Talk:Palestinian right of return/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

I'm disappointed

What, no boiling controversy here? This page sure does break protocol! Somebody Else's Problem^Cat_Dog(aka Alethiophile) 03:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced presentation

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

Historic Attempts at Resolution

I would like to create a section titled "Historic Attempts at Resolution." Just as it sounds, this section would contain the various offers and negotiation processes that each side proffered in attempting to resolve the conflict. I doubt that I will be able to find them all, and so would like to keep a tally in this section of the discussion. Please add relevant historic events (make sure to keep them in chronological order): Screen stalker 23:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• In 1949, Mark Etheridge, the American representative to the Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC), suggested that Israel agree to grant full citizenship to the 70,000 Arab residents in the Gaza Strip, as well as its 200,000 refugees, on the condition that the Gaza Strip--then part of Egypt--be incorporated into Israel. Israel's delegation to the PCC accepted this offer, although this plan was rejected and criticized by Arab government, the United States, and even Israel's own government.
• In the Lausanne Conference, Israel announced to the PCC on August 3, 1949, that it would allow up to 100,000 Palestinian refugees to return into Israel. But this plan was not designed as a panacea for the refugee crisis. Rather, it was to "form a part of a general plan for resettlement of refugees which would be established by a special organ to be created ... by the United Nations." Israel reserved the right to permit settlement of the refugees only in areas in which settlement would not be detrimental to the security and economy of the state. The PCC and Arab governments communicated unofficially at the matter. The Arab governments agreed to the offer, but under drastically different terms: that it apply only to the area originally allotted to Israel under the Partition Plan, that all refugees originating from areas allotted to Arabs or under international control be immediately allowed to return to their homes, and that Israel exercise no control over the location of resettlement. Since the parties failed to agree on the terms of the measure, it died in July of the following year, as Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett declared: "The context in which that offer was made has disappeared, and Israel is no longer bound by that offer."
• On August 23, 1949, the United States sent Gordon R. Clapp, chairman of the board of the Tennessee Valley Authority, on the Clapp Mission. This mission was tasked with economic surveying, to estimate Arab states' capability of absorbing Palestinian refugees. This mission failed dramatically in achieving this goal. As Clapp would explain on February 16, 1950 in front of the American House Foreign Affairs Committee: "Resettlement was a subject that the Arab governments were not willing to discuss, with the exception of King Abdallah" (sic) The mission concluded that, although repatriation would be the best solution to the refugee question, circumstances on the ground would only allow philanthropic relief. Moreover, it recommended that this relief be limited to four small pilot projects: in Jordan, the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria.
• On December 2, 1950, The United Nations General Assembly passed resolution 393 by a vote of 46 in favor, 0 against, 6 abstaining. Its supporters included every Arab nation. This resolution allocated "no less than the equivalent of $30,000,000" to the economic integration of Palestinian refugees in the Near East, "without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 11 of General Assembly Resolution 194." Toward this goal, Israel donated the equivalent of $2.8 million, and Arab states pledged almost $600,000. The United States accounted for the greatest pledge with $25 million.
• On November 29, 1951, John B. Blandford Jr., then director of UNRWA, proposed spending $50 million on relief for Palestinian refugees, and another $200 million on their integration into the communities where they resided. The New York Times reported that Blandford aspired to see 150,000 to 250,000 refugees resettled in Arab nations by building an economic infrastructure which would make their integration more plausible and sustainable for Arab societies. On January 26, 1952, the General Assembly accepted his proposal. Jordan, Syria and Egypt all agreed to absorb a share of the refugee population, although these pledges never came to fruition. The General Assembly continually reiterated its request that Arab governments absorb Palestinian refugees, but Henry R. Labouisse, who had by that time become UNRWA's third director, admitted the defeat of the program in 1955, blaming "resistance to self-support programs," and host governments' "political objections to large-scale projects."
• The 2003 Geneva Accord, which was extra-governmental, and therefore unofficial, completely relinquished the idea of a Right of Return. This accord is non binding, but has helped to set the tone of negotiations between the two parties.

Go for it. Isarig 00:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to add the 2000 Camp David Summit and Taba Summit. --GHcool 05:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you could do that, GHcool, that would be great. I don't want to be the only editor involved in this. :-( Screen stalker 21:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I haven't had much time recently to find more sources for this. I will go ahead and add it to the article, and if anyone want to add more, they are more than welcome to. Screen stalker 17:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Improper title capitalization?

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

Additional sources

• BBC News | Middle East | Right of return: Palestinian dream
• AlJazeera.Net - The right of return
• Human Rights Watch: Right to Return policy
• AFP: Baker panel's mention of Palestinian "right of return" raises eyebrows
• New York Times: Olmert Rejects Right of Return for Palestinians

--Abnn 16:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

al-awda.org

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

Original research

You can't bring your own research from any sources you like to try to counter stuff you see in the article. The sources need to explicitly discuss "The Palestinian right of return", otherwise it's WP:SYNTH. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Screen stalker, please read WP:SYNTH well. Do any of your sources mention the "Palestinian right of return"? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

in such sensitive article we need to be very strict on accuracy, sources and NPOV. maybe it is better to use a sandbox before changes that violate NPOV. we don't want this to end up as bas as the nakba article. Zeq 05:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the issue of Synthesis. I see your point as to why sources that are very specific to the issue at hand are necessary. Let's try to find some of those, since these are major issues that have to do with the right of return. Screen stalker 10:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of them do now; I had to remove one non-specific that had somehow gotten back in. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is demanding a "right of return"?

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

Jay is correct. this is by now a political demand not an individual one. Zeq 05:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Negotiating parties

Why is the PLO in that template/box? Shouldn't it be the P.A.? --Shuki 22:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Screen stalker 12:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So do I. Alithien 10:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian "rights" vs. Palestinian "right of return"

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

Ok, I accept your point. Thanks. Cheers. --Jorditxei 18:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

to their property vs land of origin

I believe the "return to property prior to 1948..." version is more NPOV, accurate, academic and encyclopedic. I therefore reverted the unintelligible revert of user:Ian Pitchford on the issue. Amoruso 21:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And I just reverted the revert of CJCurrie... same edit, same issue, same reason. 6SJ7 01:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the NPOV version so I reverted to it. Please avoid a foolish edit-war over a blant POV. Zeq 16:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I would sugest we has the issue here in talk instead of making moer changes about "place of origin" (an unsusbstentiated claim and also POV) Zeq 20:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"previous places of residence, including those within the State of Israel" - is the core issue that should be restored. The argument that most Palestinian never lived in Israel is correct and should be highlighted. They want to live in Israel - where their family has residency prior to 1946 - these are the facts. undisputed. What exactly is their "origin" is a difffrenet issue. Some families lived in Palestinian for hundreds of years and some for much less (30 years prior to 1948, 2 years, 12 years etc... - each with his own story) Zeq 04:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I again suggest that those who don't like the current version suggest a compromise here first. "land of Origin" is POV and actually is also OR. Remember we in Wikipedia are not a source - we must find a NPOV source that describe things before we use them. Zeq 04:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

"Land of origin" is vague. Presumably, it can be Earth. Beit Or 18:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current phrasing, while it was altered somewhat to take into account one of my concerns, is still far too vague, and I'm confused by this whole dichotomy between the concepts of "individual" and "national" rights - such ideas are not even mentioned in the text. Tewfik^Talk 06:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed it and hope I satisfied everybody. :-) Alithien 10:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I clarified it to amek it a bit more accurate . The issue is that they want to "return" into Israel - which would make Israel a country with majority Palestinians. I, as many Israelis, have no obhection that they live in Palestine, but not inside Israel. Zeq 19:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I'd swear that that sounds just like a system of apartheid. Tarc 20:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

News to me

before reading a section here I believed that israel's existance was one of the the greatest injustices in the modern world

but

the fact that so many jews fled arab lands was news to me and really changed my view of the whole conflict from a one sided right wing colonial attack on an innocent populace, an attack to be remedied eventually by way of compensations and apologies (like british colonisation of australia and present day sorry movement, compensation, return of land recognition of injustice etc) to one more like the expultion of innocent german peoples from checkoslavakia after ww2. I mean israel's actions were and are still inhumane and immoral victimising (mostly) innocent people for harm done to them by europeans and other arabs and for simple greed ethnocentrism ...

BUT

where is the outrage for the jewish refugees?

where is the call for their right of return (ie compensation for damages)

I believe that large group of humans always act evil and selfishly

it seems to me that evil selfrightous jewish leaders stole rights/property/land from vulnerable palestinians , then some evil selfrightous arab leaders stole rights/property/land from vulnerable jews then the jewish leaders gave some of the palestinian land to the vulnerable jews and generally treated them nicely and helped them back on their feet, but the arab leaders didn't or couldn't really help the palestinians. so they are still being harmed.

its not that the attacks of some powerful arabs on some weak jews justifies the reciprical response or absolves israel of its guilt, its just that condemnation has to be proportional and all societies are inherently savage and to focus so much on israel's crimes at the expense of other more serious crimes like vietnam or africa is not consistent.

anyway thats my thoughts.Esmehwp 16:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

also I know that jews were harmed in iran I remember my uncle talking about his classmates beating kalimies (jews) evil is deep in the heart of every single child and only civil secular democratic institutions can hold it at bayEsmehwp 16:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Hi 6SJ7. I'm still puzzling slightly over the lead. It seems that we have two choices about how to present this topic: we can present it as a right defined by international human rights law, UN resolution 194 and so on, or we can present it as an assertion of a right that claims to be rooted in these things. Every indication is that we've chosen the latter. Given that we're talking about an assertion that's by definition POV, it seems gratuitous to put hedging qualifications into every clause; as a matter of tone, NPOV suffers from this. To illustrate the point, look at the following sentence in Law of Return:

The purpose of the Law of Return, like that of the Zionist Movement, was to provide a solution to the Jewish people's problem--to re-establish a home for the entire Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel.

Imagine if that sentence (which, like the one we're dealing with, describes a contentious claim) were rewritten with a disclaimer in every clause:

The official purpose of the Law of Return, like the claimed purpose of the Zionist Movement, was to provide a solution to the Jewish people's alleged problem--to re-establish a "home" for the entire Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael, the greater Land of Israel as claimed by Zionists, which includes parts of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt as well as the West Bank and Gaza.

Do you see what happens to the tone?

Here's the sentence we're discussing, with the contested word bolded:

The Palestinian right of return (Arabic: al-haq al-awda; Hebrew: זכות השיבה zkhut hashivah) refers to the demand that Palestinians who fled, were expelled, or born to Palestinian refugees in exile, during and after the Palestinian Civil War (1947-1948), the 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli War and the Six-Day War be allowed to return to their, or their ancestors' claimed homeland and to receive full restitution of their property or compensation in lieu.

What is "claimed" adding to this sentence, other than a kind of tonal well-poisoning? We've already defined RoR as a "demand"; we've already pointed out that this demand of "return" is asserted by those who were born in exile (and hence have never set foot in Palestine); and on top of that we have a highly conspicuous clause, almost Jamesian in its syntax, redundantly emphasizing that these who were born in exile are asserting the right not to return to their homeland but to their ancestors' homeland. In addition to this, you want to emphasize that this is only a "claimed" [1] homeland? Meaning that it's open to dispute whether Palestine is really the homeland of first-generation refugees who "fled" or "were expelled" from it? This is at best redundant, at worst distortively tendentious, and in either case non-neutral in its tone. Please consider self-reverting.--G-Dett 18:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Qualifying "homeland" is a compromise. The better approach would be not to use "homeland" at all. The Palestinians are claiming the right to return to their homes; why not just say so? And I don't think the analogy to the Law of Return article is applicable, because there we are not talking about the intro to the article, which is completely factual and makes no mention of a homeland or national home. 6SJ7 04:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a more complex issue - legally and semantically - that people realize. Palestinians are classified as refugees merely on their claim that they resided in a certain area for 2 years or more before they left. (To make an illustrative comparison: I lived in Austria as a child for more than two years - if something similar had happened there, the conclusion would be that I and all my descendants could claim to be Austrian for all foreseeable future and demand that I be allowed to return to the village I lived.) This definition therefore includes individuals who have longstanding roots and connections to very specific areas; as well as people who were transient; and probably also individuals who are making fraudulent claims. I'm not going to claim anything about the proportions of each of these groups, nor am I going to question their conviction or emotional attachment to the area they wish to return to; but the qualifiers are important to make so readers can understand why it's complex. --Leifern (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me just go ahead and lose the argument here, but many people who claimed to be Holocaust survivors have been exposed as frauds. There are even partisan sources who point this out in order to criticize the conduct of many groups claiming compensation for the Holocaust (ask Norman Finkelstien) or even to deny that the Holocaust ever occurred at all (ask David Irving). That's relevant to note, but I would severely question the wisdom, not to mention the motives, of an editor who constantly edited Holocaust articles to read along the lines of, "compensation was provided to 170,000 Romanian Holocaust survivors and fraudulent claimants." <eleland/talkedits> 21:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Descendants

I just removed the artificial distinction which this article draws between "Palestinian refugees" (those who fled in '47-'48) and "their descendants," which the article constantly treated as a separate group. The only source offered was an incidental use of the "descendants" distinction in a USA Today article. However, most sources treat "Palestinian refugees" as encompassing all stateless Palestinians, regardless of whether they have ever even set foot in Israel. I could provide a mountain of links, but come on people, you know very well that sources say "Palestinian refugee camp" not "Palestinian refugee and descendants camp", etc etc etc. <eleland/talkedits> 20:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, refugees are those who

owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country

Note that this does not require that a refugee has actually fled "the country of [her] nationality" to be a refugee. And again, as I've stated, it's very rare for a non-partisan source to make this "refugee/descendant" distinction; it's hammering on a point to flatter a POV. <eleland/talkedits> 23:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. It is true that most sources treat "Palestinian refugees" as encompassing all stateless Palestinians - but the point is that such a definition, passing in perpetuity to multiple generations, is unique to Palestinians. No other refugee group is treated that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.163.66.161 (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If that can be sourced, it's appropriate to note that. But that doesn't mean you can argue against the sources by unilaterally deciding that people who the sources call "refugees" are actually "their descendants," and edit-warring that in at every turn.

Consistent with basic principles of statutory interpretation, the ordinary meaning of the term "his own country" appears to indicate more than a person’s juridical status in their given context. The ICCPR and the CERD provisions are based on the UDHR language and do not link the right of return to ‘nationality’ or ‘state of nationality’. Rather, in each case the relevant language is generously drafted to refer to ‘everyone’ having a right, or ‘no one’ being arbitrarily deprived of entry. Indeed, the language of art 2(1) of the UDHR, art 2(1) of the ICCPR and art 5 of the CERD provides that the rights guaranteed by the instruments are to apply without distinction as to ‘national or social origin’ or ‘national or ethnic origin’. Further, the actual phrasing of the right of return under art 12(4) of the ICCPR incorporates the term ‘enter’ in place of ‘return’. According to several legal commentators, this ‘accommodate[s] the situation of second-, third- or fourth-generation refugees’ born outside their ‘country’, giving them a right to enter the country — which is of considerable significance in the Palestinian context." (Jeremie M. Bracka, Melbourne Journal of International Law)

Palestinian refugees have a special status, defined as persons displaced from their homes in 1948 and their descendants. (Population Resettlement in International Conflicts, Lexington Books - "written under the auspices of the The Leonard Davis Institute For International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem")

Btw, how is the Congress going? <eleland/talkedits> 00:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree Eleland and have just reverted the reinsertion of and their descendants which is even bolded in some places in a very WP:UNDUE fashion. I think it's enough to note that the definition of Palestinian refugees includes their descendants once. To keep repeating it seems to be challenging the definition itself, which is not the role of this article. Tiamut 14:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Amsterdam IP editor guy who keeps reverting the edits of pro-Palestinian editors across multiple pages, including pages which have nothing to do with Palestinians, how about you cut that out. You're not fooling anybody. <eleland/talkedits> 17:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Section merge needed

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

Name of the article is highly POV

I tried to use quotatins "Right of return" but someone did not liked it. I tried to use a descriptive name "deamnd for right to return" - all are accurate more than the current title but that got reverted and protected (highly unusual since protect is not suposed to do that) anyhow, we need a name that does not imply that this is actually a real right but a political demand.

We all know what this "right" is - a demand to make Israel an non-Jewish state. so the article should clearly say that. There is noting wrong in telling the truth. It is prefectky legitimate for some group (zionist) to want one thing and anoter group (anti-zionist) to want something else. NPOV means we use Neutral languge and describe the controversy. Zeq (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, I know you feel you're improving the article, but your pagemoves were downright disruptive. Article titles are not qualified in this manner. Creation science is not a science, the Right to die is highly disputed, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is 0.5 for 4, the Sea of Galilee is not really a sea, Piltdown Man was an Orangutan... every one of these is literally the first example I thought to check, and they all prove my point. Zeq, you're welcome to your opinion, but this article is never going to be titled in the fashion you favour, and it's certainly not appropriate to try and move-war it in. <eleland/talkedits> 17:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleland is right here, Zeq. Some regard it as a right and others regard it as a demand, but even those who regard it as a demand know it by the term "right of return." The comparison with Creation science is appropriate in this respect. Wikipedia titles do not attempt to shine an x-ray into what things "really" are; they name them by their known names, with no endorsement implied.--G-Dett (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Compare Law of Return, which is at its appropriate title regardless of whether someone born in Tasmania to a Christian father who had a Jewish mother whose seventieth-generation grandparent lived in Jerusalem is "returning" to Israel in all but a spiritual or allegorical sense. <eleland/talkedits> 19:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"even those who regard it as a demand know it by the term "right of return." - exactly and this is why quotations should be used. Comparison to "law of return" is not appropriate as this is the name of the law and does not imply some "right". The problem here is not the word "return" but the word "right" which is highly POV. Zeq (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

But it does imply a "return" which is not, in fact, a return. That's fine, since the title reflects the name of the thing itself, regardless of whether that name is misleading. <eleland/talkedits> 20:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Scope of the Issue

The subsection compiling Honest Reporting's account of Israeli opposition to ROR is deeply problematic. First of all, HR's report is not actually linked to or cited. Does it actually purport to explain the Israeli population's resistance to RoR? Is it based on polling data? Or is it just a series of talking points formulated and/or compiled by HR to represent their own view? The status of the bullet-point claims is very ambiguous; it's cited to a range of sources, and it's not clear if these are sources HR put together, or a Wikipedian put together in support of HR's arguments. The net effect of the section is to present these bullet pointed claims as facts, even though some of them are debatable ("Historical legal precedent from the Middle East supports this contention"), some are really debatable ("There is no legal basis to demand repatriation of Palestinian refugees"), and some are rank balderdash ("Since most Palestinians chose their status as refugees themselves, some argue that Israel is therefore absolved of responsibility").

The subsequent section on Palestinian and international counterclaims is by contrast careful to present each point as an assertion, even when some of those "assertions" (Benny Morris's account of the expulsion, in particular) have achieved a formidable scholarly consensus.

The net effect is very strange. We have a list of very fringey and in some cases laughable historical and legal claims (compiled apparently by a media pressure group) being presented as facts, juxtaposed with what is now mainstream consensus knowledge presented as a peculiar assertion limited to an academic sect. What gives?--G-Dett (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• We have much better sources on both sides of the argument. I think we should stick to the following: statements from governments and international organizations, statements from major and significant NGOs, statements from high-profile people with a major impact on the world stage, reports in major mainstream media, academic papers, and books published by reputable presses. Given how often the issue is discussed in these reliable sources, there's no reason to fall back on anything questionable — especially not on an article this controversial. That section should be refactored to remove references to HonestReporting; I have no doubt that the underlying points of argument can be adequately sourced to more prominent/scholarly individuals and organizations. *** Crotalus *** 05:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well said. Using Honest Reporting as a source is bad enough; using it as a principal source for the case against the right of return is absurd. RoR is extremely controversial; there is absolutely no reason to go into the info-slums of HR, CAMERA, etc. to find a case against it. There are thorough, erudite, responsible arguments against both the legal basis of and the proposed implementation of RoR. We should revamp that section, and bring it in line with basic historical standards.--G-Dett (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

HonestReporting is not a WP:RS source. About name of the article maybe "controversy over Palestinian right of return" ? Zeq (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No. You have to get it through your head, WP titles are simply the recognized name of the thing they're talking about, with no endorsement implied, and at the same time no scare quotes or disclaimers. There are a few instances in which well-poisoning disclaimers have been shoe-horned in through organized bloc-voting, but it's not supposed to happen and represents an unfortunate anomaly when it does.--G-Dett (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure my head has anything to do with it. In any case a redirect can solve the problem of someone looking for the article under what they know as the term. What you say about "not endorsment" is not acceptable. If there is an article on such name it imply that this "right" is a "right" that is highly POV. Zeq (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

btw, if this article would have been under the general article Right of Return is would have been less POV. When the prefix Palestinian was added it became a terminology that is not wide spread and clearly one sided. Zeq (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The title doesn't imply that the right is a right. That's just not how titles work. What I say about "not endorsment" may be "not acceptable" to you, but it is in fact true. I could give examples but it would probably be best for you just to think of a few controversial topics yourself and type them in to the search bar. If you're at a loss start with Divine Right of Kings.--G-Dett (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. There is a well known subject known as right of return - the probelm is that the article the word "Palestinian" -maybe you should conduct few searches such as arminian right of return or Jewish right of return Zeq (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and there's no Divine Right of Queens, much as I'd like there to be.--G-Dett (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A google book search on the "palestinian right of return" brings up 251 hits. Most of these use the term without quotations around "right of return". Those who do use quotes are Efraim Karsh, Bridgette Gabriel, and Benjamin Netanyahu - in other words, Zionist partisans only. I don't think we should use quotes and I don't think we should be using "controversy" in the title (that's just plain WP:UNDUE and against naming guidelines). Tiamut 15:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is need of quotes and adding them would add nothing.

As pointed out by G-Dett here above, the title "right of return" doesn't mean this is really a right. The lead is therefore extremely clear using the words : "political demand".

Ceedjee (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead

I have restored the phrasing for the lead [2] that was in place some time ago. My reasons for this numerous, but here are the most important.

1. The right of return is not a "political demand" it is a "political principle" to those who believe it is a basic human right and a "political position" to those who do not. The phrasing I restored refers to both POVs by describing it as "a political position or principle".
2. Palestinians do not demand the right to return so as to go to Israel. They want to return to their ancestos' homeland which they view as Palestine. The phrasing I restored refers simply to "their ancestors' homeland" without specifying Israel or Palestine. This is the best NPOV solution in my opinion since it doesn't take sides in naming, while also making it clear what their relationship is to the land to which they desire to return. Tiamut 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the difference between "political demand" (that would mean to Israel only ?) and "political principal" is only in your mind.

So the choice between this version or the former one doensn't mind much.

But you should try to find a "shorter" and more clear version. This is the lead and more I am not sure any reader would understand this subtility.

The best remains to find a definition by an external reference. Ceedjee (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a sentence using the words of resolution 194 would be more accurante and in respect of wp principles.

"[Resolution 194] [r]esolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." Ceedjee (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ceedjee. The Palestinian right of return is not synonymous with resolution 194. Resolution 194 doesn't explicitly mention a "right of return" (see this source [3]. The right of return is a stand alone basic human right, as articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In other words, I don't think we should use 194 as the basis for defining the Palestinian right of return in the lead.

Also, generally-speaking the lead is composed based on what the body of the article says, based on reliable sources. Tiamut 18:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. But there are not in the main article, are they ?

(nb: I am not sure you showed me the source you wanted. It claims the "right of return" (with the ") would make the Jews become a minority in their own state...

That would rather support Zeq's definition.

Ceedjee (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made changes to the lead toward making it NPOV. We can not bring the view of one side as facts. The facts are that they want to live in what is now Israel. In fact the suggestion that they would be alowed to return into the futute palestinian state to be is not acceptable to them. Zeq (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get the information they wanted to live in what is now ISrael ?

They want to return where they lived or where their ancestors lived.

Anybody is clever enough to make the link.

But never mind : once more : where is the source of the definition except in your mind or others mind ? Ceedjee (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate if people could explain why the compromise I suggested is not acceptable in greater detail. I took the trouble of explaining why I think it meets NPOV and would like others to respond to those points directly. Tiamut 18:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've suggested a new introductory sentence that tries to take into account concerns raised by both sides. I would agree that "political demand" is an inappropriate choice of language, as it makes it appears that the "Right of Return" is simply a bargaining strategy in negotations; while some may view the term in this light, others see it as based in more fundamental principles. On the other hand, I can understand that the term "homeland" is regarded by many as politically charged, and I've removed it accordingly. As a general rule, we should try to avoid language that skews the debate in one or the other direction. Comments are welcome. CJCurrie (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

On another point, I believe the line, "refers to the political demand that holds that Palestinian refugees be allowed to live in what is now Israel" is factually inaccurate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the term "Palestinian refugees" also apply to individuals who wish to return to disputed territories occupied by Israel in the West Bank? CJCurrie (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Latley the govorment of israel starting addresing the issue by saying that palestinians could return into Palestine (the ciountry to be) and the whole gates of hell were opened how if accepted this would be a betrial in the "rights" of the "refugees".

I will be the last person on earth to say that there are no real refugees and that they have no rights. There are refugees, there are real Palestinian refugees and they have rights as individuals for better life. But what is argued in the Palestinian "right of return" is a collective right for many palestinian to become a majority arab within Israel. No israeli would accept that. Hope you understand why the term "No Return = No Peace" means "No return = War" Zeq (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Israeli government suggested that refugees would only be permitted to settle in Palestine. This is not the same as the view that refugees should have the right to return to their place of origin, whether in Israel proper or the occupied territories. CJCurrie (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So you do understand that their "place of origin" is now called israel ? Zeq (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For those who fled or were expelled in 1948, yes -- but I don't think this is entirely relevant to the discussion. I'm aware that several public figures have stated that the "Right of Return", if acted upon, would result in the destruction of Israel. As creators of this encyclopedia, we should convey this view in a neutral manner. We shouldn't endorse this viewpoint, reduce the entire discussion to this point alone, or express the point in emotional or slanted language. CJCurrie (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In the name of "neutrality"

Such an edit [4] is surprizing. I wonder if the editor thinks that his own one sided view of who has what right in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, what was the exact history and who is actually a "refugee" - does the editor tyhink that his view is Neutral ? If so it must be very surprizng to him/her to find out that other people view the issue differently. Since clearly this is a good faith edit I would just for now encourage the editor to rethink this edit. maybe as long as this articler is called the way it is there is no alternative but to present the issue only from the palestinian POV and add the world "political" so that Neutarlity can also be demonstrated not just argued. Zeq (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is neutral to describe the "right of return" as a "political position or principle" as this wording acknowledges the existence of differing interpretations without favouring any. It is not neutral to describe the "right of return" as a "political demand", as this reduces a complex issue to one of political calculations and so favours one particular manner of interpretation. I'm afraid I don't understand the nature of your objection. CJCurrie (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You disagreed with the fact that they want to return into Israel. In exchange you offered the word "political".

"And for Palestinians, similar emotional pain will be involved in giving up the "right of return, the article of faith kept sacred by Palestinian families made refugees from homes in land staked by Israel in 1948, by which they would one day go home. There is simply no way millions of Palestinian refugees can be accommodated inside Israel for a whole range of political, economic and demographic reasons.[5]

The German refugees' right of return is an inalienable basic human right, a legal and natural right clearly affirmed and explained by international law: The German refugees will return to Sudaten land, Poland and other parts of Europe where they once lived prior to Germany defeat in 1945, as soon as possible is best.

That was true in 1945 and is still true today....

The Muslim refugees' right of return is an inalienable basic human right, a legal and natural right clearly affirmed and explained by international law: The Muslim refugees will return to Bulgaria other parts of Europe where they once lived prior to 1985, as soon as possible is best.

That was true in 1985 and is still true today.... (same source as above)

Zeq (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, I don't think this is a particularly productive discussion. To respond to your main objections: (i) the word "political" was retained in both versions of the lede, (ii) I suspect "they" have diverse views on returning to Israel, and don't believe that generalizations are particularly useful. CJCurrie (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the discussion we have. I am sorry you don't see it as productive. I think it is. We have found out you do understand where they want to "come back to". I havetried again to NPOV the lead describing the controversy and not adopting one sided view but offer both views. Zeq (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, your preferred introduction strikes me as problematic in several respects:

The Palestinian right of return refers to one of the most heated subject in the Middle-east conflict. The Palestinians have long asserted that refugees and their descendents have a moral and legal right to return to what they describe as "their place of origin" including land which is now Israel.

On the other hand Israel does not accept this as a right but as a demand and offer instead receiving full restitution of their property or compensation in lieu.

Problems:

(i) It includes emotionally-charged language which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

• which words exactly ?

(ii) It reduces the larger dispute over the "Right of Return" to an over-simplified political dichotomy.

• What is "the larger dispute" ? what specifiaclly was "Over simplified" ? Bring quotes from the version I used to support your argument .

(iii) It generalizes and over-simplifies the views of both Israeli officials and the Palestinian people.

• Do you have sources to support this claim ? please show tham.

It is factually incorrect

• Again bring sources

in that it asserts the Palestinian people as a whole will only accept a full right of return instead of compensation.

• We can change the words in case this is not 100% but you know that most of them want what you callfull return"

(iv) "[W]hat they describe as `their place of origin'" is leading.

• That is the fact. This is issue is POV and both sides have calims and counter claims. How do suggest we make it NPOV ? Best way is to bring both sides claims.

(v) There are several grammatical and technical problems, including "one of the most heated subject", and "Middle-east".

• So here is your opportunity: Correct the garmmer.

I would encourage you to reflect upon the fact that User:Leifern and myself, who have often taken different positions on pages relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict, seem to be largely in agreement as regards the introductory wording on this page. Please consider discussing the matter on talk, rather than reverting to your preferred version. Thank you. CJCurrie (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So if something was not factually accurate, correct that part. What you did was ignored a colborative attempt in resolving this dispute. You and others revert to a version that fully adopt the Palestinian propeganda POV. I don't think this is helpfull. You have already acknowledge that you know they want to come back to what is now israel , Yet you have again deleted it. Zeq (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've participated in a collaborative effort to resolve this dispute, with someone whom I've frequently quarrelled with in the past. Regarding one of your other concerns: your edit over-simplifies the views of both Israeli officials and Palestinians by implying that both groups have a single, unified opinion on the matter. CJCurrie (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Negociations

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

WP:RS

www.zochrot.org is not a WP:RS source. It is an advocay organization. The return is not to the "british mandate" since this mandate no longer exist. I know it is hard for some people to accept but the place is now called "israel"....beside if the issue is also refugees from 1967 clearly the British have nothing to do with it. This article is becoming a joke by being so one sided and it is not surprizing why it had become so important": The whole world now understand that Israel can not become a country where there is a palestinian majority. This is what palestine is for. Zeq (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq,

From the point of view of the majority of the countries around the world, Israel doens't comprise Cisjordan and Gaza. Do you agree ?

Please, confirm.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

true but irelevent. Zeq (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Horrible edit by anon

The mandate was finished on 1948 but not in wkipedia: [6] - some Palestinains still want to go back there... Zeq (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

zeq, it's logical to refer to British Mandate Palestine here since that term aptly designates was the geographical area from whence the majority of refugees today derive. It also is much less wordy than "Israel and the pieces that are to form part of a Palestinian state" or "Israel, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem" or whatever other contentious configuration. Tiamut 02:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The demand is current and the geographical unit that is now in that place is called Israel. If I am not mistaken you yourself are actually a citizen of that state. As for "mush less wordy" - I agree that finding accuare descriptions which are less wordy is better but not at the price of being current with history. We also must keep in mind that all this description - who are the refugees, where they came from, where they want to be, what they really want are all part of a POV representing only one side. When a wikipedia article ends up looking like this: http://www.al-awda.org/facts.html we surly have a problem. Zeq (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

you wrote yourself that the main pov was that Cisjordan and Gaza are not in Israel. Ceedjee (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Someone has introduced a subtle-but-significant change to this page in the last few hours, adjusting the language in a way that suggests only the first generation of Palestinian refugees are properly classified as "refugees" to begin with. This is not how the term is usually defined, and I've changed the wording back accordingly. (Please note that I'm not making any comment as to whether or not this shift was deliberate.) CJCurrie (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And they won't discuss it, either. All they'll do is revert. As you can see from the talk page, this has been a fairly long-term campaign. <eleland/talkedits> 05:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

the distinction is important in light of the time that has passed. Israel in the past exprssed a willingness to absorb a small number of people who were refugees themself. Their grand children and grand grand children born elsewhere emigrated elsewqhere and may had the possibility to build new life to themselfs (or if not we must describe why) are a different issue in the eyes of Israel. So there are two POVs here: The one Palestinian POV which makes no distinction and the Israeli one which does. You have been doing a good jon presenting the Palestinian POV. Now maybe you can add the other side ? Zeq (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments in the section below. The "Palestinian POV" (as you term it) is supported by the international community. The "Israeli POV" is held by the government of Israel and the United States, against the consensus of the international community and international law - i.e. it is a minority viewpoint. Tiamut 12:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The need to reorgenize the lead

I remind everyone about WP:NPOV and undue.

The lead of such article is not about facts - facts are found in other articles which deal with the historical events (even those are subject to debate) . This article is about a political postion - a demand by Palestinians from israel . It is in this way not different from other political demands made by one of the opposing parties to a conflict.

As such we must identify - right from the start of the article that the name "right of return" is the name used by one side of the opposing parties. The other side does not accept it is "right" and infact see this demand as violating it's own right (the right for a homalnd for the Jewish people.

We should at that point idenitify the Palestinian position and the Israeli position and stick to the subject of "return" - which is what this article is about. Any other subjects (such as wars, mandates etc...) should be wikilinked - but only if they are jermain to the subject and should be done so without WP:undue emphasis on or deatils which are not essential to the subject. For example a link to an article about the conflict is enough - there is no need to list all the 7-8 wars that took place between the parties. Zeq (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, it seems that you ignoring that the Palestinian right of return isn't just a Palestinian political demand. The Right of return is a basic human right, outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Palestinian right of return derives it legitimacy from its basis in international law. It has been recognized by the United Nations in United Nations Resolution 194 and in subsequent United Nations General Assembly resolutions. These are examples of the international support for this political principle or position. While Israel has rejected implementation of the Palestinian right of return, this rejection has been repeatedly condemned by the world community. In other words, Israel's position on the right of the return is a significant minority viewpoint, but it's not on par with the Palestinian position, which is supported by international law, even though it remains unenforced.

For sources thawt explain this, see:

1. Switzerland and the International Protection of Refugees (2002) Vincent Chetail:
2. International Law in the Middle East: Closer to Power Than Justice (2004) Jean Allain Tiamut 12:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a legal discussion of the issue

The Beginning of the Refugee Problem The plight of the refugees is a serious human problem. During the 1947-48 period, many Arabs "left, ran away, or were expelled."1 At the same time, Jews escaped from Arab countries. While the Jews were integrated into the countries to which they fled, the Arabs were on purpose denied integration in most Arab countries (except Jordan) in order to prevent any possible accommodation with Israel. The refugees have been receiving support and assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), established by the UN General Assembly in 1949.2

According to various estimates, the number of refugees in 1949 was between 538,000 (Israeli sources), 720,000 (UN estimates), and 850,000 (Palestinian sources). By 2001, the number of refugees registered with and supported by UNRWA had grown to about 3.5 million, since also children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren are registered. Another reason for this increase is the fact that UNRWA does not systematically delete all deceased persons from its registry. According to UNRWA, in 2000 there were about 550,000 refugees in the West Bank, some 800,000 in the Gaza Strip, 1,500,000 in Jordan, 350,000 in Lebanon, and 350,000 as well in Syria. Only part of them have lived in refugee camps. The situation of the refugees has been particularly severe in the Gaza Strip and in Lebanon.3

The plight of the refugees raises at least three legal questions:

Who should be considered to be a refugee? Do the Palestinian refugees have a right to return to Israel? Do they have a right to compensation?

Who is a Refugee? The question arises whether all those registered with UNRWA should be considered as refugees. The 1951-1967 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees4 has adopted the following definition:

...[A]ny person who: (2) owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it...

There is no mention in this definition of descendents. Moreover, the convention ceases to apply to a person who, inter alia, "has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality."5

Under this definition, the number of Palestinians qualifying for refugee status would be well below half a million. However, the Arab states managed to exclude the Palestinians from that definition, by introducing the following provision into the 1951-1967 Refugees Convention:

This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection and assistance...6

In no official document have the Palestinian refugees been defined, and UNRWA has been adopting varying definitions, such as:

A Palestinian refugee is a person whose normal residence was Palestine for a minimum of two years preceding the conflict in 1948, and who, as a result of this conflict, lost both his home and his means of livelihood and took refuge in one of the countries where UNRWA provides relief. Refugees within this definition and the direct descendants of such refugees are eligible for Agency assistance if they are: registered with UNRWA; living in the area of UNRWA operations; and in need.7

This is a very broad definition under which the number of refugees constantly increases. It may be appropriate for UNRWA purposes in order to decide who qualifies for assistance, but it is hardly suitable for other purposes. It follows that the parties should agree on a more suitable definition.

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp485.htm

Zeq (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you are arguing that we avoid using UNRWA's definition for Palestinian refugees (an international organization responsible for assisting Palestinian refugees) and should instead make up our own WP:OR interpretation of who constitutes a refugee? Tiamut 12:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zeq that we should try to adhere to a more reasonable definition of "refugee". However, we should also make clear that the reason we have so many Palestinian refugees is that UnRWA has created an arbitrarily expanded definition of "refugee," and has been keeping these refugees in camps, and prolonging their refugee status, for an unreasonably long time. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What sources are you basing your position on? Tiamut 14:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to present both sides of the issue. UNRWA is one side and there are those who disagree with it. When ever we use UNRWA we should alos mention that it has an interst not to dismentle itself.... Zeq (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm asking you for what other reliable sources you think should be used alongside UNRWA (a reliable source) for the claims you are making. I'm trying to get this discussion to be source-based, rather than opinion-based. Thanks. Tiamut 16:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we also mention that Israel has an interest in not dismantling itself everytime we include a statement by an Israeli official? Every party has a vested interest and these can be mentioned, using reliable sources, without WP:UNDUE fixation on the issue. I don't understand where the idea that UNRWA is a unreliable source is coming from. Could you please provide some sources? Tiamut 14:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut - do you read Hebrew ? I think you do. Are you familiar with the monthly "peace index" public opinion poll by TA university Prof Ya'ar published in haaretz ? Few month ago they also question about ROR. 95% of Israeli respondents say such a "return" is equal to the destruction of Israel. So I think the answer to your question is YES (but not every time) - we should include wording that explain why adding 4 million Palestinians to Israel would be an end to israel as we know it. Zeq (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I read Hebrew only with great difficulty. Nevertheless, to respond to the rest of your comment, all you have proved with that poll is that the majority of Israelis view the right of return as equal to the destruction of Israel. This is a significant minority viewpoint which should be mentioned in the article, but it is not reflective of a majority viewpoint and should not be placed on par with what international law and international organizations say. Tiamut 16:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We should explain that "right of return" is not some benevolent human rights initiative. it is advocated within the context of the overall conflict. it is opposed by Israel's government dfor reasons of survival, not persecution. The political context should be shown periodically within this article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should use reliable sources to cover the political context of the conflict. Can you suggest some, as I have in the section above? Tiamut 16:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve, first time I interact with you in editing so just a small thank you for understanding what WP:NPOV is all about.... Zeq (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

you're welcome! thanks for your helpful note. feel free to write anytime. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We all understand what NPOV is about, but we also have to understand things like WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Please respond to the request for sources that express the POV whose representation you are advocating. Tiamut 16:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

any source, commentary, or statement from the pro-Israel community. I will try to find specific ones. some of the better ones are Myth and Fact, CAMERA, jewish Virtual Library,. i will try to see if the Irsaeli MFA discusses this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

here's are some source documents. i found these using a google search for "mga.gov.il refugees."

• One is at an FAQ at the MFA website. Scroll down to the section on refugees.
• Another is Do Palestinian Refugees Have a Right to Return to Israel. This state in part:

Conclusions

This short survey has shown that neither under the international conventions, nor under the major UN resolutions, nor under the relevant agreements between the parties, do the Palestinian refugees have a right to return to Israel. According to Palestinian sources, there are about 3.5 million Palestinian refugees nowadays registered with UNRWA.13 If Israel were to allow all of them to return to her territory, this would be an act of suicide on her part, and no state can be expected to destroy itself.

