User talk:Netscott/Palestinian ethnicity

Nov 2006

I've created this template to facilitate access to editing on the ethnicity templates. It can be a bit daunting to have to tease out of an article what to edit in a traditional {{Ethnic group}} template format. This method allows for folks to be able to concentrate on just the infobox itself. (→Netscott) 08:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Palestinian an ethnicity?

I hope this doesn't offend anybody, but I'm not sure that Palestinian is not an ethnicity, at least not in the same sense as groups with ethnicity templates (such as Into-Aryans or Greeks). At best, it is a nationality. The word "Palestinian," when used to describe the Arabs that once lived in the British Mandate of Palestine and their decendants, is a term that is only about 50 years old. I noticed that Jordanians and Saudi Arabians do not have their own ethnicity template, even though those nationalities are older than Palestinians. I propose deleting the Palestinian ethnicity template. --GHcool 05:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is happening here Talk:Palestinian_people#Are_Palestinians_an_ethnicity.3F. --64.230.126.5 21:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If Bosnians are an ethnicity there isn't any reason that Palestinians arn't. Ethnicity is a pretty loose term and usually people are given the benefit of the doubt over whether they want to be an ethnicity. Seth J. Frantzman 08:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Palestnian Imagery

I figure that same as with other nationalities^{examples: [1], [2]}, the front image should be of prominant figures rather than an obscure image of two smiling children.

Suggested Prominent Palestinians

feel free to expand namelist and/or add from the list to the template...

• Mohammad Amin al-Husayni
• Yasser Arafat
• Faisal Husseini
• Mahmoud Abbas
• Rana Raslan (Israeli Citizen-Arab Palestinian - winner of miss israel 1999, controvercial suggestion but interesting)
• Ahmad Tibi (palestnian-arab israeli knesset member)
• Azmi Bishara (pro-resistance palestnian-arab israeli knesset member)

note: this information has been written also on the talk page of the Palestinians article. Jaakobou 09:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Arguments were made specifically agains the inclusion of political figures in earlier discussions of this issue on the Palestinian people talk page. Your change does not reflect any alleged consensus outcome. Please wait and discuss you changes before continuing. Tiamut 03:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this change and the last two times the issue was discussed there was no consensus, leaning towards keep for lack of a better option. Stop introducing these unsupported changes. Thank you. Tiamut 03:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The image of two children is biased and should be removed to adhere to Wikipedia's policy of the NPOV. This is NOT to say that they are necessarily biased culturally or sympathetically (though they may appear to be that way), but that they conflict with the de facto standards established by many other Ethnicity templates. Furthermore, all images used in the non-biased, more encyclopedic image suggested are free images (two public domain and one with all rights released on copyright), which therefore presents no fair use issues. --72.77.91.249 05:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the relevant discussion on the Talk:Palestinian people page. The accusation that the photos are "biased" was not found to be a valid argument, nor does is the photo a violation of any Wikipedia policy. The template is for the article Palestinian people not Palestinian National Authority or Palestinian Politicians. More than 50% of the Palestinian population is made up of children. Why is this picture is any way POV? Tiamut

As stated above: because it does not adhere to the de facto standards established by articles of a similar kind, which sets it apart and creates bias, even if the images in and of themselves are not necessarily biased. --72.77.91.249 05:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining what the "de facto" standrads for ehtnicity template pictures are? I am not aware of any guidelines or policies on the issue. 13:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The template should follow other templates and use pictures of prominent people. This is not a PR campaign, but an encyclopedia. -- Avi 13:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, I'm sorry but I disagree strongly with your decision, your arugment, and the implication that the photo serves part of a "PR campaign". Extensive discussions on this issue in Talk:Palestinian people reached a stalemate with no consensus on what pictures would be more approrpiate. Please explain what guidelines or policies prohibit the use or pictures of children in ethnicity templates. Tiamut 13:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Consistency with other wikitemplates for starters. -- Avi 14:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? And what is consistent about other wikitemplates. Can you direct me to a page that outlines this? Thank you. Tiamut 14:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Some examples were listed above. Now, why are you pushing a picture of children? What is special about children that reflect Palestinian ethnicity? Further, how do I know those children are not Bangladeshi or Israeli or Texan? -- Avi 15:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, as one who is making a change, it's up to you to defend that change, not for me to answer a series of rather ridiculous question that ssume bad faith on my part or some kind of misrepresentation. I refer you to comments in the extensive dicussion on this issue at the Talk:Palestinian people page, where I wrote:

