current Israeli state. Cheers, TewfikTalk17:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been changed to "Palestinians" by the template creator, which you should put to rest both your and my concerns. I definitely don't think the template should include only areas under Palestinian control or ignore the history of our people and its connection to all of Palestine, which is why I reject the name Palestinian territories. But throughout our entire history, nowhere we have lived has been under our control. Either we have been imperial subjects or now, refugees or diaspora people. Geographically circumscribing the area under discussion is not right considering more than 50% of Palestinians are refugees living outside the geographic region of British Mandate Palestine, our last solidified borders before Israel's establishment. Cheers! Tiamut21:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reticence to be limited to the "Palestine," but this reasoning could be easily used to justify a "greater Israel" to which Jews feel a connection. In any event, I'm still not thrilled with the name, for if it now avoids the POV issues, it also doesn't really make much sense - it isn't about "Palestinians," but the Palestinian culture, geography, etc. Perhaps we can come up with a better name? Let me know what you think, TewfikTalk04:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about Palestine and Palestinians? Or The Issue of Palestine? Or The Palestinian Nation? "Nation" does not necessarily imply state, but rather a people. For a people of whom half live in exile, this may be ideal. These are just a few ideas. Let me know what you think. Tiamut10:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been meaning to get back to you here for a while - sorry for the delay. I think the general model we use should be that of any other "state," and thus I'm predisposed to organising it around the Palestinian Authority name. I understand the argument that wants to not directly use the government's name, but due to its complicated history, the place doesn't have a "short name," and in any event, the convention for dealing with culture etc. in nation states seems to be to use the state's name, even though culture etc. isn't directly related to the government. Let me know what your thoughts might be. Cheers, TewfikTalk18:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the original person that suggested the change in name to "Palestinian Territories", I think the current solution of "Palestinians" is adequate. It is descriptive and simple. --Ben18:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The name Palestinians is worse than Palestine. This template is supposed to link to every thing related to Palestine the land, the people and culture. By changing it to Palestinians we made it worse. --Thameen11:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Marhaba Thameen. Eid Mubarak! I totally feel with you and was kind of surprised when Pockets changed the name. We can still discuss other options. Did you see what I suggested above as compromise positions? I like 'Palestine and Palestinians' or 'The Palestinian Nation' too. But I don't know about your thoughts and those of others. Tiamut11:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of this template's construction is very confusing which has lead to problems in its inclusion on certain pages. We really must clarify whether it deals with Palestine as a historical region, or with the ethno-political Palestinian people. It certainly shouldn't be the address for all things named "Palestine" - that is the task of the Palestine (disambiguation) page. Cheers, TewfikTalk16:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the ancient history of the historical region "Palestine," since this template is scoped for the modern national idea ala State of Palestine. The same structure is followed on Template:Israelis, which does not include ancient Israelite history. A template for the academic definition would include Jews & Arabs (& everyone else who lived there), & not the modern PA, PLO, and people like Rashid Khalidi. Cheers, TewfikTalk07:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strongly with this removal. The history section is informative and complete, including even references to Israelite rule in the area. It illuminates for the reader the complex history of the region that Palestinians claim as their home. It is not POV or irrelevant. This is not the template for the State of Palestine, it is about the Palestinian people, who claim cultural and ethnic influences from among the empires listed in the history section. I am therefore going to reinsert it. Tiamut10:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? Palestinians as a people recognize the contributions of the many empires to the cultural traditions and ethnic makeup of the people of Palestine. This includes the region's connections to Israelites - a historical fact that also helps illuminate to the reader the imperial and religious historical background that foreshadows the current conflict over identity and land that the Palestinians are engaged in with Israelis. Why is it a problem to provide access to these historical references? Tiamut12:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me a template of this form is perfectly right and proper - Palestinians (as a people) deserve an overview category. I'm not sure what the Kurds are getting, they've never had a state either, but nobody would deny their self-identification as a nation.
Consider "Palestine and Palestinians", or possibly "Palestinian Nation".
The problem, which is apparent in your reply, is that inclusion of the History of Palestine on the template for Palestinian people mixes two separate concepts based on a similarity of name. As I noted above we must be careful to avoid glossing over the difference between academic and national usages of "Palestinian." As this is scoped towards the modern national usage, like Template:Israelis, it should also not attempt to draw a connection to the academic definition. TewfikTalk18:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction you are making is a moot one as regards this issue. Both academic and national definitions of Palestinians include a cognizance of the imperial and cultural history that have contributed to the culture, language and history of the people known as Palestinians today. See Palestinian People right here on Wikipedia for example. Identity is also self-defined, and as Palestinians recognize the multiplicity of cultural influences and ethnic stock incorporated into the region from successive imperial adventures, this information is completely relevant to the template and also enriches the reader's knowledge of the history of contestation that foregrounds the current conflict. Your argument is a straw man I'm afraid. Reverting once again. Tiamut16:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that such information is relevant to the template "Israelis", by all meanbs include it. Though I believe the identity of Israelis as commonly espoused by them only gives credence to the Jewish historical legacy in the region, rather than all the influences listed in this template. This is not about POV pushing and Tewfik's argument is a straw man. From day one with this template, all good faith attempts at editing have been characterized as POV pushing by those opposing this template's very existence. Unforunately, it seems that some people are unable to distinguish between providing the reader with information that reflects Palestinians and their identity as articulated by them and others, with the pursuit of some sort of political agenda. This is normal since some people view the very assertion of a Palestinian identity as threatening; however, faithful representation of this identity should include a mention of the historical background that foregrounds it. Tiamut11:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The national identity of Palestinians is connected to the history of a land called Palestine. The history of the land Palestine is well-known and documented as having hosted all the different historical groups listed in the history section. [encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761558705/Palestine.html] Palestinians themselves refer to their Canaanite, Philistine and even Israelite ancestry and history repeatedly. See: [1] for just one example. Each group listed in the history section has a page where the nature of the connection to Palestine or Palestinians is further elucidated. Why can't readers know what Palestinians view their history to be composed of? Why are we limited to existing only as an adjunct of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? We are a people, with a long history. We have a right to have that history represented in our people template. Tiamut16:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People are not idiots. They can explore each link and determine for themselves what the connection is to Palestinians. I have provided examples of how the history is relevant to Palestinian identity. Stop trying to reduce an entire people into a mere faction of an intractable conflict. There is more to us than the conflict. We have a rich history and we didn't come from the moon. Tiamut10:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was pretty rude, Tiamut. Speaking of the moon, I've heard many arguments that Jews should go back where they came from: Europe, America or the moon. Arabs must have come from Arabia and Jews from Judea, but it is all irrelevant here because the national identity of the Palestinians is as modern as of the Israelis. ←Humus sapiensну?11:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say that Jews should go back to where they came from anywhere on this talk page? What's the relevance of that comment, or is it just a intimidation designed to make me feel like defending the inclusion of my people's history is somehow akin to advocating Jewish transfer. My point stands. Regardless of whether "Palestinian" or "Israeli" are modern identities, the people that claim these modern-day identities have a historical narrative that underpins it. Whether or not you think that historical narrative is accurate is really irrelvant. Identity is self-defined. I've provided examples of Palestinian recognition of their Canaanite and Philistine ancestry. There are gneetic studies available for reivew at the Palestinian people page. This information is entirely relevant. Your comment, quite unfortunately, is not. Tiamut11:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That you believe a specific historical narrative is relevant is fine, but this is an encyclopaedia that attempts to be neutral. If there are truly widespread sources that say that the Palestinian people believe that they descend from [Canaanites, whatever that means, then make a not of it there, but barring objective academic research confirming such a link, it is not Wikipedia's place to adopt that position. TewfikTalk17:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Classic straw man argument. My POV is irrelevant here. Including the links to historical information related to the land of Palestine, where Palestnians claim to come from, neirches the reader's experience. Including this information does not mean an endorsement of a direct ancestral lineage between every living personal claiming to be Palestinian today and every