Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:20, 17 September 2016

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. University of Oxford This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Untitled

To many, Walid Khalidi is a caricature of the Oxford don that he once was: Articulate, erudite, and somewhat eccentric, which in America translates as "absent-minded." How many people have come up to me over the years to ask: "Can this man really be a Palestinian? He seems so British, so Oxonian, so aristocratic." My response is always: "Well, he is an Oxonian and he is aristocratic, and I can assure you that every day Walid Khalidi wakes up a Palestinian." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.136.229 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

needs a criticism section

Khalidi needs a criticism section. Pro-israel historians always have one, so why not the anti-Israel ones?Tallicfan20 (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about "anti-Israeli" historians, but articles on pro-Palestinian ones do have criticism sections. This article just happens not to have one presently; if you have reliable criticism sources then by all means add a Criticism section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

More citations

Let's get some more citations for Khalidi's view of the solution to the conflict for some perspective and balance. Currently there's just one.Ismee (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismee (talk • contribs) 00:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we need a direct quote from citation #3 about his position on the two-state solution for neutrality's sake. Currently, the text speaks on Khalidi's behalf, which is problematic. A direct quote would be better. Ismee (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Naughty Dr Brawer

The article features the following sentence, alleged to be a quotation from the 1945 Village Statistics. I have checked that it appears exactly like this in the review of Moshe Brawer.

The population estimates published here cannot, however, be considered other than rough estimates which in some instances may ultimate be found to differ considerably from the actual figures. (Brawer, Israel Affairs 1, 1994, p. 340)

However, the original primary source does not have that sentence at all. Brawer has constructed it by joining two sentences together with some contrary words removed. Note how the deleted words weaken Brawer's case that the source is unreliable:

The population estimates published here are the result of a very detailed work conducted by the Department of Statistics, by using all the statistical material available on the subject. They cannot, however, be considered other than rough estimates which in some instances may ultimate be found to differ considerably, from the actual figures. (Village Statistics 1945, Explanatory Note, para A/5)

This would be unacceptable even with an ellipsis to indicate that text is missing. Let's say it was an honest mistake; either way we shouldn't copy distortions into Misplaced Pages. The 1945 survey was not a census and obviously not as accurate as one, but it is the best available except in certain locations and is cited very frequently by scholars. Zero 10:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

As a general matter, the report of Brawer's review here is too long, and it violates NPOV to present it on its own without any contrary opinions. Zero 10:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree (from p. 2.)

On a related matter; someone have inserted a lot of his data from "Transformation in Arab Settlement," Moshe Brawer, in The Land that Became Israel: Studies in Historical Geography, by Ruth Kark in several articles. It is typically of the type "Between 1922 and 1947, the population increased by XXX%." Two problems: where did he get the 1947-data from? And some places, when I compare the 1922 data and 1945 data: the % increase simply do not match (unless there was a huge increase from 1945 to 1947). "Someone" said he was going to check the Jish-data for me? Huldra (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone got that book out of the library yesterday and will study it. Meanwhile, a 1978 paper of Brawer uses the Village Statistics without caveat. Zero 01:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I also noticed a 2002 article of Brawer where he cited the Village Statistics without questioning its accuracy. See Talk:Jish for the 1947 data. Most of his work was in Hebrew and I can't be bothered to check further. Zero 12:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree the text is too long. I am also wondering about what Moshe Brawer writes about the listing of the land ownership. I can see that Sami Hadawi lists Arab land ownership while the original talks about Muslims and Christians. Is that right? If so, it should be presented as Brawer's opinion (that he thinks Muslims were Arabs and Christians were not, not that it is a fact). --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:IRISZOOM: yes, Hadawi groups all Muslims and Christian together. Btw, the original 1945 is now available on the net; I try to use both; take a look at Sirin, Baysan (just updated!) And the Brawer -section is way too long. Huldra (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I got the original too. Then it is Brawer (assuming he has been cited correctly here) who is wrong that the original show Arab and Christian ownership when it shows Muslim and Christian ownership. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Here are the classifications as they appear.

Classifications in Village Statistics 1945

	Population	Land
Original	Moslems, Jews, Christians, Others	Arabs, Jews, Public, Others, Works
Hadawi	Arabs, Jews	Arabs, Jews, Public

