Palestinian vs Arab[edit]

To editor Number 57: Ok, you change from Palestinian village to Arab village, with the edit line: "Clarify; all villages pre-1948 were Palestinian" (which did not clarify anything for me....)
Now, the one source about this (Khalidi) is called "All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948." It is not called "All That Remains: The Arab Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948," or "All That Remains: The Arab Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948".
We should follow what WP:RS calls them, surely? And to say that all Palestinian are Arab, is a bit like saying that all Englishmen are European; we don't go around changing all "English" identities into "European", do we? Huldra (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will respond fully to this in a few days when I have access to a computer. In the meantime, I think it was clear in my edit summary that this is referring to a pre-1948 village, so "Palestinian" is meaningless in terms of the ethnicity of the villagers - "Arab" is clear, correct amd was the term commonly used at the time (hence e.g. 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine). Number 57 07:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That it was "the term commonly used at the time (hence e.g. 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine)" is simply not relevant; we don't call, say Willa Brown a "negro" (even though she was called so in the 1940s), we call her African-American. It is really insulting to continue to insist on calling the Palestinian villages for "Arab", when the WP:RS calls them Palestinian. I'm willing to go for a RFC on this, Huldra (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To compare using "Arab" with "negro" is one of the most derisory arguments I've ever heard made in this topic area, and the bar had been set pretty low. Almost as bad as is picking a source that uses the terminology you want and insisting that it's therefore what we should use (I recall this being a tactic of an editor who is thankfully no longer active). Given the dominance of pro-Palestinian editors in this sphere, an RfC is useless unless it's limited to outside editors, otherwise the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Number 57 12:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I was hoping we could avoid name-calling? As for "picking a source that uses the terminology you want", please tell me which other sources there are, which list the Israeli settlements on the 1948-villages lands? (Sources in English, that is; I don't read Hebrew or Arabic.) I honestly have no idea about any other source, than Khalidi. As for RfC, I don't agree with you about "the dominance of pro-Palestinian editors", but I would be quite willing to accept a RfC with only "outside editors"; I think they will go with what WP:RS shows, Huldra (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What name calling? You know as well as I do that we do not have to use the specific names used by sources – we go by what is acceptable to call things in Wikipedia's voice. For instance, Wikipedia calls the country "Ivory Coast" despite the fact that some sources call it "Cote d'Ivoire". It would not be acceptable for an editor to start using "Cote d'Ivoire" in an article about something to do with that country on the basis that the source they are using calls it that. "Palestinian" is not a helpful term here because it does not clarify to the reader whether it was a Jewish or Arab village (it seems to be being shoehorned in as a WP:POINT) – and, as such, the main article about this subject is List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus, not List of Palestinian towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Number 57 07:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the huge number of articles in which the same issue arises, one of you should start a RfC; and meanwhile not make bulk changes. Zerotalk 09:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked at all the uses of "Palestinian village" in the thousands of books and papers on my computer and the only ones I could find that used "Palestinian village" for a village of Jews were a few about the Byzantine period. Maybe I missed one. I'm not convinced by the argument that "Palestinian village" is ambiguous. On the contrary, I'm certain that every reader will know exactly what the intended meaning is. Zerotalk 09:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC: Arab vs. Palestinian?[edit]

Closing as per User:DarjeelingTea's earlier evaluation of the consensus, e.g., "Palestinians". (The reopening did not provide helpful comments as to the basic editing Arab/Palestinian question.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This issue concerns all the Palestinian villages depopulated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and all the Israeli settlements which were built on their lands after 1948. The "standard" text book used here is:

Should these villages be called "Arab" or "Palestinian"? Or perhaps "Arab Palestinian"? I have argued that they should be called "Palestinian", as that is what their source say, and that is what is most unambiguous. Another editor (Number 57) has argued that ""Palestinian" is not a helpful term here because it does not clarify to the reader whether it was a Jewish or Arab village." Outside views are welcome. Huldra (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And this is not only a borderline PA (accusing other users of being disingenuous for a start) it is also wrong. I have no issue with the word "Palestinian" and have no issue with saying that the Gaza strip ans the west bank are Palestine. But we are writing an encyclopedia for future generations who may not be aware of out peculiar political causes. A time when there may well be a wholly independent Palestinian state. Moreover I no more think "Arabs" should get back to "Arabia" then I think Jews should all go back to Judea. I ask you to strike this comment.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, but the main source we use for these places is called All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. It is not called "The Arab Villages Occupied and Depopulated" or "The Palestinian Arab Villages Occupied and Depopulated". Another much used source is Palestinian Village Histories: Geographies of the Displaced. I have asked for sources which use a different name, (and do not use the name "Palestinian"), but none have been given. Still people insist on calling them "Arab". I thought Wikipedia policy was to go after what WP:RS tells us? Huldra (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is not such concept as a "main source" on Wikipedia, and you have still not struck your offending comments.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there are some main sources we use in this instance, and they are the sources I mentioned above. (These sources might, actually probably will, be changed in the future, when new sources are published/get known.) And as I said, they all use the words Palestinian Villages.
And things said can hardly be offending, if they are correct, can they? I don't know how much you know about Middle East history (or Middle East propaganda), but people like Joan Peters, and her From Time Immemorial is quite widely spread. (In short: their theory is that the majority of the expelled Palestinians in 1948 were recent immigrants, who had only come to Palestine because of the opportunities that the Yishuv had given them). Therefor they consequently use the word "Arab" instead of "Palestinian". And it was writing like that which I had in mind when I wrote the above. (And if you have not heard about Joan Peters and other writers who follow her, I think I can assure you that everybody editing in this area has.) Huldra (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does not matter who Ms Peters is, a PA is a PA, and is against our rules..Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[26]