imperial and indigenous ancestor. That Palestinians regularly refer to these historical periods and peoples in a way that indicates they view them as ancestral is certainly notable and relevant as well - whether or not it is true. We cover all POVs and the POV of the identity group under question is most relevant to how the template should be constructed, since identity is constructed by all groups themselves. No? Tiamut19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section isn't titled "historical periods that Palestinians identify with and regularly refer to", but rather "history". It is about the objective history of those identified as the Palestinian people. TewfikTalk19:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't play games Tewfik. You know as well as I do that there is no such thing as the objective history of a people, particularly not when identity forms the core of an ongoing political dispute. I will not let you censor out access to information that Palestinian view the history of the land of Palestine as part and parcel of their present-day identity. There is no reason to dissuade people from exploring to what degree that it or is not true. The articles for each historical era will make their cases for and against. But to deny their inclusion here simply because you want to promote the idea that Palestinians do not exist, come from nowhere, have no history, will not fly. I have church records that prove my family's existence here back as far as 500 AD and I'm sure we have all kinds of mixes in our blood and that is part of my Palestinian identity, as it is for many others. Stop negating our right to an identity and history. Tiamut19:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Palestinian" is a twentieth century idea; Palestinians have nothing to do with ancient Jewish kingdoms, except in revisionist propaganda of the worst kind. Identity appropriation is a bad idea, and particularly in a template that is already very large. Please stick to topics that are actually directly relevant to Palestinians. Jayjg (talk)21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I didn't add the Israelite kingdoms. Amoruso did, apparently for purposes of NPOV in presenting a complete picture of the history of Palestine, the land that Palestinian identity is intimately connected to. That said, considering that Palestainians like myself can trace our ancestry here back hundreds of years (in my case, 1,500 years as recorded in church registers) So it is not fiction for me (or others) to see our ancestry as connected to the Babylonian, Persian, Abbasid empires. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. I am certainly not alone among Palestinians in having this kind of registered familial history here spanning over many empires. Whose to say that my ancestors were not Jews who converted to Eastern Orthodox Christianity? It is not identity appropriation for me believe that to be so. Again, however, this is a straw-man argument. Including this historical information allows the reader to explore the complex history of the land of Palestine that Palestinians claim as part of their identity. This information is all relevant. Your opposition and that of others like Beit Or, Tewfik, and Humus Sapiens POV based, and certainly not about making this encyclopedia more encyclopedia, interactive, or enriching an experience for this reader. And A full historical timeline to the imperial history of Palestine is very much needed so that readers can get a global picture of issues under discussion and the complex historical and political background and narratives. Tiamut12:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone aware of the reasoning behind the choice of notable personalities? I can think of quite a few names significantly more famous than many of those chosen....
Feel free to provide a listing - you may want to look to other national groups' templates to see what kind of people are generally included. It seems that artists and scientists are popular (I suppose it is an attempt to highlight some of the less vocal members of the group). TewfikTalk19:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note especially that there is no room for Hitler in the German template, nor for Mussolini in the Italian...... Indeed, I cannot find there is room for a single discredited person/criminal in any of these templates. But now some suddenly, strangely, wants Siran Siran in the Palestinian Template?? It´s a no-go; unless you want to treat other people the same way (And to Beit OR: yes, we learned everything there is to know about WP:POINT during the "Allegation of Apartheid" Arb. com!! Lol!) Regards, Huldra (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the recent revert-warring by Ramallite and Abu ali, I am requesting explanations as to why the following links must be included into the template about the Palestinian people:
I am unable to comprehend how Yasser Arafat has been omitted from the list of notable Palestinians. Has he been erased from history, Stalin style? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.222.252 (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
to al-Azhar university is totally irrelevant to this timeline. I have removed it, but Jaakbou insists on reinserting it. I do not understand upon what basis he finds this material notable or relevant to a template on Palestinians. The feedback of others would be appreciated. Tiamat16:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
one of the most relevant items in the palestinian time line is the one relating to their regional leader's education and establishment as a "hajj" and grand mufti. i see no reason why this detail which is more integral to palestinian history than the balfour declaration, would be left out/reverted. it's on a higher level than israel electing it's first president.
Thanks, but that's a spelling mistake. Most people write his surname as Husseini and not Husayni as we have here. Back to the point however, he is already listed in the notable personalities section of the timeline (which I also disagree with but have left intact). My current objection is to including his visit to al-Azhar as the first item in a timeline of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict section. What reliable source states that his visit is as important as say the Balfour Declaration, which was the first item in the timeline before your addition? You have not at all justified the importance of his visit in the overall scheme of things. As such, I will be removing him from that section of the timeline, while retaining his name in the notable personalities section for now. Tiamat13:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
have you read any serious books about this conflict and it's history? most books note amin al-husseini as a very prominent figure - his coming to power (through the university and hajj) is most certainly an integral part of palestinian history. i'll be a little repetative and note again that this is ceratinly more integral then the balfour declaration which was a later excuse/catalist for husseini's activity to propagate. JaakobouChalk Talk14:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have furnished no source establishing that al-Husayni's visit to Al-Azhar was a major event worthy of being listed as the first item in this timeline. Indeed, when contrasted against the other items in this Israeli-Palestinian conflict section of the timeline, your addition seems like out of place microdetail. Surely, readers can see what al-Husayni was about by clicking on the existing link to him as a person, currently listed in the Notable personalities section. There, they can read about his visit to Al-Azhar, which is itself a minor detail in that overall article. Tiamat14:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) you neglected to answer my question. (2) a good number of sources talk about al husseini's work in egypt, a nice number of them also mention the university. (3) please avoid "microdetail" weasel terms on our content dispute. JaakobouChalk Talk15:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) I did answer your question (read it again). 2) please provide these sources you keep referring to. 3) microdetail is not a weasel word. it's a descriptive term for your edit in the context of the section and overall template. Tiamat10:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WHY on earth did you remove the jewish exodus material?! Your POV reverts are getting to the point that I am considering on reporting them. don't remove factual information unless you have some better "excuse" than POV. Eternalsleeper06:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That should be included, but I don't see a specific event in Husseini's life as being on the same level of notability as the other events, otherwise we would have dozens of such mentions (Arafat). TewfikTalk06:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with those that think this is a non-notable event in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or at least not in the top 25 most notable events in the conflict. The Mufti's ties to Hitler is much more interesting and relevant, but even that isn't as notable as the other 24 things currently listed. The Mufti is an important figure in an understanding of the pre-1948 reality of the region, but that is already covered by the riots, Arab Revolt, and British Mandate articles. What about the establishment of the PLO in 1964? What about the airplane hijackings throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s? What about the Camp David 2000 Summit and Taba Summit? All of these are more important in an understanding of the conflict than the Mufti's university. --GHcool08:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because both of you are in your 20s and can't remember anything beyond 1990 doesn't mean that past events are less significant than recent ones. This guy is the founder of the new antisemitism and you don't need to wait until he meets with hitler to make note of this.--Eternalsleeper22:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, but I don't think that where Mufti went to university is any more important to the Arab-Israeli conflict than where Arafat went to university. Also, I'm not sure what was being proven by referencing my age. Furthermore, I can remember a great deal before 1990. --GHcool07:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there are quite a lot of mentions relating the deeds of Arafat, i remind you that Arafat, unlike Husseini, was part of a tiny terror group called PLO.. his going to university(did he?) was far less influential than the starting point of the pan-arab anti-semetic movement by al husseini in egypt - this detail is mentioned in almost every book that mentions al husseini. JaakobouChalk Talk09:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i can see how this issue needs refinement before it's re-inserted - i'll try to attend to this issue in the near future. for the meantime, i agree to leaving this out - although, it's definitely as influential as most of the other events noted. JaakobouChalk Talk12:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish Exodus + Damascus Protocol - note to Tiamut
the reason given for this edit, being that "Damascus protocols do not even mention "palestinians" and that "Jewish exodus from Arab lands was not carried out by Palestinians", makes it hard for me to WP:AGF knowing my recent history with you. (House Demolition)
to make it clear, (1) Damascus Protocol were an Arab declaration of ownership/attempted ownership of a certain portion of the middle east which includes 'historical Palestine' a.k.a. land of Israel. (2) the Jewish exodus from Arab lands was the forced fleeing of over 700,000 Jews from Arab lands to the new state of Israel (including the parts that the Arabs lost for the Palestinians), a.k.a. population exchange. (3) there's a point where edit disputes cross the line of reasonable POV to downright vandalism.. i hope edits like this are not such an example, but only a case of not knowing enough about the articles you removed. JaakobouChalk Talk03:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jaakobou, this template is entitled Palestinians. When articles are linked to this template that do not even include mention of the word Palestinian (like your insertion of Damascus Protocol, its a safe bet that they are misplaced. Further, what do Palestinians have to do with the Jewish exodus from Arab lands? Were they the ones that initiated actions against Jews that led to their flight from Arab countries? No. So why exactly should such a link be included in a template on Palestinians as a people? Tiamat06:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tiamut, the palestinian exodus from israel/palestine was due to the arab-jewish war which was a direct result of the damascus protocols even more so than the balfour declaration (who cares what the "her majesty sees in favor"). as the palestinian exodus was happening, a similar counter dispossession was occurring in the arab territories as approx. 900,000 (depending on sources) were forced to flee and come to israel/palestine, hence - balfour is connected with damascus, and also both exoduses are linked. you must remember that the palestinian-israeli conflict is part of the wider scope arab-israeli conflict and as such, when a huge event is in effect for the region (israel/palestine) it is part of the template. please stop reverting if you don't know much about the topic, and instead bring up your apprehensions on the talk page. JaakobouChalk Talk12:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop intimating that I have no knowledge of this conflict. I have done graduate work on the this region and one could call it my life's work. While there is always more to learn, I don't appreciate you condescending tone. The Damascus protocol, if so important to "Palestinians" (the subject of this template) should mention them in the article on the subject. It does not. Therefore by logical deduction, it has no relevance to this template. Further, as I said, the Jewish exodus from Arab lands has nothing to do with Palestinians. They played no significant role in prompting that exodus and the subject has little relevance to a template on Palestinians. I am therefore, once again, removing those additions. Tiamat14:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) please explain to me how 1 million jews coming into israel/palestine works into your deduction system? (2) please explain to me why arabs declaring a region which includes israel/palestine to be theirs, does not affect the region even if the word "palestine" is not in the article? (3) please consider the possiblity that your "life's work" has room to expand into "arab history and it's influence on the region"... i suggest you start with a good book about the history of transjordan and abdullah the 1st... and please (4) stop looking for the word "palestinian" everywhere.. it's a politically charged term which became mostly prominent with the british mandate (the ottomans kept the region divided into sanjaks, the most prominent one being the damascus sanjak), and not every action in the region, esp in the 18th century and early 19th, has any usage of that term. JaakobouChalk Talk22:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flag
I do not think that huge flag of PNA belongs here, especially captioned as "Flag of Palestinians". Please try to resist urges to stick political flags somewhere they do not belong, like geographic regions or non-political entities. ←Humus sapiensну?07:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning to add some of it myself to those templates and timelines in the coming days. Nothing is preventing you from doing so. This template is not about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it's about Palestinians: a people, their history, culture, and their political parties, etc., but there is not enough space in the template to put all of that and a timeline for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There's no need to either since there are other templates that exist and need to be developed for that outlined purpose. Tiamat22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
proposed conversion of template to standard navbox format
Because this template is actually used as a navbox, I propose converting it to an actual navbox format. This way it can be placed at the bottom of article pages, rather than using the limited space within many of the articles within which it's used. Here's a draft version of what I propose:
Thank you! I was hoping to do that eventually but lack the coding abilities. I do have one question: In order to add another section, do I simply copy the code for other sections, or does it require something more involved? (i.e. is there an associated coding page, or is this it?) Thanks again for your efforts. Tiamuttalk00:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea. Would it be possible to move the image from the right side to the left side, and combine it with the "Notable Palestinians" section, or another section. This would shorten the template by going to 2 columns instead of 3 columns. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tiamut, to add additional section, just duplicate the format that I've used for each "group#=" and "list#=". I've used {{nowrap}} in the code to prevent longer names from being broken onto two rows.
Timeshifter, the code for the {{navbox}} template has limited built-in flexibility for the image. There is an "Imageleft" code in it, but to use that you need to give up the group names (ie: "Demographics & geography", "Politics", etc). I did find another template, {{Navbox with images}} that may work, but I've never tried it before. Here's how that one works:
Of course, another option is to omit the image entirely; few navboxes use them. It just depends on what the consensus in prefers. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is shorter on my 17-inch screen. It doesn't matter to me whether there is an image or not. Others may think differently though. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Al Ameer son's explanation for revert: "a militia's bombmaker is not exactly notable alongside Arafat, Husseini and Sakakini".
Reply by Jaakobou: Ayyash is certainly not on the same notability as Arafat. However, he is on the same level and even more notable than Nathalie Handal, Rim Banna, Hany Abu-Assad, Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, Mohammad Bakri, Samih al-Qasim, and May Ziade. In fact, he is so much notable that I would compare "the Engineer" with Hanan Ashrawi on the notability scale without feeling too awkward. See how many results pop up when the search is narrowed down to just his killing [3]. I'm aware that some of these links lead to people described by Palestinians as "the Engineer-4", but this only shows how much an influence the man had. JaakobouChalk Talk20:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly; it is difficult to take this seriously. Bomb-makers are 13 to the dozen. (And people outside Palestine (like myself) have heard about, say, Nathalie Handal, Rim Banna, Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, May Ziade..while I eg. had never heard about Ayyash before now. ) Cultural and academic personalities makes more of an impact in the world at large than bombers. It is as simple as that. Also, Jaakobou; please read the "notable personalities" part above on this page. "Been there, discussed that." Regards, Huldra (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Huldra,
Previous discourse: I can't say that your single comment from December 2007 on "notable personalities" was a conclusive consensus and it would be best not to use terminology that would suggest otherwise ("been there").
Raised issue: Bomb makers are indeed "13 to the dozen" and I would never dream of listing them up into the template. However, Ayyash was the first one (or at least the first notable one) and an immense public Hero -- demonstrated by people calling his followers "the engineer-4" and that people would want their children to be "engineers". I disagree regarding the level of notability and to remind, approx. 70% of Palestinians are in Palestine (not outside it) and consider this guy to be very much a "notable personality".
Dispute resolution: I can give more examples to why he is immensely notable but it feels as though the editorial atmosphere is "defensive" and not in the spirit of collaboration (not directed at anyone in particular) and that we wouldn't get much further without some form of external opinion and/or mediation.
Dearest Jaakobou, yes, I might sound I bit defensive, but I am getting rather tired of ..what-shall-I say-- rather "pro-Israeli" (and I hope you don´t mind that description, Jaakobou?) editors fighting to have every Palestinian assassin, terrorist....or bomb-maker onto the Template:Palestinians. I will be the first to agree that the template, as it is, is not perfect. Bur what I wonder is always at the *choice* of "new" candidates. Now, Jaakobou, is Ayyash a more important figure than the present President of the Palestinians, Mahmoud Abbas? More important than the Prime Minister? Apparently you think so, since none of those men are on the template, but you do not suggest their names... As mentioned above; "other national groups' templates ...: It seems that artists and scientists are popular" ... "no room for Hitler in the German template, nor for Mussolini in the Italian.." ...and, I might add; no room for Yigal Amir or Baruch Goldstein on any Israeli template...If you want to get an external opinion, then please go ahead. Regards, Huldra (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.
Other figures of Importance: I got the Mahmoud Abbas issue out of the way.
Civility: I would appreciate it if there would not be any personal commentary (See WP:CIV). I merely missed his absence while adding two very important figures in the Palestinian history.[4]
Other templates: Mussolini is registered under "Politicians" and I wouldn't be surprised if Hitler is mentioned also, but I haven't been able to find the Germen people template. On top of this, I have no objection for listing down both Yigal Amir and Baruch Goldstien in the Israeli template under "criminals/terrorists" because they are indeed quite notable, so that argument is really irrelevant.
pro-Israeli: Adding a very prominent (if not the most prominent) "resistance" figure to the template is not a pro-Israeli issue. Ayyash is a national icon of the 90s regardless if you've heard or haven't heard of him just as Shukeiri, the other person I added, is an icon of the 60s. Both btw, are more notable for an encyclopedia than barely heard of artists.