"Works" is "Roads, Railroads, Rivers and Lakes". Hadawi has combined Moslems, Christians and Others into Arabs for population, and combined Arabs and Others into Arabs for land. Brawer's exact words are "while in the original Village Statistics land ownership was classified as Arab, Jewish or others, Hadawi converted into Arab ownership all non-Jewish lands including those of Christian churches, monasteries, institutions and organizations." I think it is a valid criticism. Zero 10:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. That is what then should be written as the current text says something else. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Editors may not remove sourced, academic material based on their personal research which leads them to question it. This is wikipedia policy. Epson Salts (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no such policy. NOR says what can be put in, not what can be taken out. But that is beside the point, since the insertion of false claims against living people is a violation of WP:BLP, which trumps all rules except Office Actions. Zero 00:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Sourced material cannot be removed by editors performing original research to conclude that it is false. You are repeatedly violating Misplaced Pages policy and it is high time you were banned. Epson Salts (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no such rule, and there has never been a rule that every sourced thing has to be in articles. What the policy actually says is: While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. And stop trying to insert material you know to be false and misleading. Zero 02:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Not everything that is sourced must be included- but this material has been in the article for a long time, and thus has consensus. if you want to remove it, you need consensus to do so. Epson Salts (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Longevity doesn't establish consensus, where on earth did you get that idea from? Ancient bad text is still bad text. You can see above that 2 other editors agreed when I raised this issue and nobody questioned it. You haven't provided any reason to keep it except for invoking nonexistent rules. The consensus (and the rules, especially BLP) are for removal. It is also notable that the article still has Brawer's criticism of Khalidi's use of Village Statistics for three whole sentences, which is already more than necessary and I plan to replace some of it by a different criticism from Brawer's review. Zero 03:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I got it form WP:CONSENSUS, which is policy. 'Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." You should get around to reading policy, it will not only make you a better editor , but might prevent your banning to to numerous policy violations. The reason to keep this consensus change in the article is that it was published in a reviewed academic source, which trumps your personal, WP:OR interpretation of the text. Epson Salts (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It was "disputed or reverted by another editor" several times since it was first inserted only a bit more than two years ago. So much for that argument. One editor can't invoke inertial consensus to prevent article improvement. Also, your silly personal remarks are getting tiresome. Zero 08:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

In its current form, it has been in the article for at least 3 months with no dispute nor discussion == clear consensus. I'm glad you're at least intelligent enough to realize your bullshit about " "Longevity doesn't establish consensus," contradicts policy. As someone who started with the personal attacks on me several months ago, you have no leg to stand on. Either establish consensus for the change you want to make, or be gone. Epson Salts (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Last warning, at least from me. If you don't cut out your verbal violence and attacks on other editors, you'll be reported.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You get back exactly what you dish out. Epson Salts (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

"for at least 3 months with no dispute nor discussion", heavens, what on earth is this whole section that I started one year ago except discussion? I raised a serious objection and nobody disagreed. I.e., discussion was held with conclusion against the text. The fact that I forget at the time to actually remove the text doesn't give you an excuse for preventing implementation of the consensus now. Zero 01:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The section had been in the article without opposition for a year and a half before you voiced any objection, thus it had consensus. I have no idea why you didn't make the change a year ago when you thought you had consensus for the change - perhaps you just forgot , as you claim now, perhaps you realized how weak your argument was and thought better of it. Either way, this went unchallenged for more than two years before your recent revert (meaning it had consensus), and I challenged your recent revert as soon as you made it, which means there is no consensus for it now. You can try to get consensus for it again. Epson Salts (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to believe you think this is a serious argument. One editor can't obstruct article improvement on such spurious grounds. Take it to a noticeboard if you think you have a case, but be prepared to explain why you are so anxious to insert something you know to be false into a BLP. Zero 02:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

What isn't hard to believe is that you guys are now following Epson around and tag teaming his edits.

Instead of completely removing Bower's point, suggest alternative wording. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

ES seems to have adopted the mission of preventing me from editing but I'm not so easy to get rid of. Of course I'm happy to include a general statement that Brawer says the Village Statistics are unreliable. The only thing that is unacceptable (and strictly forbidden in a BLP) is to do it by means of a fake quotation. Zero 08:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Please don't try to play the victim card here- it is not convincing. The record shows the opposite - you have been on my case for months, trying to get me banned. You've been following me around, to articles you've never edited (see for example or ) to undo my edits. So, what is you proposal for adding the Brawer criticism?

Please explain how this quotation is a BLP violation. Even if the quote was fake (and it isn't, Brawer said it, you yourself checked) it is not saying anything about the subject of the article we're not saying without that quote. So please show me the exact part of BLP this is violating. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Epson Salts is technically correct in that text is usually assumed to have consensus unless someone challenges it. I see that this text was earlier edit-warred over: the last insertion was by a sock of AndresHerutJaim, who was himself reverting some random person who had blanked it. Overall, it seems to have been reasonably stable. Zero's argument is somewhat complicated, but looks good to me. I see Zero, Huldra, IRISZOOM, Nishidani and Sean.Hoyland in favour of rephrasing and only Epson Salts against (I don't know what NMMNG's position is). I can add my name to the rephrasing if it makes "consensus" easier. So, it's either 5-1 or 6-2. I suppose that's enough of a consensus. So, perhaps we can dispense with technicalities and get on with improving the article. Brawer is still quoted in the section, just given less space. The book in question (All That Remains) has been cited almost 450 times on Google Scholar. Surely, giving 80% of the space to a negative review fails WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I also share Zero0000's analysis.

Regarding our rules: we cannot add WP:OR in an article but based on researches, we can remove precise and concise information that are proven to be false (a number, a date, a statement, ...). Pluto2012 (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class biography articles
• Automatically assessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Stub-Class University of Oxford articles
• Unknown-importance University of Oxford articles
• Stub-Class University of Oxford (colleges) articles
• Automatically assessed University of Oxford articles
• WikiProject University of Oxford articles
• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• High-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles