Talk:Palestinian refugees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Glaring error[edit]

""During the 1948 Palestine War, 711,000 out of around 900,000 Palestine Arabs fled or were expelled from the territories that became the State of Israel.[1] The causes and responsibilities of the exodus are a matter of controversy among historians and commentators of the conflict.[19]"""


There were only about 400,000 Palestinians in the territory that would become Israel in 1947. Most of the refugees, about two-thirds, were "Internally displaced" from one part of 'Palestine' to what would become another. NOT from the territories that became Israel. - -

UNSCOP's population estimates for the land that was allocated to the Jewish state was: (1947) Jewish: 498,000 (55%) Non-Jewish: 407,000 (45%)

- - -

Mitchel Bard, Jewish Virtual Library: "...The borders of the Jewish State were arranged with no consideration of security; hence, the new state’s frontiers were virtually indefensible. Overall, the Jewish State was to be comprised of roughly 5,500 square miles (about 55% of Palestine), and the Population was to be 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs...."

- - -

Benny Morris: - _

"....The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became "refugees" - and I put the term in inverted commas, as two-thirds of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee)..."

- -   

So there were Never even "900,000" in the "territory that became Israel", but app 400,000.

2/3 of the 600k-900k overall total went from one part of 'palestine' to another. (ie, WB to Gaza) Probably only 250,000 of the refugees were "from the territory that would become Israel". And widely agreed app 130k-160k remained in Israel. The kernel of the current 1.3 million.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you proposing an edit to the article? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- - Yes, absolutely, I am proposing an edit. I would gladly let some writing pro do it, but would give it a shot if you like as it would be a short, maybe medium size, paragraph and/or addition to/modification-of the current one. I would post it here for approval. Thank you -

PS: footnote [1] from which the error apparently comes, is a 'book' worth of text. I suspect an error in that report (rather than the wiki writer) being the use of "Israel" instead of the WHOLE territory that was to become BOTH Israel and Palestine. That's the only way that the refugee Total could be confused with the lesser PART that was from "the territory to become Israel" -

again marc,

I don't think that anyone edits professionally, so you're as welcome to suggest a wording as is anyone else ; ) --Dailycare (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

The Mitchell Bard source cited gives a figure of 1.2 million Arabs vs. 600,000 Jews at the time of the 1947 partition, page 32. I'm unclear on what the the 538K v 398K number is based. Huskerdru (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Huskerdru: There are three regions involved in these numbers, very different in dimension and population. In order of increasing size: (1) the region designated by the UN for a Jewish State, (2) the region inside the armistice lines after the 1948 war, (3) the whole of Mandatory Palestine. In order to interpret population figures, the first task is to figure out which region they refer to. Zerotalk 01:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, that makes sense, thank you for the clarification! Huskerdru (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forced Migration Review[edit]

I stumbled across this source from the Forced Migration Review by University of Oxford's Department of International Development (ODID). It's from 2006 but is has about 30 high quality articles covering various aspects of Palestinian displacement. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Very biased and one-sided article, e.g. the section "Israeli view" cites people who question the official Israeli position. No where in the article is mentioned, that no other group of refugees is able to inherit their refugee status to their children, but the Palestinians. -- (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, article does not provide any legal grounds of claimed, in the very first sentence of the article actually, expansion of refugee status to descendants of Palestinian refugees. Would suggest to elaborate on this item. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable source and do it then. There is nothing stopping you. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is, actually. I do no share an opinion that descendants are refugees. So, whoever, claims they are, as the current text states, should provide "reliable source(s)" in support of his opinion not vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The major role played by the Palestinian people's movement[edit]

A neutral representation of history means including all known facts. It seems unreasonable to me to suggest that the Palestinian refugee problem was largely caused by some evil Jewish leaders. Rather, the opposite seems to be true. From the '20s and until today, Arab leaders have not stopped to attack and denounce Israel and its Jewish population. Thus, there is an imbalance here, when one compares the media reports of such attacks and denounciations with what is written here. This people's encyclopedia MUST inform the public about the start and the existence of the Palestinian people's movement. Under Husseini (dubbed 'the Arab Hitler' by the Brits), this organization acted to murder as many Jews as possible in preparation for the Caliphate. I would consider it completely amiss to NOT mention Husseini's name in this context. Firstly, Husseini was, historically, the FOUNDER of the Arab "resistance" (a euphemism for jihad). Secondly, he was the highest leader of the Palestinian Arabs and as such he was the major force tearing the Arab-Jewish society of Palestine apart during the entire period of 1920-1948. -- (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] Are the real Palestinian as a people a subject of identity and historical theft by arabic people? "10th-7th centuries BC: Philistines lose most of their distinctive culture and absorb that of surrounding peoples" and also impossible too identify after that they did not having a nation or soverignty since 7th BC. For more then 2700 years constantly conquered and taken by their neighbour just too mention Jewes, Rome, Byzantium, Mamelucks, Arabs, Persians, Greeks, and many many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the danger of politization[edit]

For reasons of political dispute or disagreement, Paul Kuiper has decided that my relevant contributions on the Jewish refugees and the Palestinian people's movement should be removed as "extreme POV". Paul may politically disagree with the publication of these historical facts, but that alone does not make them "POV". I consider it very relevant to mention the Jewish refugees from the 1948 war, in particular since their number exceeds that of the Palestinian Arab refugees. Also, it can not be denied that the Palestinian people's movement which was founded by Amin al Husseini is fundamentally hateful of Jews and keeps discriminating against them. I think that it is very important to write about the fact of this Palestinian hatred towards Jews, since it provides the motive. In its present form, without my contributions, this article appears to blame Israel for the plight of both the Arabs and the Jews, while it clears the Arabs of all wrongdoing, even though the Arab wrongdoing is very well documented elsewhere on Wikipedia. Come-on, guys, let's get real! Just calling my contribution "POV", so you can eliminate it, without any explanation WHY you think so, is NOT in the spirit of peace, democracy and/or Wikipedia. --Uruandimi (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just returned my additions and I hope that any disagreement can be discussed and resolved here in a friendly manner. Don't just remove things, that is vandalism. Something struck me: in the box on the top right, "Jewish" can not be found among the refugees' religions. Of course, it is noteworthy that in a seemingly political issue over land, one of the parties excludes people who are Jewish. We can continue to ignore this obvious discrimination, or, we can perhaps find that this discrimination lies at the root of the conflict which caused the Palestinian Arabs to become refugees in the first place. --Uruandimi (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on reliable published sources. The verifiability policy for example is mandatory. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with the policies of the project before you edit articles in controversial topic areas. WP:FIVE is a good place to start. Could you also please take the time to read about the discretionary sanctions in place on all articles related to the Arab-Israel conflict. There is a link near the top of this page. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Palestinian movement's discrimination against Jews and its acts of so-called resistance against them (decades before the State of Israel was founded) are extremely verifiable. So is Amin al-Husseini's role in this movement, and, so is the fact that the number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries exceeded that of the Palestinian Arabs. All this is both verifiable and relevant to the topic at hand. What is your real problem? Why do you eliminate my contributions, instead of making changes in them? --Uruandimi (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your contributions because they don't comply with the mandatory policies of the project. If you read the policies of the project, particularly WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV and take care to fully comply with them, there is no policy based reason for anyone to remove your contributions. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This entry must be re-written since it is fraudulent[edit]