Great efforts should be made by all those involved, and with the help of friendly outside powers, to find a reasonable, viable and fair solution to the refugee problem.14

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those Steve. I am of course for the expression of this POV in the article, as long as it is explicitly attributed to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Indeed, there is already extensive material in the article expressing this POV. Under the section "Scope of the Issue", there is a host of material attributed to Honest Reporting which is similar to these from the Israeli MFA. My suggestion is that we remove the Honest Reporting material (not really an RS in my opinion) and replace it with these better quality sources. Tiamut 16:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, don't you think that the Israeli viewpoint already has significant representation in this article? Considering that it is a significant minority viewpoint, it should be represented, but hasn't this article crossed the line into WP:UNDUE? Tiamut 16:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. all we can do here is present the Israeli viewpoint on what "refugee" means, as the Israeli response. we can't enact an official ruling here one way or the other. I can also agree with you about using the MFA material rather than Honest Reporting when possible. It is a fairer example of pro-Israeli views, (on the occasions when the MFA does show any energy on laying out some proactive views to defend the Israeli side on these disputed issues). thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, you claim that Israel's position is a "minority viewpoint", but what reliable sources say that Israel would be able to permit unlimited "return" and still continue to be a Jewish state? 6SJ7 (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the right question 6SJ7. The right question might be: What reliable sources say that Israel should not implement the Palestinian right of return in order to preserve its identity as a Jewish state? Tiamut 17:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there are a number of these. However, they still don't add up to majority viewpoint when we consider the sources cited in the article and the view of the international community as expressed in repeated UN resolutions. Tiamut 17:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We should not forget that within Palestinian socety there are multiple view on this as well. Many are willing to accept compensation, settlment at current place of residence or a return to the palestinian state (or even migrate to Australia, Canada). We should also make sure to mention that the reason that Palestinians are held as refugees for so long is because countries like Lebanon never gave them rights given to refugees (they are not allowed to work in many professions in Lebanon - while Syrian can). There are many more facts that need to be taken into account but the more important one is al-awda slogan "no Return = No Peace". (i.e. = war) Zeq (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Timaut doesn;t seem to say we should exclude Israel's views, whther or not it is a minority viewpoint. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk)

I am not sure what the issue is at this point. Tiamut and I seem to be discussing different issues. I do notice that the issue of Israel's concern over its existence is not mentioned in the this article's fairly long intro, at all. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• as indicted above the intro neeed to explain that this is terminolgy by one side. that this one of the most contested isues in the conflict and that there are two opposing views and list each of them.
• right now we ony get one POV.

Zeq (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the terminology doesn't matter. what matters is that the existence and validity of this right is what is contested, and we need to make that clear. and the article already does make that clear. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the intro does need some improvement, particularly the last paragraph. Currently, it does not provide a comprehensive summary of the information in the article per WP:LEAD. Indeed, while the article seems to have a lot of material on the Israeli viewpoint (way too much in my opinion per [[WP:UNDUE), the intro is lacking even a mention of it. Before we go about changing the intro however, it might be best to clean up the body of the article. We should replace the Honest Reporting material with a concise summary of the Israeli MFA material, cut down the WP:UNDUE, identify and remove any problematic sources (after discussion here of course), and so on. Then we can decide what to include in the intro and how to phrase it. Tiamut 20:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than the intro, which is completely one-sided, I think the "balance" in the rest of the article is about right as it is. I think there is repetition on both "sides", so both could be reorganized and cut down. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• the lead right now is totaly one POV - starting from not explaining the terminolgy issue (which I still think is the wrong name for encyclopedis article) . Zeq (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

sounds like we already have consensus on the lead, in agreement with Zeq. We just need to improve the content slightly first. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Two comments: (i) I agree that the Israeli government's perspective should be mentioned in the lede, (ii) I've modified the wording in the lede as regards the definition of a refugee, in a way that I hope will be acceptable to all parties ([7], [8]). I have no comment on the broader strategies currently under discussion for improving the article. CJCurrie (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, the wording you proposed is fine with me.

6SJ7, please add whatever you would like to see added to the lede. While I think it's best to wait until we have fixed the body of the article to work on the lede more intensively, you are right that the Israeli POV should be represented, and there's no real need to wait to correct it. Regarding the length of any addition there though, please keep in mind WP:UNDUE.

Regarding the rest, I'll be posting suggestions of content that should be removed or replaced with better sourcing in the coming days. Tiamut 04:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This will take me a few days to get to. In the meantime, someone else might try their hand. I just want to say though, that the position of the government of Israel should not be considered a "minority viewpoint." Israel is the country whose territory non-Israelis are claiming a right to enter, and the reasons why Israel believes that such a right does not exist are significant in and of themselves. It is not comparable to the opinion of some blogger or someone from some other country that is not directly involved. As for WP:UNDUE, that points to a section of WP:NPOV, and I will take the entire policy into account. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As for CJ's recent edit on the "descendants" issue, the one that just refers to the UN definition without saying what it is, I don't agree with it. This might be technically accurate in a legal sense, but it is less informative than previous versions. However, I do not have the time right now to leaf back through all of the previous versions to see which is the best one. A quick reading of the immediately preceding version (also by CJ) suggested to me that it isn't the best one. Maybe we ought to avoid the term "refugees" in the very beginning, since it is kind of awkward to explain the different meanings of refugee at that point. We are talking about Palestinians who left Israel and the disputed territories in the midst of the 1948-49 and 1967 wars, and their descendants. Why not just say that, without having to worry about what "refugee" means? 6SJ7 (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Responses: (i) I disagree with your point about "refugees"; the status of "stateless Palestinians" is entirely relevant to this issue, and I worry that we'll just be "dancing around the point" if we remove the word entirely, (ii) I see that Lisa Liel has reverted to my first "descendants" compromise. Can I assume that most editors are willing to keep this on a provisional basis, until a lasting agreement can be reached? CJCurrie (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

former Mandatory Palestine (i.e., in the modern state of Israel and territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 war),

This include Jordan as well. We need to remove the refrence to the mandate and clarify the issue: The return are to israel or to the future palestinian state and the debate is if they live in what is now Israel (i.e. "return" to exact location) or to palestine (return to the new national home which is on part of the whole land claimed by both Palestinians and Jews) Zeq (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Mandatory Palestine didn't include Jordan. Ceedjee (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it did, initially. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

... but the Right of Return only refers to persons expelled in the 1948 war and thereafter (and their descendants). CJCurrie (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that referuing to an entity that existed from 1921 to 1948 (this was 60 years ago) that had changing borders - all this is confusing. It is customery to revfer to this place now as Israel. Zeq (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, this is completely unacceptable. Palestinians aren't the only people to refer to the area as "Palestine", and the wording is slanted in a way that inhibits sensible discussion. (I also think you meant "residence", not "residents"). CJCurrie (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I made a bold edit here to try and address the issues raised. I changed the wording about resolution 194 to match what it says almost exactly. I added a bit on the Israeli perspective regarding the right of return and the threat it is perceived as posing to Jewish self-determination. I changed the stuff about Mandatory Palestine etc. to "what was once known as Palestine (today, Israel and the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war.)"

Please feel free to tweak or take issue. Tiamut 04:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Good solution. Ceedjee (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The place was known in many names. WE need to use what it is today. The article does enough to justify the palestinian arguments . History did not start just when Palestinian supporters want it to start and we should not use this selective history in the lead. Today this is part of Israel and this is where they want to "return" to. This is the crux of the issue and it should be in the lead. Zeq (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what Tiamut wrote.

It was once named palestine and is today Israel and the territories occupied by Israel after the 1967 war.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of WP:RS source

[9]

I would suggest you self revert and we conduct a discussion onm every word I have added. The issue - the big issue - is if they come back into israel (creating a demographic imbalance) or to the Futute Palestinian state. This is clearly a subject of negotiation. The area now occupied is the area where such sate is planned so Israel position is that they can come back to that area - when the peace deal is complete. All that is too complex for the intro so the intro should focus on the main issue: The return into Israel or to Palestine - and that is what I tried to do. Again, I suggest you self revert and we discuss. Zeq (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we discuss, take the other editors mind into account and you don't edit the article. Ceedjee (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the prose that has been added expanding the Israeli view definitely need some tightening up. Would anyone mind if I took a stab at it?

Also, there is the issue of Internally Displaced Palestinians. This term refers to:

a) One third of 150,000 Palestinians who remained within what became Israel, but were intenally displaced during the 1948 Palestine War, and in the case of some villages, in the years following. They too demand a right of return to the homes and villages they left. See Ghassibiya, Kafr Bir'im and Iqrit for example.

b) Palestinians displaced within both Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories as a result of the home demolitions and the contruction of the Israeli West Bank barrier and establishment of the Seam Zone. These too, want to return to their homes or receive compensation for the properties they lost. I'm not sure though, if they speak of terms of the right of return.

We need to add something to the article, particularly about group A and briefly perhaps about group B. Afterward, an addition to the introduction about these groups would also be good. Tiamut^talk 15:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Could you please first suggest the tightening of the Israeli pov here ?
• a) These displacements arose mainly in 1949 and they asked to go back in their villages but they were destroyed (See eg. Tom Segev, 1949. The First Israelis). Are you sure these claim from "going back home ?".
• b) like for a) I think this is something else. Per my understanding "right of return" refers mainly to "refugees" even if it is not nonsense to add these, I am not sure that it is not WP:PR.

i don't think it is a good idea to add this to the introduction. Ceedjee (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, it seems to me that there is no real way to add the groups whom you describe to the overall definition of refugee for use throughout the article. This is an article about the refugee issue which is of major international significance, and which refers specifically to refugees living under the auspices of UNRWA in various refugees camps, and who are included under this specific status.

What perhaps we could possibly do is to note the issue, and note that there are some people who do wish to include the two groups you mention within the broader issue as a whole. that way, we would be reflecting the politcal outlines of this issue, without trying to combine too many definitions in one which might make it difficult to then discuss the term clearly within the main body of the article. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ceedjee, Steve,

I will post a draft for the intro changes I want to make here befoe doing so, per Ceedjee's request. About the Internally Displaced Palestinians, I think the best way to approach the subject is identify sources and the issues they raise that are related to this article. For example:

• Benvenisti discusses how Israeli refusals to address the rights of its citizens who hailed from the towns of Iqrit and Kafr Bir'im derived from their fear of setting a precedent for the right of return. This seems very relevant to the article and also provides further detail and nuance regarding both the Israeli and Palestinian perpectives on the issue.
• Schulz writes of how the National Committee for the Rights of the Internally Displaced, based in Nazareth, issued a statement signed by 100 prominent individuals in 2000 which read

  "We absolutely do not accept or recognize any outcome of negotiations that may lead to an agreement that forfeits any part of the Right of the Return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from where they were expelled in 1948 or their due compensation - and we do not accept compensation as a substitute for return."

• Chetail notes that international law has recently extended the right of return to internally displaced peoples. As such, those displaced by the construction of the Separation barrier do legally have claim to a right of return.
• Arsdale raises a number of fascinating points. First, he notes how while the right to return is underpinned by Al-Nakba, that displacements continued long after 1948. He notes that "Since 1968, the right to return of refugees and IDPs [[[Internally displaced people]]] also has become key to the Palestinian narrative of national liberation." He also provides a useful demographic summary that reads as follows, "Gaza has a total population of one million. Of this number, about 75 percent are refugees or IDPs, half of whom live in eight refugee camps. The West Bank has a total population of over 1.5 million approximately 37 percent of which are refugees or IDPs." It continues, outlining Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. But the significance here is that he includes IDPs in the call for a right to return.

In short, there seem to be a number of reliable scholarly sources that provide nuance, detail and multiple POVs related the issues I would like to see included in the article. I will add material using some of these sources and others, after doing more research. From a quick glance however, it's rather clear that these issues should be addressed within this article. Tiamut^talk 16:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying to use this material to describe the issues, or are you saying that the term "refugee" as used throughout the article would be expanded to always include this broader definition? I am open to the first option; the second one seems completely unworkable. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Steve. I need to do more research before I can answer that question in order to determine whether the view that IDPs are part and parcel of the refugee population seeking a right of return is a widespread, majority viewpoint. It's going to take a little while, but I'll make sure to get back to you with an answer.

The isue of "internaly displaced palestinian" is further complicating the issue. The lead need to clear and capture the main issue of the controversy: "Could palestinian emigrate into Israel or not" ?. In the article text we can go to other side issues (which of course are affected by the bigger issue) Zeq (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• in case I was not clear: I am expecting that the source (horses mouth in this case) about the Israeli position will be restored. Please self revert the deletion. Zeq (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I put the source back. Ceedjee (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro changes

Proponents of the right of return hold that it is an inalienable and basic human right, whose applicability both generally and specific to the Palestinians is protected under international law. This view holds that those who opt not to return or for whom return is not feasible, should receive compensation in lieu. The Israeli government officially opposes implementation of the Palestinian right of return. Among the reasons cited by those who share in this position are that an influx of Palestinian refugees would result in increased inter-communal violence stemming from deep and longstanding mutual antagonism, and would further significantly alter the demographic balance, undermining the Jewish right to self-determination in the form of a Jewish state.

I have removed the part about the opposition to compensation in this draft for multiple reasons. First, having too many points on the Israeli position in this the second paragraph of the lead goes against the WP:UNDUE clause in WP:NPOV. This particular issue is a complex one that should be raised further down (it already is I believe), largely because it is not easily amenable to a one sentence sum up.

I also restored the part about Jewish self-determination. This a key point since the view is widespread among Israelis, a point reiterated by Amos Oz in the body of the article.

Your thoughts? Tiamut^talk 17:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is a systematic failure here to understand what NPOV is. maybe we should do this: I will write the Palestinian POV as I understand it and you will write the Israeli POV as you understand it. Zeq (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq,in the current case, I think it is better if your write the Israeli pov and Tiamut write the Palestinian's Pov.

Because, the view Palestinians see the ISraeli pov and the view Israeli see the Palestinian pov is basically biased. Ceedjee (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut,

Your prose is better.

But ff we talk about the compensation required by Palestinians, we must talk about why Israel consider not fair to compensate them.

I don't mind if we put this or not. But if we put one, we put the other.

I don't agree with "undermining the Jewish right to self-determination in the form of a Jewish state" which is controversed and certainly not the way Israel gives his pov but it sounds more to me as the way some left-wing europeans and americans give the ISraeli pov, which blame them more it defends her.