[27]

[28]Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[29]

This enough sources?Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A quote form a source
"Over a period of two years, from 1947-1949, the Zionists demolished 419 Arab villages and depopulated the Palestinian Arabs in those towns. When the state of Israel was established in 1948 it became apparant that this Zionist policy was a systematic state-sponsored program to replace Palestinians and their land with Jews and Jewish villages."
So no sources do not agree on the use of the term.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are saying both.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, there is only one citation in this specific article, and it says "Palestinian", at least in the title. The individual page is not visible. Softlavender (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But there is more then one source in this RFC, so are we just rejecting all sources but the "authorized" one?Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To put it another way, should we add or change the source to reflect the alternative wording?Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We follow the individual independent neutral reliable-source citation used in the article on the sentence referred to. In this case, there's only one. Softlavender (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And if I add a new one does this change? What if someone changes the source?Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This argument simply isn't true though. We go by what is acceptable in Wikipedia's voice, not what a specific source states. For instance, we have chosen to have Taiwan known by that name on Wikipedia. An editor cannot edit an article that mentions Taiwan with a source that refers to it as the Republic of China and insist that "Republic of China" has to be used there because that's what the specific source being used calls it (see here as an example). Number 57 11:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That doesn't address the issues that there were both Arab and Jewish villages being depopulated and that Arab clarifies the situation. The piping issue can be easily dealt with by removing the link. Also, are you aware you have broken the 1RR rule imposed on this topic area? Number 57 12:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This RfC is not about enumerating or differentiating the ethnicities of particular villages. If you want to use that as an argument in your own rationale for your own !vote, feel free. Also, if you additionally want to note (in the wiki article) the ethnicity of the village before it was depopulated, you can, if it is accompanied by a reliable citation, but that is a different matter from this RfC, which is how to term it in the phrase "_____ village". Softlavender (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's not about ethnicities, why are you suggesting that Palestinian should be used? If we wanted to take all ethnicity out of it, the phrase should just be "villages" with no other word required. Number 57 16:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Palestinian is not an ethnicity (not in this context), it's a nationality; the name of the geopolitical entity was Mandatory Palestine and the residents of the Palestinian Territories are automatically referred as Palestinians. If we want to designate which villages or communities or peoples within Mandatory Palestine were Arab or Jewish (i.e., designate their ethnicity), then that's a different point and can be noted in another, additional, phrase or word. Softlavender (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the fact is that it is an ethnicity as well as being a nationality (the RfC proposal has the specific link), so it would need clarification when used. In this set of articles, it would be far easier just to say Arab as this is the point being made (i.e. depopulation of Arab villages and subsequent use of the land by modern villages in Israel) by the inclusion of this detail. Number 57 04:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, there's no "point being made"; Wikipedia is simply reporting facts based on sources. The fact is that this was a village in Mandatory Palestine, which was depopulated after 1948 when the state of Israel was created and became an Israeli village (moshav) rather than a Palestinian village. It seems that you are the one who wants to make the point that it was an ethnically Arab village; if you want to add in that information as an additional separate word or phrase or fact then be bold and do so. Or !vote in this survey and state how you would like it to read and be linked. This conversation seems to me to be going around in circles and I'm repeating myself, so I will likely not respond further, especially when the consensus is to use the word "Palestinian". Softlavender (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not !voting because my position is made clear in the text of the RfC question itself. However, I really think you have midunderstood what this RfC is about. The choice is effectively whether the villagers are referred to as Palestinians (hence why Huldra's link is to the article on the ethnic/national group not Mandatory Palestine) or Arabs; the point regarding the ethnicity is being made whichever is used – the question is which is the most appropriate word to describe them. Which do you think is preferable? Number 57 14:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I realised I never addressed the EASTEREGG issue. "Arab village" would be better linked to List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus rather than Palestinian people. The link target of Palestinian people is also problematic because some Arabs from depopulated villages became internally displaced people and are today Israeli citizens, not all of whom idenify as Palestinian. Number 57 18:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reopened[edit]