This entry must be re-written or immediately removed, since it does not comply with Wikipedia's most basic standards. The dubious term "Palestinian" is used even though this denomination, both as a noun and as an adjective, is fictive, fraudulent and misleading. There is absolutely no evidence that the exclusively non-Jewish national Palestinian identity, as it has been taken for granted in the past four decades, ever existed in history before 1964 (when the Palestine Liberation Organisation was founded). Nor is there any legal precedent for the retro-active imposition of a national identity upon only one group among a population. No exclusively non-Jewish national Palestinian identity existed when the leaders and members of the Arab political movement - who later called themselves "the Palestinians" - fled or were expelled from parts of the British Mandate of Palestine, shortly before or after the sovereign State of Israel was founded there. In order for this entry to comply with Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, NPOV, etc., I suggest to replace the discriminatory, utterly fraudulent denomination "Palestinian(s)" by "Arab(s)". --Uruandimi (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for God's sake. Did you look for any evidence? Consider:
  • Palestinian nationalism, Daoud Kuttab
  • "the emergence of the Palestinian Arab nationalist movement during the British rule (1917-1948)" in Muslih, Muhammad Y. (1989-10). The Origins of Palestinian Nationalism. Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231065092. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • "Indeed, it is apparent that within a few years of the end of the First World War, a well-developed sense of Palestinian identity had already emerged" Khalidi, Rashid (2009). Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness. Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231150750.
While you're welcome to cite and attribute statements that a Palestinian identity did not or does not exist, please refrain from using them in policy arguments. They are neither self-evident nor universally agreed to, and therefore are no basis for policy decisions on Wikipedia.--Carwil (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with Arab nationalism as such, but with the exclusivity that is applied here. To pretend that the Arabs were Palestinians but the Jews were not is to commit history fraud and a hideous act of discrimination. Wikipedia is a science, and we must be able to verify that what we write is true or common. The Palestinian identity which we commonly understand as being exclusively Arab and non-Jewish is neither historically true nor universally common. I will mention just one example but of course many more exist: those thousands of Palestinian Jews who in 1948 were forced to flee from their homes in Jerusalem's Old City, should definitively be included in the term "Palestinian refugees". To exclude them, even decades later, is not only heartless, unbecoming, offensive, unscientific and discriminatory, but also extremely POV. Fortunately, we can set the record straight, right here on Wikipedia. --Uruandimi (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Theory: there's an emerging binary here, created on both sides between Arabs and Jews, or if you like Palestinians and Jews. I have no idea what you mean by an identity "neither historically true nor universally common," and I think most students of nationalism would consider them socially constructed, often in opposition to other groups. That every binary opposition covers up people in an overlap is obvious, and Wikipedia should describe notable entities within these overlaps, including say, the Mizrahim.
Practice: The facts that come out of these distinctions have dominated life in Israel/Palestine since the Mandate period, and cannot be ignored. If Palestinian refugee refers to non-Jewish Arab Palestinians (who have been treated differently by Israeli law as present absentees or as Arabs who cannot return to their homes), there are good historical reasons for that. That is the term is a product of a real history. Our job as editors is not to take apart verbal constructions to find missing components, but to provide encyclopedic content on entities described in reliable sources.
If there are reliable sources discussing Mizrahi refugees from East Jerusalem etc., consider writing about them in Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, and branch out if space becomes a problem.--Carwil (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A distinction between Arabs and Jews is not "emerging" but has always existed. In contrast, never in history was there a "Palestinian" national or tribal identity. Like the Alps or the Great Lakes area, the term "Palestine" refers only to geography. Designed by the Romans, it points to the former homeland of the Children of Israel. Perhaps that's why the Arabs prefer the non-Arabic name of Palestine even though they themselves cannot pronounce it.
Arab leaders have admitted that the "Palestinian identity" refers to a political Arab movement with an agenda, rather than to a historical nation or tribe. This Arab movement is not designed by Husseini and his successors to ever become an independent nation. After 1948, its leaders and members fled to approximately the same areas it was granted for statehood in the UN Partition Plan it had rejected. From those areas, in 1964, it started the Palestinian Liberation Organization to achieve its original goal of ousting the Jews.
Speaking to Western journalists and politicians, the Palestinian movement now suddenly claims to actually covet these areas for a national state, but in Arabic, it still conveys its old agenda, which is something entirely different. From its very acts, one can conclude that it is more interested in obliterating and replacing the Jewish identity to which the land of Israel is connected, than to dwell as a neighbor next to it.
Remember how Arab armies once stole Egypt from the Koptic Christians, Iraq from the Chaldean Christians, Morocco from the Berber people, etc.? Some Arab leaders (Anwar Sadat was one of them, surprisingly) candidly would consider such mundane things as a peace agreement and a Palestinian "identity" just as tools for conquering the land of Israel which they know does not belong to them. Every serious student of history knows that the "Palestinian" identity never formally existed for the reason outlined above (the Alps). There are no "Holy Landers", or "Promised Landers", or "Palestinians", just Arabs and Jews. The bogus "Palestinian" identity serves as a scam which I think rational people at Wikipedia should recognize. We should not treat this fake agenda-driven denomination as if it is science. That's my point. --Uruandimi (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is Palestinians don't exist and should be removed as a term from Wikipedia? Are you really saying this?--Carwil (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against "Palestinian" people. Neither do I object to a discussion of the behind-the-scenes Palestinian movement and its well-documented goals (its warlike Charters) and all of its actual battlefield achievements, none excluded (such as the Munich Olympics). However, while doing so, I think Wikipedia should also somehow point out that this movement's unique identity is possibly fake (it has no history whatsoever prior to 1964) and that it appears to serve as a PR tool to legitimize an ongoing military campaign against the civilian population of Israel. Somehow, it should be fairly noted that this one party, the Palestinian movement, has a rather controversial peace and democracy record, to put it mildly, and has forever been waging wars (amongst itself, and in Jordan, in Lebanon and against Israel). I wish that Wikipedia shall continue to engage in solid and objective science, especially regarding such a disputed topic as this. To me, under the non-conclusive circumstances, that would mean to talk about Arab Palestinian refugees, not just "Palestinian refugees". It would mean to distinguish between the policy-making Palestinian movement, who seem to act off-stage, and the so-called Palestinian civilians who are held in the media spotlight, which is the other way around from Western practice. Then, for fairness sake, mention should be made here of the Jewish (Palestinian and other) refugees whose number and lost possessions are comparatively larger. And of course, science would also mean to talk about Amin al-Husseini's major influence - until today - in shaping the character, agenda, goals and most of the achievements of the Palestinian Arab movement (which includes having no state of its own). That alone would be quite a departure from the current subjective way in which Wikipedia reports about "the Palestinians" who are presented as victim refugees and who seem to have no agenda of their own, almost no leaders and no goals, and whose achievements and the lack thereof (such as no state) seem to have all been caused by a single event more than half a century ago, perpetrated by a single villain called Israel. --Uruandimi (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a forum. Please read WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. The talk page is for discussing changes to this article about Palestinian refugees based on reliable sources that discuss Palestinian refugees. Nothing else. Please try to keep your personal opinions to yourself. They aren't relevant. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charters etc.[edit]

This material is in fact about the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Hamas, and belongs on their page. Further, no one's "internal attitudes … are … governed by … official documents." This material is not about Palestinian refugees, nor do they reflect universal views of Palestinian refugees. Further, the role of the PLO covenant and the Hamas covenant in the politics of these organizations are the subject of extensive debate, which does not belong here per WP:COATRACK. I stated as much in my revert, and need User:Uruandimi to discuss or retract this material:

Attitudes and policies towards Israel
As a result of the division between Fatah and Hamas, the internal attitudes and policies of the Palestinian Arabs towards Israel are now based on and governed by two important official documents:
The yet unchanged PLO covenant, declaring that
  • the Palestinian Arabs claim all the territory of the State of Israel (article 2)
  • the Palestinian Arabs can only liberate Palestine by the armed struggle against Israel (article 9)
  • commando raids are at the core of the Palestinian Arabs' war against Israel (article 10)
  • the Palestinian Arabs must eliminate the Israeli Zionism (article 15)
  • the Palestinian Arabs derive their dignity from the armed liberation struggle (article 17)
  • the Palestinian Arabs' fight against Israel must be seen as an act of self-defense (article 18)
  • the 1947 UN Partition Plan is not valid (article 19)
  • the Jews can have no historic or religious connection to Israel (article 20)
  • Israel threatens the entire world (article 22)
The Hamas articles of faith, which
  • predict the elimination of Israel (introduction)
  • cite passages against the Jews from the Quran (article 7)
  • call the Palestinian Arabs to fight a jihad against Israel (article 13)
  • refer to the antisemitic Protocols of Zion (article 32)
  • warn the Palestinian Arabs that "to leave the circle of conflict with Israel is a major act of treason" (article 32)