Yahya Ayyash notability: Ayyash is mentioned in 303 Books, which makes him a distinctly notable figure.
Rationality to keep him out: If you have rationality other than suggesting bad faith or non-existent policies, I'm willing to reconsider my position.
I just got an external opinion suggestion that the entire "notable Palestinians" section of links could be replaced by a single link to Category:Palestinians. I think it's a reasonable suggestion but I'm not sure about it.
I usually avoid editing articles about sensitive Israeli-Palestinian topics, because i'm not half an expert on the issue, but since my opinion was requested for some reason, i'll reply.
Of course my point of view is not global, and i don't have any precise data, but it's quite obvious that Israelis are very well familiar with Yahya Ayyash's personal name, as well as with his nickname "The Engineer", the things he did and the way he died. He's much more familiar to Israelis than many of the people on the template; for example i've never heard of Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, Nathalie Handal or Khalil al-Sakakini. Unfortunately, it also makes sense that Arabs will be more familiar with Ehud Barak and Baruch Goldstein than with Etgar Keret, Ehud Banai or Meir Ariel.
So yes, as far as the Israeli POV goes, Ayyash is one of the most notable Palestinians, for better or worse. I would include Ayyash here, but i wouldn't fight about it too much.
I was asked to look into this as an uninvolved third party. I also had the same thought about Yigal Amir, and I'd point out that "famous" any nationality is going to be POV, because there are different reasons to be famous. Bill Gates and Charles Manson would technically both be "famous Americans" though I think that different people would have issues with both of them for different reasons. Considering that WP has notability guidelines already, I think it might be better to go the category route; I don't think anyone would protest that any of the above-named people are Palestinian, and they have proven notability as far as WP is concerned. MSJapan (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also been asked to give my mind as uninvolved third party.
I think the category is a good idea to gather all "widely known" Palestinians but I would keep the section "notable palestinians" in the template and would not put there the most famous using google hits and world-wide prestige as measuring tool. Ceedjee (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts regarding Ayyash notability? Best I'm aware - he's (a) a national hero, (b) historically notable.
Well, well. First I would like to ask the new commentators on this page, who say that they have been asked to give their mind as "uninvolved third party": Who asked you? Where? (And can one be "uninvolved" in this question, when most of ones edits are in the ME area?)
To Jaakobou: yes, I see that Mussolini is now registered under "Template:Lists of Italians|Politicians" ..indeed, *you* added that to the Template:Lists of Italians 20-25 minutes before you posted the above... (Btw, I see that the German people template has been deleted...don´t know why)
having said this, I do think that Amir E. Aharoni makes a very valid (though sad!) point; it is the criminals/notorious people who become "famous" among the "opposite part" in a conflict...and, sadly, not people like artists or people in academia.
but it is also correct, (as noted above), that when one list "notable" persons in a "people" category, they tend to be mostly artist, scientist + sport-people
Yahya Ayyash might be notable/notorious in Israel/Palestine...but I doubt if the rest of the world has heard of him. I hadn´t. And I just googled four Palestinian names that I hear on the local news (here in Scandinavia), if not every day, at least every week. I used the Scandinavian google search + google.com, and here are the result:
Now; none of the above five names are on the Palestinian template today. And you argue that the most important of these people is......Yahya Ayyash?? Sorry: yet again: it´s a no-go.
Now, having said all this: it looks as if "notable personalities" section is disappearing from nation-templates, and are being replaces by "List of notable..xx" links instead. This is a quite a natural development, I think; as more and more people get their biography. Therefore, I think it is quite possible that one day we will delete all the single names, and just keep the link Notable Palestinians, (And Jaakobou: I find it strange that you have not added Yahya Ayyash to the List of Palestinians...but you want to have him on the Palestinian template(!)).