Ceedjee (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually Israel is willing for compensation. The issue is and was: Will there be one palestinian state (palestine) side by side to a 2nd Palestinian state Israel with a palestinian majority (because of the "returning" refugees). There are pleanty of sources on the Israeli position I am sure you can find them. You can start by restoring the one you deleted. Zeq (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been restored before you write this. Ceedjee (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For some good, notable sources on the Israeli side on this, try going here or also going here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view, we could replace the current Israel's pov as written in the lead by the conclusion of this analysis of israeli mfa website:

[N]either under the international conventions, nor under the major UN resolutions, nor under the relevant agreements between the parties, do the Palestinian refugees have a right to return to Israel. According to Palestinian sources, there are about 3.5 million Palestinian refugees nowadays registered with UNRWA. If Israel were to allow all of them to return to her territory, this would be an act of suicide on her part, and no state can be expected to destroy itself.

Ceedjee (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree; however, since this is the MFA, we can also preface it by saying: "Israel contends that..." This puts us on firmer ground, since by saying that, we are being up-front about providing a notable view of one side's viewpoint. and because it;s the MFA, it really is Israel's official viewpoint; no one can say we imposed our own political views by quoting some random, non-notable op-ed piece out of context, or something like that. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we can (must?) preface that way. We get : [Israel contends that] neither under the international conventions, nor under the major UN resolutions (...) Ceedjee (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

sounds good. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. You provided the link !

What are other minds about this ?

I saw Zeq added reference needed tags so he seems to agree. Tiamut ?

Ceedjee (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No. I don't agree. Let's first see the ref (if there are such) and at that point decide is this really the main israeli argument ? I don't think so. In any case the intro is still highly POV in not represneting correctly the israeli position and not describing correctly the scope of the controvesy (many controvesial issues still listed as facts) . The intro does a good job describing the rational behind the palestinian demand but fail to describe it as such. It also include many issues which are given WP:undue wight for an intro so unbalanced.... We have more work to do. Zeq (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So you don't agree that Israel's MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) is a good source to give Israel's pov on the matter.

What would be a better source ? Ceedjee (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have included the Israeli position but you have revrted it. You have even reverted a move that was designed to make the lead more consice and short. This is you revert: [10] and my edits have all been discussed before (I suggested each of the changes above) please list your objections. Zeq (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq,

I am not sensitive to your intimidation.

If you want to modify something, you write what here and you discuss.

You don't modify and only after, ask to discuss. Ceedjee (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] Hi. sorry, not sure I understand, what is the disagreement here? I assume there is room for both approaches, and both sets of materials? Zeq's material seems like somethingwe can use, and simply cite the MFA as a source instead of Jewish virtual library. The MFA makes almost identical assertions. does that sound good? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems Zeq doesn't agree with the modifications we discussed and it seems so he considers that Israeli MFA is ¨*not* a good source to give Israel's pov on the matter.

Per my understanding. Ceedjee (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what "intimidation" I have not intimidated anyone and therefor I request that you appologize. On the other hand someone is trying to block me from editing this article : Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Zeq - after all I am the one who represent an important POV. Zeq (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq,

So you don't agree that Israel's MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) is a good source to give Israel's pov on the matter.

What would be a better source ?

"after all I am the one who represent an important POV" : You don't represent any "important" pov. Wikipedia doesn't mind your "pov" at all.

Report all "relevant" ones you consider interesting but keep your pov for yourself. Ceedjee (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys listen. The current version is totally unacceptable. It has one sentence summing up the majority viewpoint on the Palestinian right of return and three sentences summing up the Israeli position.

Proponents of the right of return hold that it is an inalienable and basic human right, protected under international law, though those who opt not to return or for whom return is impractical, may receive compensation in lieu. The Israeli government officially opposes a Palestinian right of return and considers that "the solution for Palestinians is the Palestinian state [but] Israel is not part of the solution"[3] Those who share in their position argue that an influx of Palestinian refugees would result in increased inter-communal violence[citation needed] stemming from deep and longstanding mutual antagonism[citation needed], and would further significantly alter the demographic balance. Concerning the compensation, they argue that Jews who fled arab lands between 1948 and 1967 and among whom some settled in Israel were subjects from their point of view to an even higher spoliation.

I am sensitive to Ceedjee's concerns about including mention of the compensation issue in the lead, but this is highly imbalanced and a violation of WP:UNDUE. Further, as Zeq points out, there is some openness on the Israeli side to some form of compensation. As I stated earlier, this issue is too complex to be summarized succintly in the lead and should be left to the body of the article.

Again, I'm going to ask that you consider this paragraph instead:

Proponents of the right of return hold that it is an inalienable and basic human right, whose applicability both generally and specific to the Palestinians is protected under international law. This view holds that those who opt not to return or for whom return is not feasible, should receive compensation in lieu. The Israeli government officially opposes implementation of the Palestinian right of return. Among the reasons cited by those who share in its position are that an influx of Palestinian refugees would result in increased inter-communal violence stemming from deep and longstanding mutual antagonism and would significantly alter Israel's demographic balance.

I removed the part on Jewish self-determination since Ceedjee found it to be an expression of the left. Is this acceptable? And might I suggest once again that we work on developing the main body of the article before making changes over and over again to the introduction? The introduction will likely undergo development after the article is developed further. No? Tiamut^talk 18:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut,

Please, read the discussion here above; particularly concerning the Israeli pov as given by Israel's MFA. That is suggested it replaces the former Israeli pov currently in the lead. Would you think this appropriate ? Zeq doesn't but still didn't give the reasons why. Ceedjee (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ceedjee. I saw the discussion. Per WP:LEAD, the introduction should be a summary of the points raised in the article. I have no problem using the MFA as a source, but it should be what we use in the body. We shouldn't be introducing new ideas in the lead alone. That is why I keep trying to encourage focusing on the body and leaving further changes to the intro to after a thorough review of the main section. My suggestions here for the lead are just a way of ending the edit-warring over it by giving a quick summary that everyone can live with until we can improve the article and get back to discussing the lead based on it. Tiamut^talk 19:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, I appreciate all your positive and extremely helpful ideas. however, there needs to be some indication somewhere that the right of return which the Palestinians are requesting is a formulation whioch has never been applied to anyone anywhere at any point in the political history of any society, under any interpretation or approach to international law or practice. this is not my actual proposal, I'm just laying out a vague idea here for futher discussion. (I don't expect an immediate answer, as I can't work on this rigyht now anyway.) I am letting you know my general stance. You may go ahead and do some edits, but if you see me changing it, I wanted you to hear my explanation now. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk)

Hey Steve. I understand that viewpoint. It should be discussed in the article. Indeed, it is to some extent. How to incorporate it in the introduction is a question I would like to put off answering until we can work more on the body, per my comments to Ceedjee above. Tiamut^talk 19:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee, Zeq does represent an important POV; ours. Wikipedia never says that we should not include a POV; it simply says that Wikipedia itself should be NPOV. Articles may contain several POVs, to give coverage to both sides of an issue. Would you prefer it if we told Tiamut to step aside, so that we can all fight amongst ourselves? Is there some reason we are currently having an argument over our own views? I'm not saying anyone is to blame here, but this all seems just a little surprising to me. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, why are you oppposing the inclusion of materials from the MFA? that's probably just about the best source we have for anything, when we are lucky enough to find useful material there. Ceedjee is correct on this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve,

Sorry but no. We don't give our pov's on the subject.

We reports the relevant pov's ie, pov's from scholars, politicians, etc according to the topic. Our pov's are irrelevant.

We can give our pov's concerning due:weight of relevant material *if we argue* on this.

There is no reason to have disputes on wp if we respect this basic principles.

But when they are editors who defend their pov's, or their assumed community pov, it cannot work.

I think we should focus on Tiamut last comment. Referring to WP:LEAD, she is right that what is in the lead must first be in the core of the article.

I would like to underline that I have the feeling that I don't share any of her political pov's but that I completely share (and appreciate) here attitude and way of working. Ceedjee (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is if you do or do not share someone political POV. The issue is to edit according to policy . So far we have not seen any explnation to this massive revert: [11] which included even a revert of text that was just moved to make the lead a bit shorter. details of the UN resolution were moved to the article text yet you simply choose to revert - qyuite a disruptive editing style. I again ask that you self revert and discussed as I have done above regarding all these changes. Zeq (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, you don't agree that Israeli MFA is a good source to give Israel's pov on the right of return... Could you argue :-) Ceedjee (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Zeq, are you addressing me about the "revert"? I took Steve's comment to go ahead and do some editing literally. Should I not have? As I've explained, I think it's best to focus on the body of the article, and leave the lead aside for now. But I wanted to make sure to include the Israeli POV after 6S7J brought it up above. That's why I kept editing. I posted my suggested versions here for feedback and I tried to take into account concerns. If you feel that the edit is totally unacceptable, please post what you would like to see here, as I did, and we can evaluate your proposal. But I strongly suggest we instead focus on the article body itself, which is in bad need of changes. Its poorly sourced, does not give a good overview of the topic at all, is redundant in places and is missing lots of important information. Why don't you add the material you are trying to add to the introduction to the body and give a good copy edit to a couple of the paragraphs around where you place it? I'll try to do the same with some of the material I'd like to see included and hopefully we'll soon be on a roll. Tiamut^talk 02:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think Zeq is referring to this edit by Ceedjee, in which she reverts 6 of his intermediate edits. There are many reasons why this is bad editing practice; one is that it shows disrespect to the other editor--were all of his changes without merit? And it replaces discussion with "I like this better" binary thinking. I don't mean to single out Ceedjee, its just the example of the moment I happened to stop by and I'm sure there are more examples in the history. Please try to respect each other. Remember that you are writing for readers and this article is not intended to satisfy the desires of any editor but to provide a virgin reader with an introduction to a complicated topic in a way that he or she will be able to understand the basic concepts without feeling pulled to one side or the other. Good NPOV writing means the reader can't tell who wrote the article and can't be achieved by counting words or paragraphs or references alone. Thatcher 03:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to focus for a moment on one particular sentence proposed above, which also is currently in the article in slightly different form. That sentence is: "The Israeli government officially opposes implementation of the Palestinian right of return." That sentence is not consistent with the source that appears on the web page of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The above-quoted sentence assumes that the Palestinians who left Israel have the right to return there, but that Israel "opposes implementation" of this "right." What that source actually says is that the Palestinian refugees do not have the right to return. So can we instead say something like, "The Israeli government takes the position that the Palestinian refugees do not have the right to return to Israel." Then we could summarize the Israeli government's justifications for that position. Any problem with that? 6SJ7 (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

6SJ7 is correct and he correctly identify the subtttle bias in this whole article. There are two POVs and they need to be clearly represneted here and identified as such. Zeq (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you both feel that's an accurate representation of the Israeli government position, by all means change it to reflect that. I thought the government was of the opinion that the Palestinians could enjoy a right of return to territories under the control of the Palestinian Authority, but not Israel and was trying to reflect that ambivalence in the wording I proposed. However, I notice the MFA cite above does say that they have no right of return in the Israeli government's opinion. So do please change ut per the wording suggested by 6SJ7. Tiamut^talk 18:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

I want to thank all participants here for their productive discussion. Please see this: [12]. We still have a long way toward NPOV the lead. My attempt that was reverted is still a step I would like to be considerd. Zeq (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to ceedje: I still expect that you self revert your massive revert to my edits and discuss on talk each of your objection to my 6 edits that you reverted. I think you need to read the recent arb Com decision if you choose to continue this style of revert editing. Zeq (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq,

Stop your "propaganda" : If you choose to continue this style of revert editing.. I didn't revert you six times. This is Thatcher analysis but I don't share his mind on that and "manipulate" his conclusions [13]. I interprateted your comment as a "threat" but it is maybe not the case.

Please, feel free to add all the information you consider usefull to the article and the way you want to do it but, from my point of view, based on all most editors you interact with, is highly disruptive.

I invite you not to give your pov but to find relevant ones from reliable sources and to write the edits you suggest on the talk page first, wait for other comments, and then add them to the article with a comment such as "with Tiamut and Sm89000 agreement", "following our common mind" etc.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

1. please aplogize for calling my attempt at polite discussion "propeganda". This is a personal attck and violation of WP:AGF
2. As noted before I have not engaged in disruptive editing. This was cleaerly established already by a reviwing admin.
3. Your editing, on the other hand, has been disruptive and included reverts of good failth edit without any attempt at discussion. I again suggest that you self revert your disruptive edit in which you reverted 6 of my good faith edits.
4. You fail to understand what POV is. WE are not engae in "Your POV" Vs. "My POV".
5. The two majority POVs on this issue are the Palestinian POV and the main stream Israeli POV - both need to be represneted. I am not trying to convince you which POV is correct. I just want the article to correctly represent both views.
6. To say that the Palestinian have a right and that the Israeli goverment object that right is not a fair and NPOV description of the issue.
7. If I can give you one simple advice: Stop complianing about what I write in the talk page - this does not take us forward - we have an article to fix. Zeq (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

a change to paragrpah

This paragraph:

The number of Palestinians who fled or were expelled from Israel-controlled areas during the 1948 Palestine War was approximately 700,000. An additional 280,000 to 350,000 fled or were expelled during the 1967 war, a figure that includes some 145,000 people who were refugees of the first war. Today the number of Palestinian refugees, including both first-generation refugees and their descendants, stands at at least four million.

Need to be shorted. I suggest instead: The number of Palestinians including both first-generation refugees and their descendants, stands today at at least four million. Zeq (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the length is good or too short. The exodus of 750,000 out of 900,000 people is an important issue to detail in the article dealing with their alleged right of return. The causes should be described too. The fact that according to historians half left during expulsion operations is also an important context on which they justify their right of compensation. Ceedjee (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view, such a suggestion from an editor banned from the article 1948 Palestinian exodus is a disruptive behaviour. Ceedjee (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ceedjee that the section is fine as it is, and perhaps is too short and in need of expansion, given the sources I provided above on IDPs. Please do not reduce its length unilaterally. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 18:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is too long as is the whole lead. We need to focus on the subject itself (right of return) expend the israeli POV which is not being represented, and in places such as this paragraph where the deatils are actually part of other articles we don't need to include them in the lead. Further more NPOV will require us to add (instead of making short) in order to create balance. I did not see any argument from either Tiamut or Ceedjee why not to shorten this paragrpah. (other than "i think it is fine") Zeq (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your notion of NPoV :

This : "Need to be shorted" is a well-developed and good-faith argumentation.