Thanks.--Carwil (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carwil, I would find it incomplete and definitely not neutral if somebody should give me information about the plight of, say, the Japanese victims of the recent tsunami, but would not tell me about the attitudes, policies and actions of the Japanese authorities regarding the same disaster. This page is about the Palestinian refugees but it creates the impression that these people have had and still have no leaders, no government and no policy of their own. This is more than strange and I have begun to correct this in a small way. Even including my own additions, this entire page now mentions the term "PLO" just twice; "Palestinian [National] Authority" twice; "Fatah" five times; "Hamas" seven times; but the word "Israel" is used well over than 50 times and the word "refugees" more than 60 times. The Palestinian Arabs - as they are correctly called only in the beginning of the article - turn into "Palestinians" after just one paragraph and they remain refugees throughout the page. Perhaps this is an oversight, caused by many editors working on the creation of a single page, but the Palestinian Arabs have neither been fleeing nor being expelled in recent years. They definitely have their own leadership who grooms and influences them in their attitudes towards Israel, just like any other community in the world is groomed and influenced by its own government. In my view, the conflict should not be presented as if it is between "the Palestinians" and "Israel", but between the representatives of the Palestinian Arabs and the government of Israel. Therefore, it is important to say something about the official position of both parties. If there has been a bias here, or a strange prejudice, I'll be happy to help correct this un-Wikipedia-like situation step by little step. Thank you! --Uruandimi (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uruandimi: the key words of your analogy are "would not tell me about the attitudes, policies and actions of the Japanese authorities regarding the same disaster." The article already has the Palestinian view regarding refugees and their rights. The views of the Fatah, Hamas, and other actors regarding Palestinian refugees are already included in the article. However, you are engaged in an attempt to bring in all kinds of extraneous information, much of which is subject to debate as to its current relevance and its representativeness for the PLO itself (see Palestinian_National_Covenant), let alone Palestinians as a whole or Palestinian refugees in particular. If you want to discuss the political views of Palestinian refugees, most of whom cannot take part in PA elections, look for research on the topic, and don't quote documents written decades ago.
To switch contexts for a moment, what you are doing is the equivalent of saying Americans (now or in the 1840s, say) believe that Native Americans are "merciless Indian savages" as stated in their Declaration of Independence. And inserting said "belief" into an article about American expatriates in Canada. This is just poor documentation, as well as POV pushing.--Carwil (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carwil, to just focus on the Palestinian Arab's "rights" vs. Israel is way too narrow and definitely not neutral. What about human rights within their own community? What about freedom of the press? Women's rights? Freedom of religion? Children's rights? It can not be blamed on Israel that the Palestinian Arabs are forced by government policy to maintain their miserable refugee status sixty years after they first got it. Sometimes, leaders of a community (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, to name a few) take decisions which go absolutely counter to the interests of their own constituency and of other nations as well. In the case of the Palestinian Arabs (Amin al-Husseini, Yasser Arafat), the question "did our government act responsibly?" is not on the table. It is asked in every community around the world, except with the Palestinian Arabs. This is strange and may indicate that (a) Arab Palestinian criticism of their leaders' motives is simply not allowed, and/or (b) the Palestinian Arab leader's agenda must remain a secret because their war is still going on. Here on Wikipedia, however, there is no war against Israel. We do not blame Israel. That is for judges only, and even they sometimes err (Goldstone). Right now, as we speak, the Covenant and the Charter are being implemented as Palestinian Arab policy. These documents, or parts thereof, are taught in the schools in the refugee camps and broadcast on television. People know them by heart and think that they actually reflect the truth. I think that relevant, verifiable clauses may and must be mentioned when we speak about the Palestinian Arabs. Just like we do it with other communities. Otherwise, we would not be objective, or neutral. What do you think? --Uruandimi (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just a reminder, this article is about Palestinian refugees, not the Palestinian Authority or Palestinians (it's grating that you can't acknowledge that a group with that name is real, but let's leave that aside…). What we do on such a page is to place reliable sources about that specific topic. To repeat myself a bit: If you want to discuss the political views of Palestinian refugees, most of whom cannot take part in PA elections, look for research on the topic, and don't quote documents written decades ago.
Further, it's not enough to quote one document taught in schools and apply it to "the views of the Palestinian refugees" as some kind of template. It is also clear, for instance, that UNRWA schools teach a curriculum that includes national curriculum standards[1] and material on human rights.[2] However, it would be equally obnoxious an example of WP:COATRACK to include quotations from the Universal Declaration on Human Rights as part of this article as it is to include selected quotes from these charters. All these things might be interesting in UNRWA education policy if in fact reliable sources place them there. However, putting them here is a way leading the article towards highly peripheral issues.
When you say "I think that relevant, verifiable clauses may and must be mentioned when we speak about the Palestinian Arabs. Just like we do it with other communities," who exactly are you talking about? --Carwil (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carwil, I think it is dishonest (and very counter-productive) to disconnect the refugees from their larger identity as Palestinian Arabs. Also, it is not Israel's fault that most of the refugees cannot participate in PA elections. The PLO Covenant is current policy, not because I say so but simply because it is. Its principal arguments have been taught in schools forever - indeed that's how "templates" get put over an entire population (there are other examples of this in history and of course a similar process is happening in our schools as well). In my humble opinion, the negative Palestinian Arab attitudes and policies towards Israel and the Jews are not "peripheral" but rather central to their situation as refugees. Personally, I think that's how they got to be refugees in the first place. When we speak about Americans, it is perfectly fine to quote from the Constitution in order to make a point. Wikipedia must relate to the refugees in the same dignified way and take their government policy papers equally seriously. Let's include them on the page about the refugees to whom these policies apply on a daily basis. --Uruandimi (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the reliable sources connecting this material to Palestinian refugees? Please cite them.
Right now, we have a disconnected document placed as if it says something about the "views" of all Palestinian refugees, not really different than writing, "American expatriates are warlike (ref: The Star-Spangled Banner), anti-Indian (ref: United States Declaration of Independence) and believe in God (reference: Pledge of Allegiance). This violates WP:RS and is unencyclopedic. Reliably source it or drop it.--Carwil (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the relevancy of Palestinian Arab policy[edit]

moved from my talk pageSean.hoyland - talk 09:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sean, it may seem that "People are getting less smart every day" but I think that the observation itself points in the opposite direction. You have just removed my text on Palestinian Arab policies, without first discussing this with me. I find this rather rude and in contrast with you, I think the official Palestinian Arab policies are very relevant. For the past sixty years, the refugees have been learning the PLO Covenant in their schools, they have heard it on their TV sets and in their mosques. They think that these policies are actually true and are willing to act on them. They do not dare criticize these policy statements, that is the scary part. Are the Palestinian Arabs "getting less smart every day"? I don't know, but I think that Wikipedia is not obliged in any way to believe what the PLO Covenant has been saying for all this time. It is Wikipedia's task not to adopt any political position towards Israel, but to neutrally and objectively report on people's common opinions and policies, instead of brushing them under the carpet. Soon, I will wish to return the segment you have removed, but you can do that too. Greetings! --Uruandimi (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about what you think or I think. We don't matter. We are not reliable sources. The only thing that matters is what reliables sources have to say about Palestinian refugees and what reliable sources think is relevant to the subject of the article. So, without reliable sources connecting the content to the subject there is no policy based reason for the presence of the content in the article and there is nothing to discuss concerning its removal. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal thought that the PLO Covenant would not be a reliable, verifiable source is preposterous. Indeed, your personal opinion does not matter here. The Palestinian Arabs have always had leaders, from the get-go back in the '20s of last century when they were verifiably advised by Amin al-Husseini to begin murdering Jews. It is also perfectly legitimate to present the current Palestinian Arab leaders' influential positions towards Israel and the Jews, in particular when these official positions have long been kept hidden. Israel's name is mentioned more than fifty times on this page about the Palestinian Arabs. In view of the verifiable Arab Palestinian policies, the implied message that Israel is solely responsible, let alone to blame, for the plight of the refugees, is unbecoming. Moreover, it is a political implied message, far from neutral or objective! Let's set this Wikipedia page straight, bit by bit, as it is our mandate. --Uruandimi (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing about the reliability of the PLO Covenant. I am going to repeat myself. Without reliable sources connecting the content (you want to add) to the subject of the article, Palestinian refugees, there is no policy based reason for the presence of the content in the article and there is nothing to discuss. If an article is about X and you want to add content about how Y is relevant/important/connected to X, you need a reliable source that describes and discusses how Y is relevant/important/connected to X. It is as simple as that. The connection needs to be made by a reliable source, not me and not you. Please read WP:COATRACK. Editor's personal views of the subject aren't relevant here on this talk page. The talk page is for proposing changes to the article based on what reliable sources have to say about Palestinian refugees. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no scientific need to dissociate the Arab Palestinians from their own policies. If the PLO Convenant weren't a true illustration of the Palestinian Arabs' own attitude towards Israel, they themselves would have refuted it already. This public, legally valid government document is available to all, so no agreement or permission should be needed to include it on a Wikipedia page about the Palestinian Arabs. From this paper, one can learn about their actual attitudes and policies towards Israel, the country whom they blame for expelling them, more than sixty years ago. This official document is very informative, relevant, reliable and verifiable for understanding the Palestinian Arabs and the refugee issue - beyond mere opinions or hearsay - so let's put it back up in the Wikipedia spirit of objectivity, neutrality and courage. --Uruandimi (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a set of policies that govern article content. You have been provided with links to the important policies. Editors are required to comply with them. If you cannot comply with them, Wikipedia isn't for you. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sean, COATRACK is considered an essay. It is not a WP guideline or policy. Rather, I think you are 'coatracking' the rules and regulations of WP here, in order to exclude a relevant contribution to the WP page on Palestinian refugees. Like every community in the world, the Palestinian Arabs recognize and adhere to a specific set of attitudes, policies, religions, languages, etc., to be counted as members of their community. For today's community of refugees to be related to the community of Arab Palestinians prior to its flight or expulsion, this community must still adhere to roughly the same attitudes and policies etc. their ancestors and predecessors had. Therefore, it is extremely relevant to report on these attitudes and policies at the WP Palestinian refugee page. --Uruandimi (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of how not to engage in coat-racking material on this page.

  1. Find a reliable source like Milton-Edwards, Beverley (2009). The Israeli-Palestinian conflict: a people's war. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780415410441.
  2. Use the source to identify an connection between the subject of the page and the issue
"The majority of Palestinian refugees [in Syria] believe in their 'right of return', though were sceptical that the Oslo peace process would deliver a just settlement to their case" (p. 107)
3. Summarize in a neutral way, attributing point of view
Most Palestinian refugees in Syria support the right of return.[insert reference here]

Clear? Simple? Okay, so I'm not going to respond to your political views anymore. Just your sourced edits.--Carwil (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of proof[edit]

Uruandimi states at WP:AE#Statement by Uruandimi:

If people want to continue to prevent a paragraph on the PLO attitudes and policies from being included on this page, they must quote a reliable source which says (1) that there is a difference between the Palestinian refugees and the Palestinian Arabs; (2) that the PLO Covenant does not apply to all the Palestinian Arabs; and (3) that the PLO was not recognized by the Arab League (1964) and 100 nations, the United Nations General Assembly (1974), the EU, Israel and the USA (1993) to solely represent all the Palestinian Arabs.

Uruandimi, it may seem reasonable as a newcomer that arguments like WP:RS are "as good for the goose as they are for the gander," but this is not actually true on Wikipedia. Instead, we need reliable sources that show relevance to included contentious material, not to exclude it. See policy on the burden of proof:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find supporting sources yourself and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; see here for how the BLP policy applies to groups.