Criteria for comparison: It is a tad frustrating when the "criteria" is being changed. Best I'm aware, we were discussing Ayyash and you suggested that he is an unknown in comparison with "Nathalie Handal, Rim Banna, Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, May Ziade", not Ismail Haniyeh and Saeb Erekat which have clearer notability as high-end political figures. To clarify: If you find more notable Palestinians than Ayyash, be WP:BOLD and add them. I have no objection to this; though, it is germane to the current discussions if more names are added to the template.
Other topics: The 'depopulated villages' suggestion is unrelated to this (Ayyash/Category) discussion. As a side note I add that it also seems unrelated to the template since the template is about people/social structure/geography, not historical events but I'd really rather not digress into an argument about this one since it's not an issue which interests me.
Notability comparison with the new raised notables:
Ismail Haniyeh - 110 Books * Comparison comments: (i) His encyclopedic notability, landing higher than chief negotiator Saeb Erekat and Hamas Prime Minister, is clearly established. (ii) (side-comment) You haven't provided a link to your "Yahya Ayyash" - 15,900 Scandinavian google+ google.com results but there seems to be some error since Google gives 17,600 (English) with only one of the possible spellings. A "The engineer" +Israel +killed Search gives 24,100 and an Arabic search gives 130,000. I also believe he's one of the rare people to have an entire hardcover book dedicated just to them.
Links to the lists: If I am reading your comment correctly (per: quite possible that one day we will), you are opposing the category suggestion being made at this time. Let me know if my assessment is inaccurate.
Status of discussions: If I'm reading everyone's comments thus far correctly (Al Ameers son's comment is sadly missing though), there seems to be some type of raw consensus that Ayyash is indeed notable, but also there is a mild agreement to go down the category suggestion route.
I don't mind editors working to establish who is the most notable Palestinian of them all. However, considering that the notability of Ayyash was established in comparison with other very high profile notables. I am inquiring if Huldra and/or Al Ameer son have any objection other than the resolved notability issue to his addition to the template. JaakobouChalk Talk19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Indent)
First: Jaakobou; I would like you to answer a question: did you email the above, new commentators on this page, and asked them to contribute here? If so, is this what you call an "external opinion and/or mediation"?
Secondly; your "googeling": you seem to have used the names without "enclosing them", i.e you have googled for Yahya Ayyash and not "Yahya Ayyash". Since both Yahya and Ayyash are rather common names, you got a lot of completely unrelated "hits". You have to google the names as "Yahya Ayyash" etc. Then you get:
First number is Google scholar; Second number is Google books:
Yahya Ayyash is not especially notable compared with other Palestinians *not* on the template.
Yahya Ayyash is very controversial, some would say notorious.
Controversial or notorious people are normally not included on a national template.
I have already spend far too much time on this. One singular editors insistence on including a minor "notable" is starting to look like disruption.
Links to list-issue: the "Template:State of Israel" has a link to Israelis. My thought was that, eventually, the "Template:Palestinians" should do likewise, and only have a link to Notable Palestinians, or Palestinians,
Again; I have already been forced to use far, far to much time on this POV-pushing (And yes: it is that. I will stand by this description). I will consider further insistence on this matter as disruption. Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I´ll remove Palestinian pottery then. The thing is: much as I like this template, I simply think it has become a bit too fat. Especially the Notable Palestinian section. I´m suggesting that we should take a hard look at who should be part of that section. I see several "national" templates no longer have individuals listed in their "national" templates; instead they have *only* the list to "notable xx". That is perhaps a bit early here, but a bit of "pruning" could be done in that section, IMO. Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Al Ameer son, I mostly agree with you. The one thing I disagree about is the "feminine perspective": i.e., I would like to keep Ghada Karmi, and possibly Rim Banna. (But I don´t se why Nathalie Handal is more important than, say, Naomi Shihab Nye. In other words: I think she can go.) But yeah: the rest of the names you mention I think we can easily remove... Will you do it? (I´m signing out now). Oh, and yes, I agree: "Law" would be better of under "Politics". Regards, Huldra (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