That : "The exodus of 750,000 out of 900,000 people is an important issue to detail in the article dealing with their alleged right of return. The causes should be described too. The fact that according to historians half left during expulsion operations is also an important context on which they justify their right of compensation." is "not (...) an[] argument from either Tiamut or Ceedjee why not to shorten this paragrpah. (other than "i think it is fine")"

I think nobody can help you. You have to start back your whole education from the beginning. (Note I respect WP:AGF) Ceedjee (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem in words

This is simeply not true: "they left behind in what was once known as Palestine". At the time they left those areas the place was Palestine:

1. mant left areas that were the Newly founded Jewish state - Israel.
2. there was never actually a country called "Palestine"
3. those who left in 1967 left areas that were controlled by Jordan.

This is a tough subject and we need to make sure not to interduce subtle bias in every sentense.

There are two POVs here: The palestinian one which is represented in the lead and the Israeli one which is not. The lead still require massive changes breaking it to two identifiable parts - each for one POV. Zeq (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentences doesn't refer to a country but to an area. The area discussed eg by these historians :

• Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, Sussex Academic Press, 2006 or Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete, MetroPolitan Books, 2000.

But certainly above all there is that primary source : The Palestine Post, a jewish pro-Zionist newspaper named under that area.

I am sure you knew this. Could you explain why you ignore them ?

Ceedjee (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view, such a suggestion is a disruptive behaviour. Ceedjee (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You fail to understand what is disruptive and also what is NPOV. We can not continue to include in this article only the Palestinian POV. I understand that in your view to say "palestinian have a right" is one POV and to say "israel govrement object the Palestinian right" is the other POV. Such an approch will not lead us forward. As for the pecific mention of the general geographic area once called "Palestine" - it is too amorphic for the issue here which is: To which national country do the refugee "go back" : To israel or to the (Future state of) Palestine. By including the term "area known as palestine" a wrong impression is created and we need to clarify it without having to use a general geographic area which had diffrenet, undefined borders at different times in History. Zeq (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This article hinges on the nature of a right which claimed by Palestinians. Therefore, it should describe the Palestinian assertions, and then the Israeli response. it is the shape and nature of the Palestininan claims which shapes the outlines of this issue.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutly correct. THese are assertions and claims (one can say demands) which are not accepted and are chalnged both on the level of "is it is a leagl or moral right" as well as the levels of partical implemnation and the reason why the Arab world had dragged the problem so long without solving it in the way israel solved the problemm of the Jewish refugees from that era. Zeq (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

An example of how NPOV lead should look like

Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus - explain that this is a conflict related issue that there are two positions.

Next paragraph summerize those two positions one for each side and give some critism of each.

We should follow that example.

everything else is not WP:NPOV and together we will get this article to follow this policy. Zeq (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

here is an attempt:

This article is devoted to the term Right of Return as it is used in the context of the Arab - Israeli conflict The term itself (is it actually a right or a political demand) it's historical roots and consquences of presuing such political position - all are a matter of great controversy and one of the conteted issues in the contxt of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The two sections below gives overview of the tow postions on this political debate between the parties to the conflict.

Zeq (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Zeq, I think you are failing to understand an impotant point here. The right of return is a universal basic human right whose general applicability to all refugees is uncontested by the world community. The application of this general right to the case of Palestinians specifically, is also widely supported by the international community. This is not a Palestinian POV, but a worldview. The Israeli government denies that Palestinian refugees have a right to return. Recently, the American government has stated that it supports a right of return, but only to territories that will form part of the Palestinian state, In other words, while the Israeli and American viewpoints are sigvificant, they are minority viewpoints, and per WP:UNDUE (under WP:NPOV, they should be represented as such.

I will soon post my own suggestion for the lead that reflects these facts. I'm typing with one hand, so please be patient. Tiamut^talk 14:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut. Hope your hand feels better soon. sorry if it's injured. I don';t wish to make you strain it further. however, the whole point here is that this is not a universal right. where have you seen this applied? there are numerous cases of refugees in the world, and many cases where refugees are NOT able to return. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have said before, I do not think this is a question of "viewpoints" and therefore WP:UNDUE does not apply. However, I do not have time to write anything about this today. I do think that the Israeli position, however, it is written, should not be buried at the bottom of a very long introduction. It should be much nearer the top, to counterbalance the claim of a "right of return" (or if you wish, the claim that the "right of return" applies so as to require Israeli acceptance of unlimited immigration to its own territory.) 6SJ7 (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, taking into consideration all of the points raised over many days of discussion, I have drafted an introduction at User:Tiamut/draft for right of return‎. If you notice, I've moved the details on the number of refugees out of introduction. I've done to respond to Zeq's concerns regarding length, and also to get into a more detailed discussion over who is claiming a right of returnm since it is not confined to Palestinians from the 1948 war only. I've also expanded the Israeli position and added the American position. The Israeli position could still use more work and I would appreciate it if people like Zeq and 6SJ7 would add their thoughts on what must be included in the intro about it, if I missed too much. Remember to pick the most important points and leave others to discussion in the main body of the article. Once we have refined the intro and the paragraphs following it, we can work on the body. This is reversal of my previous position that the body should be worked on first, but since no one else seems to be interested in that, I've decided to focus on the intro anyway. Looking forward to your feedback. Tiamut^talk 17:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tiamut,

I think you fail to understand what NPOV is:

1. - this article is not about the universal right of return this article is about the palestinian claim and political demand for Palestinian right of return. These are two different subjects.
2. - about the palestinian claim - everything I wrote in the above lead holds true. We should now be able to write the Palestinian POV and the Israeli POV.
3. what you wrote "The application of this general right to the case of Palestinians specifically, is also widely supported by the international community" is part of the Palestinian POV. There could be those who support it and there are those who oppose this view and have anther view. THis is why we as NPOV encyclopedia will list the two main views (in this case the palestinian and the Israeli.
4. I alos hope you feel better soon. I hope we can agree on the direction I outlined. As long as you try to present the Palestinian POV as "fact" or an undeniabale right we can not move forward - one of the main POV on this issue disagree with the assertion that this is such a right or that it can even be implemneted (irespective of if it is a right or not)
5. As explained few times already: NPOV is not achived by saying "The palestinian have a right and Israeli govrement deny this right" this is all part of the Palestinian POV in both parts of that sentence as they both refer to a situation as if this right really exist as a right. It is not a right - it is a deamnd made by one side who claim it is a right and the other side see it differently : as a demand it can not accept (for good reasons, many of leagl and praticle)
6. Tiamut, I have reviwed your draft. Thank you for putting it. The draft totaly fail to address the concerns raised here. It is written from your own Palestinian POV not NPOV at all. Lets us first agree on the few lines I have put above. We can later proceed with each POV. Your draft can fit under the title "The Palestinian view".

Zeq (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have strated the implementation of the NPOV to this article. Since the Palestinian position is so large the next step is to move some of the parts in the Palestinian view section in the lead to the text of the article. Let us first create an NPOV lead. Zeq (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, with all due respect, what you fail to understand is that the right of return is a general legal principle consecrated in documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the Geneva Conventions to which Israel is a signatory. The opinions of the vast majority of legal scholars on the Palestinian right of return is that it is a derivative of this general right. This is not a "Palestinian position" or "Palestinian claim". I provided you a number of non-partisan expert legal sources on the issue. You keep ignoring those sources and claiming that I don't understand WP:NPOV. I do understand it and referred you to WP:UNDUE, but instead of addressing the points I raised, you keep accusing me of POV editing. A better way to approach this disagreement might be conceding that I do in fact understand NPOV, and that my judgement of the sources leads me to conclude that the Israeli and American positions and minority ones. While significant minority viewpoints, they should be treated as such. This is not about giving equal voice to Israeli and Palestinian positions, as though they are the only people who hold opinions on the matter. Legal scholars and the international community also have opinions on the matter and these deserve proportionate representation. Tiamut^talk 15:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. the main points here are the Palestinians and Israeli viewpoints. as far as neutral legal scholars, there are plenty on each side. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "fact" tag

The "fact" tag allow an editor a very civilized way t say that a line in the article is chalnged and give the editors who wish this line to remain the ability to find relavent WP:RS sources showing that the fact is correct - and in our case part of the main two POV on the subject (we will not include extreme minority views per WP:NPOV.

Instead the fact tag was simpley removed twice: [14], <- no trace of tag removal [15]. <- no trace of tag removal

I still await Ceddjee to self revert his massive reverts of my edits. there was no justification for his actions and he never discussed them here. This is my 3 rd request for him to self revert. Zeq (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The tags were not removed.

As Thatcher wrote, there were not massive reverts.

You are well known as a highly disruptive editors, already banned from article deeply linked to this article. You should avoid looking for conflicts using this arrogant tones. Ceedjee (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not disruptive here. In any case you did not answer the issue aboutb the fact tag you and Tiamut removed. btw, don't accuse me of "tone" - you can not excpet to know "my tone" from my writings. "Tone" require comunication using sound - which enfortunatly we don't have over the web. I again ask you (as I did before) to appologize on your accuastion of me. Notice how I politly refer to your edits while you continue to make personal attcks on me. Zeq (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet another policy violation: [16] you inserted material into comment by othjer editor , did not sign it and actually your comment create false impression as if the fact tag was not removed whenin fact it was modified in one instance and remove in the 2nd. would it just be simpler to restore the fact tag ? The fact that you have so far avoided doing it show your intention at disrupting this article to prevent us making progress. instead of focusing on the big issue we have to deal with more and more disruptive additions like the "causes" section you just cretaed and the above incident about the tag removal. But I have time and will give you the time to correct your recent edits. Zeq (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, stop picturing you as a collaborative and constructive editor. If you want to add any material and any tag in the article, feel free to proceed. Your hammering and hammering sounds as if you were just trying to upset the other contributors. Ceedjee (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, I am not going into edit war with you over a tag. I put it and you removed it and aware of the fact that I noticed it and requested that you reinsert what you deleted. Zeq (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I put them back, before this comment. You are time consuming. Ceedjee (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank You:-) Zeq (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this a sock puppet edit ?

[17] Zeq (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have commented BEFORE 20:14 you wrote this I had added this material while not logged !

You go too far with your propaganda and your diffamation hiding behing WP:AGF. Ceedjee (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceddjee, I ask that you stop your revert war. You can not re-insert material you have added while not logged in. This material is already covered in other articles. What you are doing is making this article more POV while we are trying to make it NPOV. Please consider your recent behaviour carefully. I suggest you self revert your two recent reverts. Zeq (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You deleted massively sourced material without any discussion. You could be banned for that.

This material is not copied/pasted from other article. I wrote this.

The context must be develop as is done in all featured articles.

You claim you are working on the NPoV. Perfect. If you have other sourced material, from scholars, giving other pov's concerning the background, I will be really highly pleased it is introduced :-) Ceedjee (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is about RoR - not about cause of the exodus. For that there is already an article and the sources and NPOV issues for the causses of the exodus should be addressed there.

I am not fearfull of intimidation about "being bamnned for that" so it is a waste f your time to make such threats. The material was added by anon editor and it is material that is already available in other articles. The issue is to make this article NPOV. What you did was inserting more POV paragrpah by including just one POV out of two opposing POVs in the original article that discuss this subject. That is why it was removed. This discussion is alreadyt covered in that article in a complete form. No point duplaicating it here. Please remove the material you reinserted. Zeq (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked the mind of another contributor who knows the topic very well [18]. He could help for neutralisation.
This is the background of the RoR issue. If you think it is not NPoV, please, feel free to add a tag and to explain here what elements of the context must be added.
There is no duplication : that just refers to the main elements and that was not before in this article. Ceedjee (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Zeq, you claim that this material is already covered in other articles. Care to point out which articles those are? And it's not a sockpuppet edit if he forgot to log in (that happens sometimes due to sloppiness). What is POV about the content User:Ceedjee has added, and why should it not be in this article? Oh and, please don't just blank sections, that is sometimes considered to be vandalism. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. see this edit: [19] line 166 at bottom of edit, as well as the parent article to it: 1948 Palestinian exodus . Zeq (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see how it's POV to include a short description to its main article. This is what we usually do at Wikipedia in all minor article sections. A short excerpt or a description, and then link to the main article where it covers the same topic at a larger extent. What I'd like to know is what's POV about this section you want removed and how the article would become more NPOV without this content? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 21:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The main article about this issue 1948 Palestinian exodus as well as a secondary article dedicated to the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus have been going through a struugle to get them to be more NPOV. By taking just a small part of those articles (part which support only one POV) we are doomed to go through this discussion again. Instead we should focus here on the RoR issue in the most NPOV way we can while refering the reader to other articles for other issues. this is what wikilinks and "see also" sections are for. This was well explained in my edit summary so it was not vandalism. here is an example from this section "historians now agree that Jewish military attacks were the main cause of the exodus" is opeing the door to a larger discussion which does not belong here at all - it has it's own article for such discussion.Zeq (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

JaapBoBo has re-read my text and made some changes. He and I read several books on this issue and both we have our own different bias. If you have sources that say the contrary of what is written, please, feel free to give them so that we can discuss. NPoV requires all pov on an issue.

It is not a problem to discuss. Why would it be ? Ceedjee (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

absantee section

The section Palestinian_right_of_return#Absentees.27_property is aabout the roots of a law. The law has it's own article. It is more encyclopedic that origins of this law will be in the article about that law and not here in an article about a diffrent term. Zeq (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is part of the background. If Palestinian require compensation, it is important to know compensation of what. Don't worry. This is not finished. I will add more material in the near future. Ceedjee (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

'controversial'

I removed 'controversial' in 'the P-RoR is a controversial political position'. The nature of any 'political position' is that there is some kind of opposite position, otherwise it would not be called a political position. So there is no need to add the word 'controversial' here. To stress this here makes the article pov. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The original text in the source was "highly controersial" - so maybe the word highly was in ppace. After all the RoR is not just your average Run of the mill Political position - it is at the center of the Israeli-palestinian conflict and as such it is "highly controersial". Please restore this important charterization. I am disapointed that since Ceddjee have left you a nore you too joined the tag-team revert and edits which make this article more POV. Zeq (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A Palestinian source

[20] Zeq (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Too long" tag

By comparison, causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus is 135k.
In fact this article is 52k. That could be considered too short. It is absolutely logical than an article dealing with a controversial topic is long because all pov's must be detailled precisely not to harm.
NPoV doens't mean developing One pov the way the other pov agrees. It means developing both pov's at their full length. If one sides has nothing to say, that is it. Ceedjee (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is now POV and represent the Palestinian POV. in fact it describe even the israeli view as the Palestinian see it. Zeq (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you conclude this just because of the development of the background, I don't agree. I have only added facts that are even not controversed. If this is enough to balance the article that means that the israeli position would be extremely weak, which I don't agree.

It is nevertheless needed to bring "analysis" about the "right of return" issue written by Israeli's scholars.

NPoV doesn't mean to silence arguments so that both minds appear equivalent. NPoV means bringing all arguments of all parties, fairly, without biasing them, in fully developping them, so that they talk by themselves.

Discussion has been long enough now. It is time to bring material. Good work. Ceedjee (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I repeat my request that you stop adding POV data , especially if if belong and other articles. We need forst to NPOV the lead along the lines I outlined above. You have also did not address and diod not self revert your massive reverts. Zeq (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, I would like to make a small suggestion, that we not remove each other's material, including Ceedjee's. thanks. If you feel it is unbalanced, you can add some of your own to compensate. Editors should not remove each other's material if it is valid and well-sourced. I understand your concerns though. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve, repectually, material that belon in other articles should be added there and not here. This is a tough subject and we need to focus. I don't mean disrespect to the actuall material just to the place where it was placed. Hope that is understood inn the good spirit that it is ment. Zeq (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is a bloody mess right now. It's littered with spelling mistakes, redundancies, and fails to mention much important information. I urge you to re-review the draft for the intro that I posted at User:Tiamut/draft for right of return. If the issues I have raised in the talk and in that proposed draft and not addressed in subsequent edits, I will have to be bold and make the changes myself. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 15:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't really read this article much right now. the lead is fine right now. it's fine if we keep the lead short and simple anway, which in the end helps us anyway. then we are free to add a section detailing Israel's concerns further down. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

lede - wtf?

The former, pretty neutral lede section has been moved down to a section called "Palestinian Position," there has been a bunch of POV added under "Israeli Position," and there's a really stupid "this is a Wikipedia article"-type lede now. Can we please avoid this kind of WP:POINTy editing? If you really think the lede needs more Israeli POV, just put it into the lede without disrupting the flow of the article by claiming, in the text, that neutral information is really Palestinian POV.

At first glance, what you're calling "Palestinian POV" devotes weight in this rough proportion: UN/international community 5, Israel 3, Palestinians 2. Now granted, this leaves Israel looking like a minority position. This is entirely appropriate because the Israeli view is a minority position; essentially everyone else, including even the Americans, recognize the right of return.

We don't have to right every article in some kind of mechanistic 1:1 pseudo-balance. There are issues (like the right of return or the suicide bombings) where the sources line up in agreement on one side of the issue. We shouldn't promote a false balance between two sides which are not, in fact, equally represented in the sources. We should explain what the Palestinians say, what the Israelis say, and what the international community says. That's what the previous, non-neutered version of the lede did. <eleland/talkedits> 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just leave the lead the way it is, whatever way it now may be. By "we" I mean all Israel-affilaited editors. the lead is fine right now and anyway, nobody sits there reading it anyway. The main thing is to have a section expressing Israels' concerns, ideas and responses, etcetera. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

on his home page Ceedjee define himself as such editor...this is very nice of him. In any case break up of the lead to prehable, Palestinian section, israeli section is clearly a great step toward NPOV. Zeq (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't define myself as "Israel-affilaited editor" on my user:page.

Nevertheless, having the Palestinian pov and the Israeli pov on the issue in two different section is not necessaraly a bad thing if done in proper English without spelling mistakes. Ceedjee (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

user:Eleland: your edit here[21] as well as the languge you used in the talk page was disruptive and you clearly tried to make a WP:point about my editing using your edit instead of addressing the issue of making this article more WP:NPOV. This style of revert editing (You, Ceddjee etc..) will not take you far as it becomes clear your editing impede progress toward resoving the various issues raised on this talk page for weeks. The most frequent answer have been to revert. I have been polite, used talk extensivly, never receiprocated your reverts and enterted an edit war but I wnder if you will be willing to cnsider making the lead clear NPOV or you would like to keep it representing mostly the Palestinian POV without identifying it as such ? Zeq (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Information: Water Resources and Right of Return?

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

PoV tag

I removed the POV tag which hasn't been discussed for over a year for it to reverted straight away with Looks highly POV and needs tag - "right of return is a political position or principle" in the lead? Res 194 re-affirms it as an inalienable right.). We do not leave POV tags on article indefinitely, please identify these "looks highly pov" and discuss re-wording to achieve concensus. If there are to be no further discussion on these POV issues in the near future then I will re-remove the tag. ^Khukri 09:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have either the time or the knowledge to improve this article. But I do know that the "Palestinian Right of Return" is considered an "inalienable right" by the world community. So strongly do they feel about it that they re-iterate it every year (I think I have that right). Under such circumstances, calling it a "political position or principle" in the lead is hugely POV, and the article needs tagging as such. Alternatively, we could have a tag saying "For reasons outside our control, it is impossible to provide an article on this subject in the I-P conflict area to the standard that the rest of Wikipedia aspires to". PR^talk 12:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, though not being an expert on the subject, "Palestinian Right of Return" isn't viewed in the same light by the "world community" there are differing view points on what this means, not just on the Arab/Israelis sides but also what it means to the world community as a whole, as the article demonstrates. I think the lede succinctly states the two principle view points and am at pains at the moment to see how this is in favour of one side of the argument or the other. Also it is not generally accepted practice to slap a PoV tag on an article if you are not willing to aid with its resolution. Also looking at your edit summary, as I understand it UN 194 wan't a binding treaty which doesn't make it an unalienable right, looking at the article page? Looking at it all I need to do is add the word disputed to that sentence and I believe it removes your PoV issue. ^Khukri 12:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Both world opinion (eg UN Resolution 194 passed overwhelmingly every year for 60 years) and the UDHR, which says "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family .... to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country" make nonsense of the claim in the lead that the right of return that is a "a political position or principle" as if this was a negotiating point. The basis of this "right" goes back still earlier, eg 1945 Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg which defined the deportation of civilians as both a war crime and a crime against humanity.

And there is much else that is severely POV, requiring a tag eg "The causes and responsibilities of the exodus are a matter of controversy among historians and commentators of the conflict" - when there is no such controversy except amongst extremists. 95 or 98% of the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, with the exact circumstances carefully recorded eg the strongly Zionist Morris in "Birth", A - Abandonment on Arab orders, C - Influence of nearby town's fall, E - Expulsion by Jewish forces, F - Fear of being caught up in fighting, M - Military assault on settlement, W Whispering campaigns - psychological warfare by Haganah/IDF. Morris finds there were 5 villages (and half of Haifa) in category A, 38 unknown and 346 in the other categories (though there is sometimes some overlap). Every other investigator finds more villages (or groups) and says the same. There is no controversy. PR^talk 14:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Accusation: And there is much else that is severely POV, requiring a tag eg 'The causes and responsibilities of the exodus are a matter of controversy among historians and commentators of the conflict' - when there is no such controversy except amongst extremists. ... There is no controversy."
• The Reality: I believe Avi Shlaim, hardly an extremist, would disagree with you that there is no controversy among historians in this excellent article on the scholarly debate that has gone on among Middle East historians since the 1980s titled "The War of the Israeli Historians." I took the liberty of citing the Shlaim article as a source in this article for the sentence that PalestineRemembered claims is "severely POV" and "extremist." The existence of a scholarly debate is also self evident from the contents of this Wikipedia article. --GHcool (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see reference to controversy about the actual Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus in Shlaim's 2003 article - his entire thesis is summed up in his words "there is no longer a consensus among the original group of new historians that Israel is the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East". Controversy concerns only recent and peripheral matters, such as whether to dig up potentially 100s of bodies at Tantura in 1998, the integrity of Palestinian negotiators in 2000 and Morris's conversion to the right-wing in 2002. Nothing to do with the 1948 ethnic cleansing, which everyone now accepts (and for which Morris remains the most accessible source). The current state of this article is severely POV and it needs tagging as such. PR^talk 23:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Shlaim details the controversy among historians in the article. Its as plain as day and I can dig up dozens of more sources saying the same thing. Shlaim is considered to be on the political left and even he accepts that there has been a controversy among historians. For a political right analysis (and acceptance) of the controversy, I recommend Efraim Karsh's article here. I am sure Karsh is not one of PalestineRemembered's favorite historians, but he is a historian nonetheless and not an extremist by any measure. --GHcool (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The controversies described by Shlaim in that article bear no relationship to "The causes and responsibilities of the exodus are a matter of controversy among historians and commentators of the conflict", which are contested by nobody other than deniers.

Hence, this is a severely POV article and needs tagging as such. PR^talk 11:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How do they bear no relationship, I read though what GHcool posted and seems to imply that the cause of the exodus was being debated by historians, and not just deniers. Explain please? ^Khukri 14:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed a controversy about the causes of the 1948 exodus among historians. It is even what of the biggest controversy. I think it is explained in Shlaim's article but I don't see this describe in the article of Karsh. This latest rather attack the other and to paraphrase him, "report [his] truth"... So, it is rather a primary source rather than a secondary source for the controversy. Note that Shlaim is not the best source either, being part of the conflict. I have a source in French that could be accpetable but it is in French... So this "obvious think" when you see all the theories about the topic can hardly be sourced in English... Ceedjee (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If primary sources should be given, I would suggest these :

• Benny Morris, 1989, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949, Cambridge University Press;
• Benny Morris, 1991, 1948 and after; Israel and the Palestinians, Clarendon Press, Oxford;
• Walid Khalidi, 1992, All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948, Institute for Palestine Studies;
• Nur Masalha, 1992, Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, Institue for Palestine Studies;
• Efraim Karsh, 1997, Fabricating Israeli History: The "New Historians", Cass;
• Benny Morris, 2004, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Cambridge University Press;
• Yoav Gelber, 2006, Palestine 1948: War, Escape and the Palestinian Refugee Problem, Oxford University Press;
• Ilan Pappé, 2006, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, OneWorld

I think these are the main books published on the topic and the due:weight is more or less respected. Ceedjee (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Objectors viewpoints (2009)

Some people here seem to think they get to decide the opposing side's views.
The sources say that the view is that a non-Jewish majority means the destruction (one source says "eradication") of Israel. That means you don't get to water it down with weasel words just because you don't like seeing the phrase "destruction of Israel".
The sources say that the view is that a minority of Jews would be at the mercy of the Muslims means that that's the view they represent even if you think that kind of view is biased or racist or whatever.
The sources say that the view is that there was no right of return or compensation offered to the Jews that fled Arab countries, and that the Arab governments were complicit in this, then that's what wikipedia should say.

That said, I'm open to changing "at the mercy of the Muslims" to "at the mercy of a hostile Majority" if that makes anyone feel better. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You dont get to present opinions as fact, as in "This would essentially be the destruction of Israel". You have to present them as opinions and you have to use NPOV language. There is nothing wrong with how it is worded now, it should in fact be further qualified by explicitly citing who said these things. nableezy - 17:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a section titled "viewpoints". It's about opinions. The "some people think that..." part is implied.
The opinion that losing the Jewish majority would essentially be the destruction of Israel is pretty common, as I'm sure you're aware.
Do you suggest we go over both sections and qualify everything? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Its as if you didnt pay any attention to what I wrote. If it is opinion then PHRASE THE TEXT AS OPINION. When you say "This would essentially be the destruction of Israel" in WP's narrative voice you are not phrasing it as opinion, you are phrasing it as a fact. nableezy - 18:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't specifying that the following bullets are opinions or arguments solve your problem with presenting this as fact? It is a fact that these are arguments used by opponents of a right of return. That is what is being said in the narrative voice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, what is said in the narrative voice is "This would essentially be the destruction of Israel" as a conclusion to the opinions presented. What is wrong with how it is phrased now? nableezy - 21:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it doesn't say what the source says. The source says this will be the destruction of "Israel" not "the Jewish state of Israel". Second, that's not the way the supporters viewpoints section is worded. But if you want me to make the two similar by rephrasing the other section to include "it has been argued" all over the place, we can do it your way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit of a ridiculous conversation if you don't mind my saying. First, there's nothing wrong with Israel being a Jewish state. This is in the declaration of independence and the reason for Israel being located on the historical homeland of the Jewish people. Secondly, I don't know how the source puts it, but it would seem that the fear is the end of the democratic structure rather than merely the Jewishness of the state. If the source doesn't explicitly cite the end of a Jewish state, then the addendum is redundant and speculative (read: false assumption) on the intentions of the source.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hilton not WP:RS

It seems to me there is a lot of edit warring over what is NOT a WP:RS source. The source http://wais.stanford.edu/Israel/israel_andthepalestinerightofreturn51603.html is just one of a bunch of self-published discussion papers on http://wais.stanford.edu/Israel/, a not very official Stanford outlet. This one is by - who? Ronald Hilton - 5/16/03 did this one. Is he a freshman? A PhD? No information. It's acceptable to use information he quotes from - if you independently verify that it is true. But he should not be used as a source. We don't really have to go to WP:RSN on this, do we?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

i viewed the page, and agree that it isn't a RS. some of the links he provides may be, but any info relying on this ref should be scrapped and rewritten with attribution to the correct sources. untwirl(talk) 16:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

hm. well, i kinda messed that up by duplicating a ref. lets see if i can fix it. untwirl(talk) 17:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

==Who is a refugee?==

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

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

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

Myths and Facts

There are things that the JVL hosts that are reliable sources, however Myths & Facts by Mitchell Bard is a self-published work by a non-expert. It is not a reliable source, and I am once again removing that source. Repeated insertions absent a consensus that it is a reliable sources will be reported. nableezy - 19:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

1. You just violated this article's 1RR rule. No wait, read Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_to_"no_consensus" (added later, 24December).