On the Charter itself, it's worth noting that the articles being cited here, which have no clear relevance to refugees, were ordered removed by the Palestinian National Council, a body which has a majority of Palestinian refugee representation. However, this is discussed on the page about the Charter, where it belongs.--Carwil (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Palestinian refugee[edit]

The shorthand denomination "Palestinian" is discriminatory and ought to be changed into "Arab Palestinian". The shorthand name conveys the subtle message that "Palestinians" (of whom everybody knows they're definitely not Jewish) are the only legal heirs to the lands of Palestine. That pretense is patently false and in violation of the science of history which teaches that next to Arabs, Jews also have their roots in these grounds (some families never left), even if great numbers of Jews only arrived there at the end of the 19th century. To be sure, the Jewish inhabitants of the modern State of Israel are not going anywhere else. They and their forebears have complied with all the requirements of the 1920 San Remo Conference which granted them legal permission to settle the lands of Palestine. Both the Jewish presence and the State of Israel are definitely legit. Whereas the shorthand expression "Palestinians" questions the Jews' presence and Israel's legitimacy, in contrast, the full "Arab Palestinians" asserts the idea that Arabs and Jews can share these lands, or have adjacent states. I propose to cleanse Wikipedia of this confusion. Let us begin right here and change the name of this page into "Arab Palestinian refugee". --Uruandimi (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This fails WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV and probably a couple other policies I can't think of right now. "I propose to cleanse Wikipedia of this confusion." is POV-pushing, and is not welcome on wikipedia, much less in an area under arbitration for contentious editing. Please don't.--Carwil (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carwil, you did not relate to the perhaps discriminatory and offensive nature of the name 'Palestinian'. This is not a small thing. Even today as we speak, like on every single day of the past five or six or seven decades, there is a war going on with, among others, people get expelled from their homes, deadly rockets being fired and children getting killed. The motive of this war is based on the idea that both the State of Israel and the presence of Jews therein are somehow not legitimate. The question who are the 'true' Palestinians, i.e., which party may inherit the land after the fall of the Ottoman empire, has not yet been resolved. That's why I used the admittedly strong terms 'confusion' and 'cleanse'. OK, Wikipedia may not take people's name away from them, but it can truthfully and verifiably report to its users that a particular name is being used as a rallying call and a weapon in a lethal conflict. We can discuss this further, but to not truthfully report on the meaning and purpose of this name would be un-encyclopedic. --Uruandimi (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. If you want to live in a world where the people currently called Palestinians are not called Palestinians, and instead others are recognized as "the 'true' Palestinians [who] may inherit the land after the fall of the Ottoman empire," I can imagine a number of things you could do. However, one place not to do so is Wikipedia, where we use policies like WP:COMMONNAME to decide what subjects are covered with which topic.
Wikipedia is about verifiability rather than truth. It also attributes opinions like "a particular name is being used as a rallying call and a weapon in a lethal conflict." And it maintains narrowly focused articles about the topic at hand. In this case, an article about Palestinian refugees is not the place for a debate about the term Palestinian.--Carwil (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny. Jews have the right of return to Israel for religious or ethnic (and sometimes cultural if they converted but where not descended of them) to Israel even though they may have never lived there and spent their entire lives in another nation. Meanwhile you tell people who actually grew up in these villages they are not allowed back and the decedents who had grandparents and parents who lived here can't go back, meanwhile Jews can say well my ancestor lived here 2000 years ago and can. Furthermore let's all just start tracing our roots to Africa and claim that land. Sigh. Do you see why there is more than one side? because the right of return allows some level of recognition that not only do the Jews have people who lived there but so do the Palestinians and both want to go back because their ancestors lived there, but only one can. To add to it people claim the Jews have a right but Palestinians don't since their ancestors moved in after the Jews left. Which makes no sense, because the concept of sovereignty and human rights is a modern era invention, back than the Romans kicked Jews out and others came and took what was left. Either you try to see both points of view and claims or you just pick one, railroad the other and continue division and POV in writing. While I speak of Palestinians it is not lost on me that Jews live there too now, but there is no reason why two groups of humans can't live there. After all, unlike animals we can talk, plan, cooperate, and think using a level of intelligence unrivaled, so how about we not get divided over trivial crap that makes us as stupid as cavemen while pretending we are civilized for falling into Human tribalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's in a name? About the new meaning of the name 'Palestinian'[edit]

"Ever since 1964, when the PLO was founded, the denomination 'Palestinian' commonly applies to an Arab, non-Jewish community. However, this is a reversal of the previous custom. During the British Mandate (1917-1948), all inhabitants could actually be viewed as Palestinians regardless of their background or religion, but in daily practice this name applied almost exclusively to Jews. Evidence of this can be found in back-issues of The Palestine Post, at the time a widely read English-language daily newspaper founded by Jewish journalist Gershon Agron in 1932, which changed its name to The Jerusalem Post in 1950. For exaple, on December 4, 1939, the Palestine Post reported on the increased yearly amount of alcohol consumed by Palestinians. Obviously, the newspaper does not refer here to the predominantly Muslim Arabs, but to the Jewish inhabitants of Mandate-era Palestine."

I had wanted to post the above, originally with external url links to both the Palestine Post and its article. However, WP does not accept these links, citing that they are 'blacklisted'. Are you kidding me - an entire newspaper blacklisted? Anybody can find this Palestine Post article titled 'Palestinians drink more' (and many others about the Palestinians of that time) on the internet - outside of WP. Perhaps I am making a mistake here. Can somebody assist me in this? I do have sources for the paragraph I wish to add, but of course this does not help when such sources are not allowed. --Uruandimi (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re the blacklist: I had never heard of it before this, but it appears to an anti-spam mechanism used in response to widespread reposting of links to non-informative websites. I have no idea why the Palestine Post content should be connected to it. That seems unfortunate.
However, since the Palestine Post is a newspaper, its web home is not essential to citing it on Wikipedia. You could quote enough of the cited material in between two ref tags and follow it with the citation. That doesn't solve the content-related problems I've discussed below however.--Carwil (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing of this page[edit]

Uruandimi, this is essay-style material that does not mention Palestinian refugees and is unsupported by reliable sources (articles on pre-1948 drinking do not support the larger opinion about "what's in a name?" It also states the opinion of some people (including perhaps yourself) using the narrative voice of Wikipedia, rather than attributing those opinions to significant figures as discussed at WP:NPOV. It thus has exactly the same problems discussed above with your earlier edits. You appear to be deliberately ignoring the suggestions of other editors and repeatedly engaging in tendentious editing that will not lead to changes in the page. Please take this seriously and attempt to respect Wikipedia policies.--Carwil (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content on the meaning of "Palestinian"[edit]

The meaning of "Palestinian" is discussed at Palestinian people which says (on the issue of Jews and Palestinians):

Jews made up part of the population of Palestine prior to the creation of the State of Israel, but today rarely identify as "Palestinian".
Recent genetic research has suggested that Arabs as an ethnic group are closely related to Jews and represent "descendants of a core population that lived in the region,"[17] largely predating Muslim conquest.
Following the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel, the use and application of the terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian" by and to Palestinian Jews largely dropped from use. For example, the English-language newspaper The Palestine Post, founded by Jews in 1932, changed its name in 1950 to The Jerusalem Post. Jews in Israel and the West Bank today generally identify as Israelis.

If you wish to amplify this information with factual statements or attributed statements of opinion, you should do so there.--Carwil (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carwil, the entry you quote is tendentious and agenda-driven. It seems to me that its authors try to prove that Arabs are "related" to the Jews in order to coatrack/obfuscate/belittle their religious hatred towards them. Otherwise, they would have also, in the same entry, given an explanation why Arabs and Jews have separated. They don't give such an explanation, because their whole 'genetic research' is just meant as a diversion in the first place. This malevolent practice impacts the Palestinian refugee page and vise versa. In my opinion, hidden tendencies and agendas do not belong in WP. It does not matter where editors begin to weed them out. --Uruandimi (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is, unlike your text, based on reliable sources and relevant to the subjec of the article in which it is discussed. If you have contradictory material, please sort it out on Palestinian people. Best, --Carwil (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The science of true motives exists, but it is as yet not recognized. Therefore, my references to it are not accepted here, if they are noticed at all. In my view, the 'Palestinian people' as such would make a prime candidate for agenda research if people are interested and when such a science becomes widely available. Meanwhile, I can only try to point out where on its Palestinian refugee page WP fails miserably on its own commitment to neutrality. Best, --Uruandimi (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordanian annexation and bestowing of citizenship to West Bank Arabs[edit]

The article mentions that when Jordan annexed the West Bank in '48, most Arabs in the West Bank were given citizenship. So how does this explain how there are at least 2 million stateless Palestinians in the West Bank currently. I know recent reports have said that Jordan has begun revoking citizenship,but that is not happening at the magnitude needed to create the millions of stateless West Bank Palestinians there are today. So at what point did all these Palestinians lose their Jordanian citizenship? Or was it not passed on to progeny? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in 1988, Jordan decided to disengage from the west bank. depriving west bankers of their citizenship. jordan did that in order to opened the way for the establishment of palestinian political entity. this can be found in "Palestinians and Jordanians: A Crisis of Identity" an article by Laurie A. Brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

number of Palestinians in lebanon[edit]

  • 400,000 is not the accurate number,it's the number of the registered refugees(the actual number is way much higher)
  • it's not true that the refugees "need a special permit to leave their refugee camps"(some palestinians live and work outside their camps)
  • the lebanon related-section of the article needs to be rewritten(does not mention anything about naher el bared and many other conflicts) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding this edit which oddly asserts that WND may be used if accurately sourced and for specific facts or opinions found there based on "many" discussion at RS/N. You cannot use unreliable sources as reliable "for their own views", if a source is not reliable it may not be cited. WND is not a reliable source and its use in an article that has actual quality sources about, books published by university presses and peer reviewed journal articles, is asinine. Add to the fact that Farrah's view is absurd and directly contradicted by countless high quality sources and you get a rather obvious instance of a user attempting to side step the reliable source requirement for Wikipedia content. This is not much better than citing material to Stormfront in the article Israel. Users should be ashamed of themselves when they put such crap into articles. nableezy - 18:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pressed enter while typing the edit summary of my revert, however the point is that there are as Nableezy writes high-quality sources that discuss these matters so there's no need to rely on "WorldNetDaily", which isn't a serious source and the author used here isn't an established expert in the field. --Dailycare (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UNGA res 194 did not use the UNRWA definition of refugees[edit]

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, under which the Palestinians claim refugee rights, was adopted 11t Dec 1948, 12 months before UNRWA was established later 8th Dec 1949. Secondary Sources citing UNRWA figures in relationship to UNGA res 194, are unreliable on the point.

Primary Source Document: For the purpose of finding accurate Secondary Sources (

Secondary Source: [1] ... pages=38, 19

Suggestion: Remove all unreliable content ... talknic (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having received no objections since 17:19, 28 October 2011 ...made changes to information relevant to UNGA res 194, (which was already mentioned) Clarified UNRWA mandate re final status ... talknic (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTING: After having sought opinion and seen NO RESPONSE AT ALL for almost 3 weeks, I clarified the definition of refugee used by the drafters of UNGA res 194, according to the UN. Without discussion, Jolinksi does a wholesale revert, removing the ONLY reference in the article to the actual UN definition of Palestinian Refugee used in 1948, which BTW, included Jewish refugees.
the reason given for the revert "The present version, resulting from edits by Talknic, appears to be some sort of legal argument about what various UN resolutions say." You haven't even bothered to read the sources? AMAZING!!!
"I think it makes this a very difficult article to read for somebody who comes here looking for information about "Palestinian refugees" So you remove the ONLY reference to the UN definition in 1948. Very clever. Removing UN definition used in 1948. Pivotal to understanding the issue of Palestinian refugees.
"The old version starts, appropriately, with a clear explanation of what this article talks about" The old version leads people to believe the UNRWA definition is the definition covering RoR etc. UNRWA says it isn't! It's in the Q&A section on the UNRWA site. The UN tells us what the definition was before UNRWA came into existence ... talknic (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is this article supposed to be about?[edit]

The present version, resulting from edits by Talknic, appears to be some sort of legal argument about what various UN resolutions say. I think it makes this a very difficult article to read for somebody who comes here looking for information about "Palestinian refugees". The old version starts, appropriately, with a clear explanation of what this article talks about. Jsolinsky (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am restoring the previous version. If there are important facts which would be lost in this process, then we should discuss them and/or restore them. But dense legal discussions surely do NOT belong in the lede before we have even explained what this article is about. Jsolinsky (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"..dense legal discussions surely do NOT belong in the lede" Er... the UNRWA definition is in the lede of your restored version. It's mentioned FOUR times, yet it is NOT the definition used by the UN in 1948. No other version is mentioned? Why not? ... talknic (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV in the lede UNRWA defintition of a refugee is mentioned four times. UNRWA's definition does not cover final status[edit]

No other definition is mentioned. Jolinski demands the removal of the UN definition used in 1948 [3] amongst other information. Preferring the misinformation carried by the current version and by which readers might get the impression the UNRWA numbers are for RoR to Israel.

The UNRWA definition does not cover final status. Readers should be afforded this knowledge at the outset, in the lede and be given the UN definition used in 1948, which included Jewish refugees from Palestine [2] ... 13:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't demand the removal of anything. I just want the article to provide a clear answer to somebody who is looking at it for the first time. Hitting them over the head with legalese does not accomplish that. If there is a dispute over the definition of refugee, or some particular consequence that follows from conflicting definitions, then that can be covered intelligibly in the body of the article. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jsolinsky - "I don't demand the removal of anything" You bulk reverted, unnecessarily.
"I just want the article to provide a clear answer to somebody who is looking at it for the first time. " The UN Statement on the definition used in 1948 belongs in the lede, not the numerous mentions of the UNRWA definition, which didn't exist in 1948 and which do not form the basis of the Palestinians claims under UNGA res 194 ... talknic (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fundamentally opposed to that, as long as it can be accomplished in a manner that has the net effect of improving the article.
That said, I do not see why we should prefer (or not prefer), the 1948 definition. This article is not specifically about UNGA res 194 which is covered here: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194
The most important thing is that first time readers quickly understand what this article is about. I'd only oppose starting off with the 194 definition if it is less compatible with that goal than the alternatives. Jsolinsky (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jsolinsky - The UNRWA definition does not extend to the contentious issues surrounding RoR, repatriation, compensation. Yet the UNRWA definition has FOUR instances in the Lede, obviously a purposeful attempt to lead the reader into believing UNRWA definition is the basis for the Palestinian claims. It isn't. Leaving it there, knowing it isn't factual, is LYING, propaganda.
There's no other definition in the lede. Either the remove the numerous references to UNRWA from the Lede/pruned down or give equal weight to the definition which is relevant to RoR, repatriation, compensation ... talknic (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its easy for me to support removals as long as what remains clearly and articulately explains what this article is about. Go for it. [[User:|Jsolinsky]] (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jsolinsky - A) What the article is about is in the lede. B) You reverted RS information from the rest of the Article as well, where it belonged.
At the moment the Article Lede speaks ONLY of UNRWA definitions contrary to NPOV. It falsely claims there was no definition of a refugee and gives no source for the statement. No where in the article does it refer to the definition accepted in 1948 by the drafters of resolution 194 according to the UN.
"Go for it" I did. Addressing the issues with RS Secondary Sources defining a Palestinian refugee 1948 and; moved the UNRWA material from the lead to UNRWA. It was balanced, it was informative. You reverted to an unsubstantiated, biased version, conveying only the UNRWA definition which is quite irrelevant to final status or the Palestinians claims under UNGA res 194 ... talknic (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel this way. For what its worth, I did spend more than 20 minutes looking at the individual changes you made. I found them very confusing (and was not helped by the fact that some reordering confused the wikipedia compare changes view). Ultimately I thought it made the article significantly worse, and couldn't find an easy way to do just a partial revert. Jsolinsky (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your reason for reverting was this "As discussed, changes make the article significantly less readable" Where was it discussed? Changes actually made the article significantly more informative and accurate. This discussion BTW is NPOV in the Lede.
"was not helped by the fact that some reordering confused the wikipedia compare changes view" - so re-write the Wikipedia source code. It has nothing to do with the quality of the information I provided or where I put it.
NPOV there is only mention of one definition in the Lede. It is NOT the definition effecting contentious issues. In fact, it has NOTHING to do with the contentious issues ... talknic (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no response from the only other participant in this NPOV discussion and; taking into consideration Jsolinsky's reason for reverting was not actually discussed in Talk. There was no legal argument in the Lede and Jsolinsky reverted from version that was no less readable than what stands now. "some reordering confused the wikipedia compare changes view" is not a valid reason for reversion.
To that end I intend to manually restore. Any of the usual last minute objections? ... talknic (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you return the article to a version which reads worse than the current article, I will probably revert. If you make the change in a way which improves clarity, I will applaud. Jsolinsky (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jsolinsky - The article Lede is currently presenting only the UNRWA definition. NOPV and chronologically impossible. It says there was no definition. The UN itself tells us the definition the drafters of UNGA res 194 used. It is impossible for UNGA res 194 to be based on a definition that didn't exist when UNGA Res 194 was drafted. How 'worse' can it get?
The definition used by the drafters of UNGA Res 194, according to the UN itself, is accurately reflected in the Secondary Source. It is the definition used by the drafters of UNGA res 194, not a legal argument.
Clarity would be informing readers of the actual situation. UNGA Res 194 is the basis of the Palestinians claims and the Palestinians claims are the basis of Israel's objections. Not the UNRWA definition.
The legal argument, including the chronologically impossible notion that the UNRWA definition is the basis for RoR via UNGA Res 194, should be in a separate section for legal argument, where I'd be more than happy to help present both POVs. I intend to restore and we can improve readability significantly from there. There is no need to wholesale revert without a very solid reason ... talknic (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. I'll see what I can do. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the lede should provide a clear and succinct explanation of what a Palestinian refugee is. The details of particular resolutions (which already have their own web pages) should probably be left to the main body (unless the plain definition of a Palestinian refugee happens to coincide with one of the resolutions), or at the very least, only be mentioned in brief. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jsolinsky - Just to be clear, the lede did provide a clear and succinct explanation of what a Palestinian refugee was. You reverted it based on nonsense ... talknic (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, repeatedly asserting counterfactuals is a waste of time. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jsolinsky - Whole sale reverting is an exercise in counterfactuals ... talknic (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manual restore instituted per the above discussion, pending collaboration on further improvement. New discussion listed tending those improvements ... talknic (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration on Further Improvement[edit]

Suggest: Creating New Section on definition argument using some of the dialogue which we can glean from an old version. Replacement of any Primary Sources. Clean up reference citations etc. ... talknic (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current lede is very problematic. Instead of explaining what Palestinian refugees are, it immediately starts talking about resolution 194.

"The definition for Palestinian refugees or Palestine refugees accepted by the drafters of UNGA Res 194, as confirmed by the UNCCP[3], included Arabs whose normal places of residence was in Israel and Jews who had their homes in Arab Palestine, such as the those from the Jewish quarter of the Old City. UN Resolution 194 was adopted on of 11 December 1948, calling for the return of refugees from the ongoing Arab-Israeli hostilities. It forms the basis of the Palestinian claim for RoR."

Jsolinsky (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jsolinsky - the current lede immediately starts "The definition for Palestinian refugees or Palestine refugees..." You cut and pasted it. It then goes on to tell readers how they are known to be refugees in 1948, according to the drafters of UNGA res 194. It could be improved. Perhaps thus:
//The definition for Palestinian refugees or Palestine refugees accepted in 1948 by the drafters of UNGA Res 194 as confirmed by the UNCCP[3], included Arabs whose normal places of residence was in Israel and Jews such as the those who lost their homes from the Jewish quarter of the Old City and in Arab Palestine during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
It should also mentioned that more refugees were created in subsequent wars ... talknic (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This becomes especially problematic when one realizes that resolution 194 does not even contain a definition for refugees. Jsolinsky (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jsolinsky - That is why I used the source provided at the very start of the article. To inform people before they head off into the jungle of the article ... talknic (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon pop contradiction?[edit]

The first sentence says: "Over 400,000 Palestinian refugees live in Lebanon,"

but one of the later paragraphs says: "There are about 350,000 non-citizen Palestinian refugees in Lebanon."

which seems to contradict the first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionfish0 (talkcontribs) 22:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UNGA res 194 adopted 11 December 1948 // UNRWA established 8 December 1949[edit]

UNGA res 194 adopted 11 December 1948 - UNRWA established 8 December 1949
Any NPOV RS calendar will show December 1948 is 12 months before December 1949!
UNGA res 194 has nothing to do with the UNRWA definition of refugee! talknic (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Lede is misleading. Palestine refugee is NOT the same as Palestinian refugee[edit]

Palestine refugees, those whose normal place of residence was Palestine before May 15th 1948, includes Jewish folk. Palestinian refugees are refugees who're Palestinian.
UNGA res 302, establishing UNRWA, does not have any of these words "Palestinian/s", "Jew/s" or "Arab/s".
UNGA res 194, does not have any of these words "Palestinian/s", "Jew/s" or "Arab/s".
Readers should be informed talknic (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not only that, 194 doesn't define a Palestinian refugee at all, so "per" 184 is utter nonsense. See post below (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

194 does not define refugee[edit]

First line says a P. refugee is "per" UNGA 194. 194 does not give a def of refugee. It makes a comment about them but only UNRWA defines them. (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant text in this article[edit]

Most of the section "Jewish refugees from 1948 Palestine War" is not about the topic of this article and does not belong here. Almost all the persons mentioned came years after the 1948 war and were not refugees from it. The only Jewish refugees who belong here are those of East Jerusalem, the Etzion Bloc, and similar places in Palestine who had to leave those places. This article is not about Jews who came to Israel from faraway countries. Compare Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, which has hardly a passing mention of Palestinian refugees (nor should it). Zerotalk 06:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section. --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, I don't see any evidence in any of the sources that Jewish refugees from Arab countries are regarded as Palestinian refugees. This material is not relevant to the topic. Dlv999 (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Palestinian immigration (Israel) into Palestinian refugee[edit]

I propose that Palestinian immigration (Israel) be merged into this article as it is actually about attempts by Palestinian refugees to return to what is now Israel. Please discuss. Downwoody (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status of refugees after acquiring another nationality[edit]

I removed the following section from the lead:

On taking up citizenship in another country, refugees lose their refugee status. Decades ago, Jewish Palestinian refugees took up citizenship in Israel and in other countries; they and their descendants are no longer refugees.

Reasons: Palestinian refugees don't seem to loose their status when acquiring another citizenship. UNWRA information here (More than 2 million registered refugees live in Jordan. All Palestine refugees in Jordan have full citizenship, with the exception of almost 140,000 refugees originally from Gaza) seems to corroborate this article. Gugganij (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refugee status of descendants[edit]

I am a bit unhappy with the following statement in the article:

Registered descendants of UNRWA Palestine refugees, like “Nansen passport” and “Certificate of Eligibility” holders (the documents issued to those displaced by World War II) or like UNHCR refugees,[17] inherit the same Palestine refugee status as their male parent.

The source given refers to statutory refugees (CHAPTER II – INCLUSION CLAUSES A. Definitions (1) Statutory Refugees) and speaks of surviving child of a statutory refugees. The document doesn't say anything about the status of further generations. Therfore, the comparison between the status of Palestine refugees (with no limits on generations) and the status of statutory refugees seems to be misleading. Gugganij (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Palestinian Refugee" is nomenclature rather than a description in the context of the organs of the United Nations[edit]

The overwhelming majority of "Palestinian Refugees" are indeed Palestinian, but they would not be classified as 'refugees' in the context of UNHCR. The term "Palestinian Refugee" is _defined_ in the instrument promulgating the UNRWA. (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oslo Accords[edit]

Did the Oslo accords recognize Fatah as the representative for the Palestinian people or Did it recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization as such? Fatah is in the PLO but it is not the PLO.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any relevance for this info[edit]

I edited something in (look at article`s history for a note I left), however felt it was badly written, it is as follows:

However, according to chapter 3 of the 1948 UN partition plan

"Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State, providing that no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State. The exercise of this right of option will be taken to include the wives and children under eighteen years of age of persons so opting"

citations (tried to add most of them, some didn't work)

"UN Resolutions On The Partition Plan." Palestine-Israel Journal Of Politics, Economics & Culture 9.4 (2002): 118. Business Source Complete. Web. 2014.

Ma'oz, Moshe. "The UN Partition Resolution Of 1947: Why Was It Not Implemented?." Palestine-Israel Journal Of Politics, Economics & Culture 9.4 (2002): 15. Business Source Complete. Web. 2014.

Nachmias, Nitza. "UNRWA Betrays Its Mission." Middle East Quarterly 19.4 (2012): 27-35. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2014.

Rempel, Terry M. "Who Are Palestinian Refugees?." Forced Migration Review 26 (2006): 5-7. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2014. - specifically in relation to the line: Israel as the state of origin for refugees, and the current statelessness (as to the question if Israel bears responsibility or not for the people)

Gal, Orit. "Israeli Perspectives On The Palestinian Refugee Issue." Palestine-Israel Journal Of Politics, Economics & Culture 15/16.4/1 (2008): 14-22. Business Source Complete. Web. 2014. (specifically the portion which refers to "How can a claim to possess an independent state yet also claim right of return to origin state be simultaneously be recognized")

Ben-Meir, Alon. "The Palestinian Refugees: A Reassessment And A Solution." Palestine-Israel Journal Of Politics, Economics & Culture 15/16.4/1 (2008): 65-71. Business Source Complete. Web. 2014. (Equal presentation of both sides positions and varying degrees of each side's position [either full repatriation or no return or compensation as acceptable etc.])

Resnick, Uri. "UNRWA's Self-Serving Agenda." Middle East Quarterly 19.4 (2012): 45-52. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2014.

Abdelrazek, Adnan. "Israeli Violation Of UN Resolution 194 (III) And Others Pertaining To Palestinian Refugee Property." Palestine-Israel Journal Of Politics, Economics & Culture 15/16.4/1 (2008): 47-53. Business Source Complete. Web. June 2014. (speaks of property ownership rights in accordance to the laws of Israel but dependent on whether or not they are considered citizens with equal rights)

SANTOS, MADALENA. "Relations Of Ruling In The Colonial Present: An Intersectional View Of The Israeli Imaginary." Canadian Journal Of Sociology 38.4 (2013): 509-532. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2014. (referring to some reasoning of the opposition to return and demographic reasons groups within Israel may oppose more arab citizens than the current 1 in 5 ratio)

Rekhess, Elie. "The Arab Minority In Israel: Reconsidering The '1948 Paradigm'." Israel Studies 19.2 (2014): 187-217. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2014. (page 188, I saw the Original research reference and would apologize for not sourcing it, but the opinion was not my original research and rather something presented by Rekhess in their article)

varying views on the issue of citizenship --- Sabbagh, Clara, and Nura Resh. "Citizenship Orientations In A Divided Society: A Comparison Of Three Groups Of Israeli Junior-High Students—Secular Jews, Religious Jews, And Israeli Arabs." Education, Citizenship & Social Justice 9.1 (2014): 34. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 2014.

it seems as relevant information since it referred specifically to residents within the borders of the proposed states, is there any precedent for adding this? I realize it refers to jewish citizens of palestine as well, however the International zone was talked about in a separate charter as to the rights and definitions of the citizens of said zone, but in the end it looks like this is the basis of some of the claims to repatriate by palestinians and I assume at least some jews who fled jerusalem

Edit: I saw the original research notification for why it was removed, I have added the sources here (with last 3 as main sources, second to last page 188 as the origin of citizenship and whether or not refugees should have it), however have not edited it in or anything as I thought it would be better for people to just read this and decide for themselves on whether it should be added and if yes how and what to word it as.