The children are people and they are Palestinian. More than 50% of Palestinian population are children under the age of 18; i.e. they form a majority of the population. To put in a historical picture would be to consign Palestinians to history, and to put in a picture of a prominent Palestinian, would be to ask "which one?" Note also that the Israelis page has pictures of "Israelis on the street", two random people smiling, as well as other random human shots. The motivations of the anon who opened this debate are offensive, and those supporting his objection so far, with the exception of Tewfiq, generally seem to share in his offensive POV. If another more suitable photo is located, we could discuss moving the photo into the main body of the article. But for now, seeing as it is not inappropriate and there are no concrete alternatives, it should stay exactly where it is. Tiamut 01:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No need to shout, Tiamut . Firstly, where is Template:Israeli ethnicity? Or are you referring to something else? Secondly, lets look at the entries in Category:Ethnicity templates:

• Templates with pictures of notable ethnic people
  1. Template:African American ethnicity
  2. Template:Armenian ethnicity
  3. Template:Asian American ethnicity
  4. Template:Asian ethnicity
  5. Template:French ethnicity
  6. Template:Greek ethnicity
  7. Template:Indo-Aryan ethnicity
  8. Template:Italian ethnicity
  9. Template:Persian ethnicity
  10. Template:Portuguese ethnicity
  11. Template:Sikh ethnicity
  12. Template:Spanish ethnicity
  13. Template:Swedish ethnicity
  14. Template:Turkic ethnicity
  15. Template:Turkish ethnicity
• Templates with historical ethnic pictures
  1. Template:Armenian American ethnicity
  2. Template:Japanese ethnicity
• Templates without pictures
  1. Template:Arab ethnicity
  2. Template:Indian Indonesian ethnicity
  3. Template:Iranian ethnicity
  4. Template:Punjabi ethnicity
  5. Template:Tripuri people
  6. Template:White ethnicity

So, that is 15 templates with notable pictures, 2 with historical ethnic pictures, 6 without images and none with current non-specific ethnic pictures. So, again, why are you trying to make this template different from all of the existing ones? Please explain? More than 50% of African Americans are also under 18, I believe (although I could be wrong), but the ethnic heritage is Malcom X and Martin Luther King, not kids. -- Avi 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to block off the quote. Not shout. In any case, as I commented on User:Jaakobou's page, the last time the issue was discussed, there was no consensus for a change. This new change was introduced by an anon IP and it is quite possible that the pictures violate copyright as well. No one was consulted about the three pictures that were inserted. No attempt to discuss this with other editors at the Talk:Palestinian people page where this issue was last discussed was made before inserting this latest change. It does not reflect consensus. I see that you could not provide me with a page on policies or guidelines relating to the inclusion of pictures that would disqualify the Palestinian children photo as inqppropriate. Instead you have randomly cited examples of the photos available at other templates. This does not prove anything. Wikipedia works on consensus and policies and guidelines. I have asked others to refrain from making the change being inserted until there is a chance for other editors to discuss. This is not an unreasonable request and quite frankly, I don't understand why you insist on reverting to support the change despite the lack of consensus for it or discussion of it. I would ask that you revert to the photo of Palestinian children which is the last photo that had some kind of default consensus instead of pushing my hand into a revert war over this. I appreciate your understanding. Tiamut 15:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

