Talk:History of the Palestinian people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Copyright violation?

The GFDL requires attribution. Is there a history log that belongs to this article somewhere? -- Jeandré, 2007-12-31t23:25z

Concerning my contributions, there is no copyright violation.
I am confident there is no one from JaapBoBo's contribution too.
What make you think there could be a copyright violation ? Ceedjee (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This article was created as one huge edit, what I'm asking is if it was created in another article, and then copy/pasted here, which is not allowed by the GFDL which requires attribution of all editors. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-03t19:49z
Much was copied from Mandatory Palestine. Where can I read about GDFL in wikipedia policy? --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Copyrights and ask an admin to fix the history log. Alternatively you can place a big notice at the top of this page that it comes from Mandatory Palestine and make an edit summary for the article itself indicating the same - tho that's taking dangerous liberties with attribution. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-05t08:25z, -- Jeandré, 2008-01-05t08:30z
As I read it Wikipedia:Copyrights does not refer to copying from one article to another, inside wikipedia. Or does it? --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It does.
This is the principle of GFDL licence. Ceedjee (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fork?

Is this a fork of Palestinian people ? Also, it seems to present mainly a viewpoint from one source. Adding tags as appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, many of the connecting passages read very much as an essay, or as original research, an example of which I have placed below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Palestinian Arabs felt ignored by the terms of the Mandate. Though at the beginning of the Mandate they constituted a 90 percent majority of the population, the text only referred to them as "non-Jewish communities" that, though having civil and religious rights, were not given any national or political rights. As far as the League of Nations and the British were concerned the Palestinian Arabs were not a people. In contrast the text included six articles (2, 4, 6, 7, 11 and 22) with obligations for the mandatory power to foster and support a "national home" for the Jewish people.

Furthermore that "Recent history (after 1949)" refers only to the PLO, not to the many other Palestinian groups, and placed undue weight on the PLO. Adding one more dispute tag, this time POV violation≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote you give above is a summary of Kahilidi's description. Its not OR.
That only the PLO is mentioned is not a reason for POV I think. Are there POV's contradicting the text (The Palestine Liberation Organization, also known as PLO, was established by the Arab League in 1964. The PLO is a multi-party confederation and since 1974 it is regarded as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.")? I don't think so.
--JaapBoBo (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some Questions

  • What does 'this' rever to in Nevertheless, this remained part of a Pan-Islamist or Pan-Arab national movement? I assume 'the Arabs in Palestine'.
  • Does and for a Syria and Palestine independence. mean they ,ilitated for an independent Greater Syria, or for separate independent Syria and PAlestine?

--JaapBoBo (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"this" refers to the "Palestinian arab nationalism".
an "independent" greater Syria.
The turning point was 1920 expulsion of Fayçal from Damas : that is the birth of the Palestinian Arab nationalism.
Ceedjee (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternatives to a POV fork

With all due respect to those who've worked on this, this kind of article should not be constructed in this manner. Large sections are lifted directly from British Mandate of Palestine (e.g., paras starting "The Palestinian Arabs felt ignored by the terms of the Mandate."). Section taken also from Palestinian people (where, in Talk, much of this article was proposed as an addition). I gather other sections taken from other articles. For instance, some material ("The Palestinian Arabs were led by two main camps.") is copied from History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In other words, the article in large part recompiles material from other articles, but selectively, presenting a picture from a one-sided point of view. Thus, it is a "POV fork" in wp terms. If the authors wish somehow to create a spin-out from Palestinian people, or a summary style overview from various history articles, then they should do so in a proper manner, following GFDL guidelines. (Also, need to notify the respective pages and link as spin-outs, etc.) Thus, I'd think it best to delete this article and I'd ask the authors to engage directly in expanding the history section of Palestinian people. Thank you for your consideration. HG | Talk 10:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am redirecting this to Palestinian people. Material that is new and not copied from that or other articles can be added to that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I don;t necessarily object to the redirect, since some of the material can be covered there. I was, however, thinking that it might be very useful to have an article on the History of the Arabs of Palestine since prior to the 19th century, most people who today identify as Palestinians would have identified as Arabs and the region was popularly known as Palestine. If editors who were wrking on this want to work on creating such an article, I would be happy to help out. Tiamuttalk 17:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
That is a good idea, and can make for an interesting article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleting or redirecting is a bad idea. The article already contains a number of new additions.
HG's estimate that this is a POV article is incorrect. Of course the material is selective, but it was not selected for a PoV but for a subject. If HG finds it POV, than he should find the original article POV too. HG would have a point if he called it a content-fork. But since new material is already added it's developing into a new article.
I agree with Tiamut that we should do further work on the article. Maybe, if Tiamut wants to include much history from before 1900, the article could be renamed as suggested. --JaapBoBo (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with JaapBobo. this article should be kept. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree too. If they are material to add (and I think there is) we just to do it to get a NPoV article. But deletion is not an issue. --Ceedjee (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)