  1. ^ Susan Akram (2011). International law and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Taylor & Francis. pp. 38, 19. ISBN 9780415573221. This was the definition accepted by the drafters of the resolution 194 for the purposes of defining the entire group of Palestinians who were entitled to the protection of the International Community {{cite book}}: External link in |location= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)
  2. ^ Susan Akram (2011). International law and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Taylor & Francis. pp. 19, 38. ISBN 9780415573221. {{cite book}}: External link in |location= (help); Unknown parameter |Cite= ignored (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

"By instruction from Arab leadership" as a reason for Palestinian exodus[edit]

This edit was execrable because it restored what a sockpuppet had just put back in. But it is execrable because it revives an all-but-moribund meme, still in distribution only among polemical hacks, that was effectively destroyed by both Erskine Barton Childers and Walid Khalidi a half century ago, the former classically in back in 1961, in an article in The Spectator May 12, 1961. (Elizabeth Matthews (ed.) The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Parallel Discourses, Taylor & Francis 2011 p.41). Everyone editing these issues should have the basic knowledge to recognize obvious crap, vigorously rebutted by Michael Palumbo, Dan Kurzman and others, Benny Morris himself (who stated that no Arab authority issued "blanket instructions by radio or otherwise, to Palestine's Arabs to flee." See also his The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Cambridge UP 2005 pp.269-70). Everyone should look twice or three times before 'restoring' work done by an obsessive sockpuppet. Pull your socks up (i.e. revert that nonsense). Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Before the statement was restored by a sockpupet it existed in the article until recently, meaning there was consensus. Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus lists "The "Arab leaders' endorsement of flight" explanation" as well as criticism of this explanation, both backed by numerous sources. Per WP:NPOV there has to be a very good reason to include only fear/force and not the instructions. WarKosign 17:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That shit happens is the only valid lesson the world learned from Donald Rumsfeld. Which, in operative terms, means that a lot of pages on Wikipedia conserve crap, not by 'consensus' but by disattention. No editor can keep up with every revert, nor read from top to bottom every bookmarked page every time it is edited. One of our jobs is crap removal. I don't look at what other pages say because in principle and practice, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. One is obliged to examine a controversial edit against one's library or by googling widely in google books. The theory is dead, non-existent, crap, and one of our tasks is crap removal. Unless it is removed by someone else, I'll remove it tomorrow, in duke horse.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Serious historians do not give weight to this propaganda.
We can add Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, 2006 and Henry Laurens (scholar), La Question de Palestine.
Pluto2012 (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the words "crap" and "shit" is not a substitute for a proper argument. If the page existed in a certain state for months or years it means there was consensus and not just disattention. Edit warring is not a substitute to a proper consensus building process. Other WP pages cannot be used as sources, but the sources they reference can be used. Our job is not to decide whether a specific peer reviewed publication is "serious" or "non-existent crap", our job is to represent them all. Choosing sources based on one's preconceived opinion is by definition OR and POV-pushing. I see that you both disagree that one of the reasons Palestinian Arabs had for leaving was calls from Arab leaders, yet there are scholars that wrote so, some of them recently. Are you saying that we should ignore these sources because you like other sources better ? WarKosign 19:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WarKosign, we shoudn't give all theories equal weight, rather we should present them in proportion to their prevalence in the best sources. That the "instructions to flee" theory is false is widely known, it shouldn't be given equal prominence to the actual reasons for the "exodus". Naming it in the lead as one of only three reasons amounts to giving it completely disproportionate weight and prominence. The "instructions to flee" theory and its fall from grace should be, and is, discussed in the Causes article. It doesn't belong in the lead of this article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The passage in the Causes article should be rewritten to show it is an historical fossil., The way it is presented there is as if it were a still viable theory. Why a failed historical explanation is needed there inside the article, as opposed to a summary line or note, is obvious ('no smoke without fire' etc.)Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to serial comma[edit]

"According to Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky, the Reverend Karl Baehe, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, Alexander Galloway, then head of the UNRWA for Jordan, said ..."

I understand that this "according to" clause is there for proper attribution and NPOV, but it makes the sentence an unreadable mess. Can anyone think of a way to rephrase it so it will be clear that Alexander Galloway is the one who allegedly made the statement and the others only reported it ? One way to achieve it is to remove the "according to" portion, there is already a citation overkill for those interested to know who reported it. WarKosign 07:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last version fought over said "According to an unverifiable claim by the Reverend Karl Baehe". Here is Romirowsky's article that attributes the statement precisely. WarKosign 13:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is extensively discussed on Talk:Alexander Galloway, Huldra (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nakba and early Zionist historians[edit]

@Eethove and Zero0000: regarding this edit: the term "nakba" is not an English word, does not appear anywhere else in the article and is not neutral. More importantly, it is not even mentioned in the quoted source, so it's incorrect to say that the quote was made "dealing with the nakba". I suggest to replace it with "dealing with 1948 Palestinian exodus" which is the WP:COMMONNAME of the event.WarKosign 06:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to that. Zerotalk 07:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The issue of the edit was "original situation", not changing "nakba" by "1948 Palestinian exodus". Pluto2012 (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly confused. I Removed the word "nakba;" I did not put it there.User_talk:Eethove —Preceding undated comment added 08:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality on inheritance of refugee status?[edit]

I understand this is a controvertial issue. Still, I would like to understand if I'm wrong. Reading the article, I see it claims "Being the only refugees in the world to be mainly inherited...", while at the same time it does not mention the impossibility for those refugees to come back to their original territory (as other refugees have). I don't want to enter on a discussion around the right to return, it is not my intent, and my apologies if it seems so. I just see that UN has provided the refugee status to those children of original refugees because of the special circumstance of the impossibility to come back (as eventually other refugees do, or at least can). I feel that not clarifying this issue makes it appear as an unjustified privilege (and therefore biased), while UN had its justification (which we can agree or not). There are plenty of sources for this and I could edit it, but being such controvertial article, I prefer to provide my suggestion here before editing directly. --Samer.hc (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do some WP:OR: Refugee says "In UN parlance, the definition of the word has been expanded to include descendants of refugees, in the case of two specific groups: Palestinian refugees and Sahrawi refugees. Currently, the UN does not consider refugee status to be hereditary for any other groups." It also says that beside Palestinians there are currently 14.4 million refugees in the world. As you can see in a dedicated section "Resettlement can no longer be seen as the least-preferred durable solution; in many cases it is the only solution for refugees", so inability to return is not directly related to inheritary status of refugees. WarKosign 07:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fast answer! You are probably right it is not directly linked to the return, but to the absense of a general solution. After researching a bit more, and according to UNRWA, the UN grants refugee status routinely to descendants (in any conflict) if certain conditions are not met (, which quotes the "UNHCR‘s Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for determining Refugee Status". A piece: "It is equally recognised that for refugees everywhere, a precondition for solutions to refugee situations is the resolution by political actors of the underlying causes of dispute and conflict". The current version of the article states "Being the only refugees in the world to be mainly inherited" which taking your quote is probably wrong (if the Sahrawi are also included) and also according to this UNRWA link, this is common practice with other conflicts that do not meet certain conditions.--Samer.hc (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 February 2016[edit]

Palestinian refugeePalestinian refugees – Page talks more about refugees. Suggest rename to Palestinian refugees and create section on definition term for Palestinian refugee, renamed. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Palestinian refugees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Estimate to exact[edit]

The estimate of 711,000 implies accuracy when there is none. It is also based on a number given in 1950. Modern historical research has improved upon that number. Therefore, the number should reflect what current historians estimate the number to be. ImTheIP (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any source for the UN having revised their original number?--TMCk (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The UN hasn't revised it, but historians have made estimates which I believe are of higher quality than the ones issued by the UN. I believe both Benny Morris and Ilan Pappé have used the 750,000 estimate. I think that is better because it only has two significant digits (75) instead of three (711). ImTheIP (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proper source for Arab League's instruction to withhold citizenship[edit]

Article says:

The Arab League has instructed its members to deny citizenship to original Palestine Arab refugees (or their descendants) "to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland".

The source in the article is and it says:

But Al-Watan Arabic daily reported that the naturalization law would not be applicable to Palestinians living in the Kingdom as the Arab League has instructed that Palestinians living in Arab countries should not be given citizenship to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland.