2. Your reasons given to revert/delete the material are based on falsehoods; you are using the following easily-exposed lies to demean the source:

A. "Non-expert"?

i.) The author's PhD & other uni studies (@ USA's top-ranking uni's, at that) are pertinent to this article's subject matter as seen by clicking here combined with...

ii.) He's recognized as a notable expert from BOTH the political right (see last link) AND the left (Huff Post), and has...

iii.) Accolades or recognition about the JewishVirtualLibrary.com site from: Assoc of College & Research Libraries, as well as PBS, CNN, NYTimes, Fox, LATimes, Bloomberg, BBC, BusinessWeek, USA Today, & CBS... AND Britannica & Study Web... AND King's College, London, MSU, & other uni's.

iv.) The author's[22] material which I specifically linked to/cited, and especially his most politically-controversial claims therein, DOES conform to --and DOES cite other sources that ALSO themselves qualify as-- WP:V, RS, etc.

B. "Self-published" as you ALSO claimed?

It's published by AICE--and doesn't matter anyway because: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications": see "iii" above for a list of such "RELIABLE" third-parties (he's also published by Harper-Collins, & Palgrave-MacMillan among the many others here).

Nableezy, you don't get to UNILATERALLY decide what is WP:RS (thankfully, as you've obviously no clue what JVL's author's expert credentials, etc were...or if not clueless, you were PURPOSELY misrepresenting him as a "non-expert," but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt & assume the former, because as the saying goes: "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance/incompetence." ;) ), and you have not sought a "consensus" before deleting a source that DOES meet WP guidelines. Based on all the facts about JVL that I gave you tonight, further removal of JVL as a source based on falsehoods, such as those you've (finally) presented, will result in YOU being "reported" (oh, was that threat supposed to scare me even as the FACTS are in my court?) -- as well as: (1.) reservation of the "equal right" that I or anyone else who reads this page should go ahead UNILATERALLY remove some of your beloved pro-Arab sources based on the reasoning in bold text below (see next topic), esp if you persist in UNILATERALLY deleting all material sourced from JVL: "What's good for the goose..." (but hopefully only until I find an unbiased ArbCom to come & review ALL the article's sources for WP:RS, especially the sources listed in bold below); or (2.) hopefully you INSTEAD choose to stop waging the virtualized/internet equivalent of "guerilla warfare" & become more civil/less childish & less dictatorial as if you WP:OWN this article, and then ppl can discuss the below list of sources in bold AND JVL, one-by-one, before removing anything in the below list unless they develop a FACT-BASED (not lie/ignorance-based) argument for which ones don't meet WP:RS BEFORE deleting ANY of them (as, unlike you, I don't have the hubris & bias to UNILATERALLY remove a source unless I've CHECKED to be CERTAIN I can give proper reasons rather than lies and to CHECK that it indeed doesn't meet WP:RS instead of remaining willfully-ignorant which leads to false allegations such as those you've made in TWO different reverts against DOCTOR Mitch Bard now, because you did NOT _check_ DOCTOR Bard's credentials--leading to a waste of my time AND your own), but I'm confident that an escalation to RfArb, if that's what you desire, will allow WP's top NEUTRAL contributors to determine that JVL meets WP:RS but that MANY sources in this article do not (such as many in the below list; see next topic).

My edits yesterday also addressed a concern that someone else noted (the 1st topic on this Talk page...so I'm not just crazy; someone else noticed what I did): a desire for the lede's pro-Israeli position to be given by someone (e.g. Dr. Mitchell Bard, as I used) who represents LOTS of ppl on the pro-Israel side & does NOT make weak/VAGUE arguments: ergo, my edits might also partially address Nice Guy's concerns as he expressed on this Talk page about what might be strawman attempts--but in a different section than Nice Guy was complaining about.

JH Robbins

72.48.252.105 (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

If you revert once more I will report you for edit-warring (and I have most certainly have not violated the 1RR). Mitchell Bard's PhD is in Political Science, not Middle Eastern History or the modern Middle East. He has no particular expertise on the topic and doesn't have the credentials that allow you to bypass WP:SPS. Myths and Facts is not a reliable source, it is the self-published work by a non expert. You may not edit-war your way through this, and if you continue to revert you will find yourself blocked. And before you link the HuffPo again, could you try thinking about just what in Mitchell Bard is a writer and filmmaker.

He has written, produced and directed many independent film projects, including features, made-for-television movies and music videos. His feature film directorial debut, "Mergers & Acquisitions," was a festival favorite and is currently available on DVD in North America. He has also co-directed two music videos for Brian Vander Ark (lead singer of The Verve Pipe).

Mitchell is currently pursuing a graduate degree and serving as a teaching assistant at the University of Wisconsin School of Journalism & Mass Communication in Madison.

His weekly television column on the Toronto-based entertainment site WILDsound is currently on hiatus makes somebody reliable on the Palestinian right of return? nableezy - 09:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

1. You are the only 1 here who has made 3 reverts (very close to a 3RR), and it takes two to edit-war, so if you're fair, you'll report yourself along with me. ("A hypocrite is something that is hard for me not to call out." nableezy - 19:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Well, we share 1 thing in common. ;) ) You might also wanna read: Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_to_"no_consensus" & note that it's better to mark my work with rather than revert: Revert_only_when_necessary. But yes, on a technicality you didn't violate the letter of the 1RR.

2. From WP's lede for Political Science: "Political science intersects with other fields; including economics, law, sociology, history, (emphasis added) anthropology, public administration, public policy, national politics, international relations, comparative politics, psychology, political organization, and political theory." Also, "Mideast History" is only 1 of many peripheral issues pertaining to the primarily _political_ topics that I'm citing Bard as a source for, and he is recognized as an expert in the Mideast Conflict (in the related HISTORY) by the numerous & wide-ranging credible third parties including: click here, as well as in "iii" and "i" above, who also cite him regarding the HISTORY of the region, including but not limited to the history that's related to the Mideast Conflict.

3. My last post already cited WP:RS for WHY his credentials don't make him subject to WP:SPS: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article (emph added) whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"--note that the topic of this article is primarily political, but even if you wanna argue that it's primarily Mideast History, he still meets the above requirements b/c he's published by third-parties on many topics related to the Mideast Conflict, including the region's HISTORY as well as its politics. Also, Myths & Facts is NOT self-published (as AICE is a group, not 1 man Mitch Bard) -- certainly no more "self" published than many other websites that this article cited, as they are publishing (usually WITHOUT Bard's academic credentials nor citing their sources as Bard laboriously does) an article written by 1 of their members--just as Mitch Bard is an AICE member.

4. My apologies for hastily getting the wrong Mitchell Bard on ONE source, Huff Post... the political left like PBS & LA Times still recognize him -- despite that his political stances disagree with many of their viewers/readers.

I hope that we can just leave it here until 3rd parties add their commentary -- because maybe no one else will want to read what the dispute is about if this gets longer, and we've both had 2 chances to collect our thoughts & make our most important points for now.

JH Robbins

72.48.252.105 (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Kindly remove the RFC tag, this is not a properly formatted RFC. I did indeed revert 3 times over 28 hours, and twice in 14 hours. I did not however violate the 1RR, though Ill leave it as an exercise in reading comprehension for you to figure out why. One thing Ill never understand about you and your fellow warriors for the cause is that when somebody challenges some garbage source you bring, why dont you just look for better sources? As far as we've both had 2 chances to collect our thoughts & make our most important points for now, are you being serious or trying to get a laugh? And I didnt revert due to no consensus, please dont do that. I dont appreciate my clearly worded objections being distorted. I reverted due to you repeatedly placing an unreliable source into an "encyclopedia article". nableezy - 20:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

1. I acknowledged above that you didn't violate 1RR on a technicality (speaking of reading comprehension...). But I still assert that your reverts violate Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_to_"no_consensus"; I suggest you read that page & let me know if you have an excuse for why you've reverted, in violation of the principles expressed on that page. :::2. You keep asserting that this is an "unreliable" source to obtain facts from, yet you've never provided any facts of your own to PROVE him an unreliable source; don't you know this is the diff between making an accusation, and proving an accusation? (Instead you've resorted to using subjective crybaby insults such as baselessly --i.e. without supporting facts-- calling Dr. Bard a "garbage" source. I could say you're a "garbage" source right back, but instead, to PROVE my assertions, I've pointed out the sections of WP:RS which make Bard a valid source, and point out below that just-as-biased sources were used in this article in the same CONTEXT as I'm using Bard as a source.) I'm not exactly a "warrior for any cause" as several editors have accused you of being (but that's more rehashing of nonsene, so getting back to the main dispute here...), but when Bard is cited in the CONTEXT of this page's sections which resemble the common WP writing-style of: "The proponents hold that...XYZ, and their opposition holds that...ABC" which, per section 4.7 of WP:RS, is SUPPOSED to include citations from POV sources (and this article & countless others already DO include many POV sources besides Bard/JVL), and this writing style therefore makes my references to Bard's work conform to WP:RS; so why are you stubbornly denying these facts ONLY for this one source which opposes your PERSONAL pov? It's openly acknowledged in WP's guidelines that having a POV doesn't make a source non-RS, so long as any opinionated/controversial/etc statements are denoted to the reader as being from a biased source. ~JH Robbins

• Comment: Myths and Facts is a highly unreliable piece of propaganda. There's no way it could be used on Wikipedia for statement of fact, whether attributed or not. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you have FACT-BASED reasons why [JVL] would violate WP:RS, or is this simply "Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it"? (JVL is being cited for the pro-Israel side within the writing-style of "The proponents hold that...XYZ, and their opposition holds that...ABC" -- so we are NOT claiming it's a neutral source but WP:RS section 4.7 allows for this.) Many websites cited in this article --and in WP overall-- are "propaganda" sites; that, alone, does not violate WP:RS (per section 4.7 of WP:RS). If you accuse JVL of being (factually) unreliable, please prove your own arguments that are (factually) reliable, e.g. by citing examples of "Myth & Facts" getting commonly-accepted facts wrong. ~JH Robbins
  • Frederico, I also notice that you're often accused of having an anti-Israel slant on your Talk page & of being an over-zealous reverter of others' additions. In all of your 1st 3 disputes on your Talk page, you have a habit of accusing that those who disagree w/you are all "propagandists," typically without offering any more factually-based critiques than that. You finally capitulated to an editor who told you, "you're confusing a potentially biased source with an unreliable source," but appear to be repeating this same confusion between "bias" issues & "reliability" issues 2 years later, for the reasons pointed out in my last paragraph. ~JH Robbins

• Comment This is not an issue of rs, but of neutrality. Bard's book is certainly a reliable source for his opinions, but the issue is the degree of weight they should be given. We need to establish this through secondary sources. TFD (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, and JVL is being cited for the pro-Israel side within the writing-style of "The proponents hold that...XYZ, and their opposition holds that...ABC" -- so it's not being claimed that JVL is a neutral source but WP:RS section 4.7 allows for this & it's consistent with the way this article (and in WP overall) cites such sources. ~JH Robbins
  • I'm not sure if you can answer, but I wonder why is this JVL source is being challenged on WP:RS, yet other openly- and self-admittedly biased/POV sources are in this article, mostly anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian I must note (which don't even have nearly the credentials & frequent citations/ref's as used by the JVL "Myth & Facts" author) and they've not been excised/reverted out of this article on the same grounds by Nableezy or others? (We'll also be left with barely any article if charges of "bias" alone are equally applied to all the sources in this article. I try to merely cite those sources by acknowledging any biased/opinionated/controversial statements to the reader in accord with section 4.7 of WP:RS--not by completely excising some POV sources & leaving in the other openly/admittedly POV sources.) ~JH Robbins

• Comment. Myths and Facts is not wp:rs (and highly not neutral). It is a propaganda book that claims answering to Myths in giving the Facts behind but in practice, the answers that are given are biaised and don't use sources properly. The purpose is not hidden. This is also a tertiary sources in a field where there are numerous secondary sources. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Myths and Facts often cites primary sources, per WP's own definition of a "secondary source". Please explain what you mean by it not "using sources properly" & how the other sources cited in this article do so "properly" i.e. in a way better than how Myths and Facts has cited each source? (if anything, most sources used herein aren't nearly as well-cites as Myths and Facts) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.252.105 (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I would support using the source for noting opinions. Bard is not specifically educated in this field, but he is the executive director of the Jewish Virtual Library, and has been actively involved in discussion of Middle East policy. The IP's specific changes were not appropriate for several reasons, but this source is reliable for noting what a major figure on this subject believes. To that effect, the discussion should be over the content and whether the additions are giving due or undue weight to the opinions of this single figure.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I don't get what's being asked by this RfC, but OP is wrong on WP policy. Nableezy's opinion about the expertise of the author is neither here nor there, and source reliability is not a function of neutrality. The Editorial Voice (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Responding to RFC as an independent editor. This article is seriously lacking. It needs radical improvement. Simply by creating headings of 'supporters views' and 'objectors views' turns what should be an encyclopeadic article into an opinion piece. Adding a section on Jewish exodus from Arab countries which is obviously not relevant unnecessarily provocative. This article should be properly restructured setting out the refugee position, UN position, Israeli position. Also, the quality of the article would be improved by including international law and international relations content. Input from an editor with an academic background in International Relations or International Law should be sought to edit the final article. Isthisuseful (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)