I closed this RfC on February 14 as follows:

Number 57 objected [30] to the closure on the basis of the RfC not being neutrally worded. While I observed that concern in making the close, it was a concern expressed by only two of the ten editors after a month discussion and the opening wording, while not ideal, did not IMO rise to the level of invalidating the entire process. That said, given this is a sensitive topic, I don't think there's any harm in reopening this if it might prompt a more thorough discussion on that point. I have undone my previous closure. DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zero and Softlavender - while I enjoy helping out with clearing the backlog of unclosed RfCs and have, thus far, had no complaints with my closures, I'm not willing to go out in a blaze of glory to enforce any determination I make, which is why I reversed my close when an Admin directly requested I do so. If one side in this dispute feels reopening the RfC was unnecessary, however, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE might provide a route to have that decision appealed, though I don't know for sure. I'm afraid I can provide no additional assistance on this article, but wish both sides here the best of luck. DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DarjeelingTea: I never doubted you were trying to do the right thing here. Just one comment: since Number57 is deeply involved in this RfC, the fact that he is an admin is irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant that I am also an admin for the same reason. Zerotalk 05:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yabbering away like a folletto while using argumentum ad hominem. Quite misleading to find it here. ACMPODC (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand it's theoretically and procedurally irrelevant. However, it's not practically irrelevant when you're an editor caught between two admins, one of whom is telling you it's wrong if you do "action X" and the other who is telling you it's wrong if you don't do "action X". It turns me into Josef K. I'm hoping you can both agree to omit me from further discussion on this article. Best of luck to you all. DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's a very valid concern to take into account to participate in a non-neutrally worded RFC. It taints the process. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not aware of any rule that general RfCs must be in a central place. Provided they are advertised in central places such as project pages, they can be anywhere. Zerotalk 02:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is what I was told by admin, unless I misunderstood, regardless, this RFC was not advertised to the best of my recollection. It was just on this page. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was advertised on Wikiproject Israel and Wikiproject cities at least. Also at ANI. Strangely I can't see it at Wikiproject Palestine. Zerotalk 04:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, but regardless of that the RFC itself was not setup correctly, the question was loaded, saying that "the standard textbook we use" as if if there's any other source, it is discounted, so don't bring it into the discussion. In general, an RFC needs to just be "do we do x or y" without any commentary. It should have theoretically, been formatted with the RFC template so that automatically a more broader and outside opinion would have happened, but that is obviously not a requirement. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I purposely did not advertise this on the Israeli or Palestinian WikiProject pages, but only on ANI, as it was my understanding that both User:Number 57 and myself wanted fresh, "new" eyes on this (if I have misunderstood Number 57 on this, then I’m sure he will correct me.) As for the rest, it has been answered so many times, that I’m sure experienced editors can make up their own mind, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But a fresh pair of eyes will read the question and then assume that only that one source is valid, and then if someone either found another source, or posted about a source, that would be discounted. That's why the RFC question needs to be extremely simple or it ends up being a complicated RFC or one that just gets closed or overturned. In the future, you should use the RFC template which sets up the RFC and then automatically sends out notices to those people who signed up for commenting on things. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot imagine anyone would close this RfC without reading every single word on this page. (And half of this page is about other sources.....it is sort of difficult to miss??) As for the rest, I have never said that there are only one valid source (as it would be rubbish to say so), and anyone is of course free to bring along any other source, as long as it is WP:RS. As for using the RFC template; ok, but looking at the present open RFC it doesn't seem as if many are using it? (And I confess I am unfamiliar with this template myself.) Huldra (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's very easy to find sources using "Arab village", e.g. this or this, but that doesn't really matter because the issue is not what a selected or selection of sources say (which can always be chosen to get the result desired by an editor seeking to push a certain viewpoint), but what is appropriate to use when writing in Wikipedia's voice. Number 57 22:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All you need to do is add ((rfc|hist)), I used hist because that places it in the history and geography section. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
....mmmm, I thought AAlertBot did much of that? Well, not place it in the history and geography section, but it did place it in the WikiProject Cities and WikiProject Israel? Huldra (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The rfc tag creates an RFC and then notifies people who signed up to be notified of RFC's within that subject area. It will also then automatically alert if it's open more than 30 days. From what I see with AAlertBot, it would do that, if the RFC tag is in place. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Categories