A better source is required. Perhaps one that cites Arab League Resolution 1547 directly. ImTheIP (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Picture Date[edit]

“Pardes Hana Immigrant Camp, 1956”. > Correct to 1950 please. See German Wikipedia and picture details: made Dec. 1, 1950, so can’t be from 1956. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. See the Hebrew article he:מחנה העולים בפרדס חנה and Immigrant camps (Israel). Apart from wrong date: it is quite irrelevant, IIRC. UNRWA was not involved in those camps. They did not house Palestinian Arab refugees (that was the name used at the time. There were also a few Palestinian Jews refugees in the war). Tzafrir (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The name used in all UN documents was "Palestine refugees". But Pardes Hana camp does not belong here unless it held refugees from Palestine (such as East Jerusalem or the Etzion bloc). As far as I can determine, it held Jewish immigrants from other countries, mostly Mizrahim. Zerotalk 07:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

citation found[edit]

There is a citation needed on this page under the subheading Iraq. we found an article to support this text: RhondaRosen (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

descendant of refugees[edit]

It is a standard Israeli claim that UNRWA refugee status automatically passes to descendants while UNCHR refugee status never passes to descendants. Actually both claims are false in general, though it remains true that the two sets of rules are different. For UNCHR it is useless to rely on an executive summary; the only proper source is the Procedural Handbook, see "derivative refugee status". Zerotalk 03:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't the PA absorb the Palestinian refugees, really?[edit]

"... the self-declared State of Palestine remains unable to absorb the Palestinian refugees, due to lack of de facto sovereignty over its claimed territories." There is no source quoted, and I can see only little logical merit to this claim. What stops the PA/State of Pal. to give them the (same) citizen status as to the other Palestinians, let's say from Area C? Those are not under PA sovereign administration either. Or do they actually have Palestinian citizenship, but the PA is not in the position (economically, in terms of infrastructure) to offer them the same range of services it provides to non-refugee citizens? Can't it be done with external (EU, US, UN...) help? It's an important distinction. If so, why? Is the cause, as claimed w/o source, the lack of sovereignty, or the lack of means, or maybe the lack of political will? Probably a mix, but that's exactly the point: discuss it, don't just drop in unsourced statements! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2020[edit]

Change: The term "Palestine refugees" originally referred to both Arabs and Jews whose normal place of residence had been in Mandatory Palestine but were displaced and lost their livelihoods as a result of the 1948 Palestine war.

to: The term "Palestine refugees" originally referred to persons whose normal place of residence had been in that part of Mandatory Palestine which came under Israeli control but were displaced and lost their livelihoods as a result of the 1948 Palestine war.

While there were some Jewish refugees from areas which came under control of Arab governments, they were a tiny minority. Current wording gives a falsely implies equivalency and "Palestinian refugees" never referred to them as such in the UN discussions. See, e.g.,

According to the article East Jerusalem, there were at least 1,300 Jewish "Palestine refugees." By 1951 all Jewish Palestine refugees would of course have been resettled.ImTheIP (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change: Being the only refugees in the world to be mainly inherited, including unregistered,

To: Including unregistered,

See, answering the question "Is the Transfer of Refugee Status to Descendants Unique to UNRWA?" - Somalian and Afghanistan conflicts have also resulted in situations in which refugee status is inherited. The assertion that Palestinians are the only refugees in the world to be mainly inherited is unverified.

I think what the text is trying to communicate is that most of today's Palestinian refugees were not born in their country of origin. But the formulation of the text is ambiguous so I agree with cutting it as you propose. ImTheIP (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section titled "Origin of the Palestinian Refugees" is not presented in a neutral manner, with the Zionist case (that Palestinians voluntarily departed) prominent and the case that Palestinians were forced out obfuscated by tacking it onto the end of a paragraph making the Zionist case. The case regarding Palestinians being forced out deserves at least its own paragraph. Besides, the quote from Steven Glazer makes it appear that he agrees with the Zionist position that he notes. He does not.

Change: Whereas historians now agree on most of the events of that period, there remains disagreement as to whether the exodus was the result of a plan designed before or during the war by Zionist leaders or was an unintended consequence of the war.[32].

To: Whereas historians now agree on most of the events of that period, there remains disagreement as to whether the exodus was the result of a plan designed before or during the war by Zionist leaders or was an unintended consequence of the war.[32]. Some Zionist writings indicate that Zionists had planned, or at least intended the expulsion prior to the war, for example Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937:

   "With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." ([Benny Morris,] Righteous Victims, p. 144)" (quoted from

Change: In a study of bias in Palestinian and Zionist sources dealing with the 1948 Palestinian exodus, Steven Glazer lists a number of early Zionist historians and writers, notably Joseph Schechtman, Leo Kohn, Jon Kimche and Maria Syrkin, who considered that:

   "...the Arabs in Palestine were asked to stay and live as citizens in the Jewish state. Instead, they chose to leave, either because they were unwilling to live with the Jews, or because they expected an Arab military victory which would annihilate the Zionists. They thought they could leave temporarily and return at their leisure. Later, an additional claim was put forth, namely that the Palestinians were ordered to leave, with radio broadcasts instructing them to quit their homes".[33] 

The implication of this position is that the Palestinians chose to leave, and thus forfeited their rights to their land, and must accept their own responsibilities for the plight they find themselves in.[33]. According to Benny Morris, between December 1947 and March 1948, around 100,000 Palestine Arabs fled. Among them were many from the higher and middle classes from the cities, who left voluntarily, expecting to return when the Arab states won the war and took control of the country.[34]

To: In a study of bias in Palestinian and Zionist sources dealing with the 1948 Palestinian exodus, Steven Glazer lists a number of early Zionist historians and writers, notably Joseph Schechtman, Leo Kohn, Jon Kimche and Maria Syrkin, who considered that:

   "...the Arabs in Palestine were asked to stay and live as citizens in the Jewish state. Instead, they chose to leave, either because they were unwilling to live with the Jews, or because they expected an Arab military victory which would annihilate the Zionists. They thought they could leave temporarily and return at their leisure. Later, an additional claim was put forth, namely that the Palestinians were ordered to leave [by Arab leadership], with radio broadcasts instructing them to quit their homes".[33] 

Steven Glazer adds:

    "Zionist historians have been hard pressed to come up with much concrete, factual evidence to bear out their position. As stated, much of the Zionist case has rested on the theory that the Palestinians were ordered to leave by their leaders, a claim which has been difficult for them to substantiate, as evidence is lacking"

The implication of this (the Zionist) position is that the Palestinians chose to leave, and thus forfeited their rights to their land, and must accept their own responsibilities for the plight they find themselves in.[33]. According to Benny Morris, between December 1947 and March 1948, around 100,000 Palestine Arabs fled. Among them were many from the higher and middle classes from the cities, who left voluntarily, expecting to return when the Arab states won the war and took control of the country.[34]

<new paragraph>

Indeed. Glazer brings up the "Zionist position" only so that he can thoroughly demolish it. There is no reason to include Glazers quotes at all since the "early Zionist position" is debunked by more recent scholarship. ImTheIP (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


When the Haganah and then the emerging Israeli army (Israel Defense Forces or IDF) went on the defensive, between April and July, a further 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinian Arabs left or were expelled, mainly from the towns of Haifa, Tiberias, Beit-Shean, Safed, Jaffa and Acre, which lost more than 90 percent of their Arab inhabitants.[35] Expulsions took place in many towns and villages, particularly along the Tel Aviv–Jerusalem road[36] and in Eastern Galilee.[37] About 50,000–70,000 inhabitants of Lydda and Ramle were expelled towards Ramallah by the IDF during Operation Danny,[38] and most others during operations of the IDF in its rear areas.[39] During Operation Dekel, the Arabs of Nazareth and South Galilee were allowed to remain in their homes.[40] Today they form the core of the Arab Israeli population. From October to November 1948, the IDF launched Operation Yoav to remove Egyptian forces from the Negev and Operation Hiram to remove the Arab Liberation Army from North Galilee during which at least nine events named massacres of Arabs were carried out by IDF soldiers.[41] These events generated an exodus of 200,000 to 220,000 Palestinian Arabs. Here, Arabs fled fearing atrocities or were expelled if they had not fled.[42] After the war, from 1948 to 1950, the IDF resettled around 30,000 to 40,000 Arabs from the borderlands of the new Israeli state.[43]

To: Whatever the reason for the exodus during the first months of the conflict, during the later parts it was clear there was a concerted effort by Zionist forces to terrorize the Palestinian population into leaving, using massacres as well as threats of massacres [33]. When the Haganah and then the emerging Israeli army (Israel Defense Forces or IDF) went on the offensive, between April and July, a further 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinian Arabs left or were expelled, mainly from the towns of Haifa, Tiberias, Beit-Shean, Safed, Jaffa and Acre, which lost more than 90 percent of their Arab inhabitants.[35] Expulsions took place in many towns and villages, particularly along the Tel Aviv–Jerusalem road[36] and in Eastern Galilee.[37] About 50,000–70,000 inhabitants of Lydda and Ramle were expelled towards Ramallah by the IDF during Operation Danny,[38] and most others during operations of the IDF in its rear areas.[39] During Operation Dekel, the Arabs of Nazareth and South Galilee were allowed to remain in their homes.[40] Today they form the core of the Arab Israeli population. From October to November 1948, the IDF launched Operation Yoav to remove Egyptian forces from the Negev and Operation Hiram to remove the Arab Liberation Army from North Galilee during which at least nine events named massacres of Arabs were carried out by IDF soldiers.[41] These events generated an exodus of 200,000 to 220,000 Palestinian Arabs. Here, Arabs fled fearing atrocities or were expelled if they had not fled.[42] LynEve (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this change is worthwhile. It adds "Whatever the reason for the exodus during the first months of the conflict, during the later parts it was clear there was a concerted effort by Zionist forces to terrorize the Palestinian population into leaving, using massacres as well as threats of massacres [33]." which I don't think is npov. ImTheIP (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Patrinlineal" is the wrong term and doesn't mean the same as "descendants of male refugees"[edit]

The article uses the term "patrilineal". The source however uses the words "descendants of male refugees". They don't descibe the same group of people:

- Partilineal descendants would mean descendants of male refugees, their sons, and of their sons, and of their sons, etc. It would not include descendants of a daughter of a male refugee.

- On the other hand, the words "descendants of a male refugee" means all children and childrens' children etc. of a male refugee, including his daughters' children and their childrens' children.

--PeterTrompeter (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it and the ref in the article body, if you are happy with that, I will change it in the lead as well.Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]