These aren't random, Tiamut, they are ALL 23 existing templates. So you see, you are trying to be the first to break the convention and consistency, which places the onus on you, I am afraid. -- Avi 17:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your characterization of what's happening here is inaccurate. I did not add these pictures. They have been in place since well before October 2006, when I first became of one six other editors to defend their inclusion after an anon IP tried to get them deleted. You are ignoring the fact that these have been in place for many months now. The silence was disrupted yet again by another anon IP. I'm actually rather surprised that you would try to defend the change and ignore the default consensus established at the Talk:Palestinian people the last this was discussed. Tiamut 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This version looked well balanced to me. (→Netscott) 16:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? I find that quite surprising. How so? Why is Haj Amin al-Husseini there? He's long dead and hardly anyone cares about him anymore, except for pro-Israel advocates who like to use him to point to Palestinian anti-Semitism. How do these people represent Palestinian ethnicity exactly? Are they cultural figures of reknown? No, just a random selection of photos of six middle-aged male politicians of controversial and in some cases dubious reknown. The photo of two young girls is much much better. Tiamut 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well regardless an image/collection of images that has a better spectrum of who the Palestinian people are should be put into place. Don't get me wrong, I like the image of the children but a more thouroughly representative image is warranted. (→Netscott) 17:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Said by Jaakobou: "all obscure except for Mahmoud Darwish, i believe a picture with President Abbas and Amin al Husseini is more representative ..." <--- Tiamut was opposed to the previous version because it displayed political figures. There are no politicians in this new version, and yet he is still not pleased. I am sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. Compromises can be made over and over again and there will never be a consensus. By this very logic, having no image would be the correct solution. The current image is more encyclopedic and proper for a website such as Wikipedia, and it truly reflects the accomplishments of the Palestinian people. (Writers, poets, T.V. producers, historians, etc.) There should be no copyright dispute, for the images themselves have either been released into the public domain or fall under the fair use doctrine. Not to mention that the images all come from Wikipedia articles. 72.188.213.216 17:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To anon IP: Why are you in such a rush to make the changes without discussing what they shold be? I will repeat it for you again. The photo of the children was the last to enjoy any consensus. Your changes have not been discussed. Before you insert what you alone think constitute "famous Palestinian people", you should try to show a little more respect for the opinions of others as whom those might be or if it's even appropriate. Also, I'm a "she", not a he and you did not address my point about gender imbalance in the photos you have made a collage out of. I reject this change until we reach some sort of consensus on what exactly will be put in the place of the photo of the children. I remind you too that WP:Consensus notes that silence (as in no changes to edits made) for a period of time can be viewed as consensus. This picture enjoyed such silence until your disruptive and pushy edits under an anon IP no less with a rather single-minded agenda. Please discuss your changes and consider registering for an account. Tiamut 17:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of seeking a compromise while this is worked out I have commented the image out. Please let the reverting warring cease while a consensus is formed on what image will be displayed. (→Netscott) 17:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Leave no pictures until we decide on one. At least their is precedent for no pictures (per above). -- Avi 17:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object but will not revert for the time being. I would like to restate my position that your characterization of what's happening here is inaccurate. These pictures have been in place since well before October 2006, (and I don't even know who first posted them). I was one six other editors to defend their inclusion after an anon IP tried to get them deleted. They have been in place for many months now enjoying a default consensus, only to be again disrupted by another anon IP. There is no specific guideline and the default consensus established at the Talk:Palestinian people the last time this was discussed should be sufficient grounds to maintain the photo's inclusion until agreement on what should replace it can be reached. Tiamut 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As posting under an anonymous IP address is apparently frowned upon and seems to tend to discredit anything said while posting, I have registered for an account; previously, I was 72.77.91.249. I have read through the large majority of the discussions which took place at Talk:Palestinian people, and what I have gathered from it is that the major argument against having a montage of several prominent Palestinian figures is that no free images were available; this is obviously not the case, though it may have been when that discussion took place -- I do not know. However, the original montage presented by the anon IP consists ENTIRELY of *free images* of prominent figures; the newer one may contain images that may not constitute fair use. Furthermore, I feel that any argument made on the basis of gender imbalance is void from the perspective of the children image vs. any new image, as the image of the two children are BOTH female; is this not also a prime example of gender imbalance? Thus, I feel that this argument is entirely irrelevant. Finally, Tiamut, you stated "Before you insert what you alone think constitute 'famous Palestinian people', you should try to show a little more respect for the opinions of others as whom those might be or if it's even appropriate." I feel that this argument is also invalid, because again, the standards established by the many encyclopedic examples presented by Avi show that pictures of prominent people is the norm; I think we will ALL agree that those two children are not famous or prominent figures in Palestinian culture in any way, shape, or form. In order for an article to remain encyclopedic, it should show consistency with other articles of a similar kind. --Rintaun 18:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) As Rintaun said last week, and I before that, there is no reason to buck the standard policy and go against every other template on en.wiki -- Avi 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Demographics" link in template doesn't work

Resolved

 – Demographics now linked

In the fight over the image, I think people have missed the larger issue that the content of the template itself doesn't seem functional. What is with the "Demographics" link? --70.51.230.56 20:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. Is there anything else that doesn't work? Tiamut 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I redirected it to Demographics of the Palestinian territories, which is tagged as main in the section to which you had linked it. Doesn't it make more sense to link to the main article? -- Avi 03:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really. This template is about the Palestinian people as an ethnicity, not a citizenship or nationality. The demographic in the Palestinian territories page does not cover those in the Diaspora, in Israel, in refugee camps, etc. Please change it back. Tiamut 03:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, done. But in that case, shouldn't the {{See}} tag here: Palestinian people#Palestinian demographics be removed too? -- Avi 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed. Of course. I am not so good with this kind of thing, so would appreciate your help in eliminating redundancies if there are. Thanks for doing that Avi. Tiamut 04:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to revert, but I removed the tag based on this discussion -- Avi 04:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, I don't think I understood. I'm pretty tired. I'll look at it again later and if I think it's a problem, I'll do something about it. Thanks for your help. Tiamut 04:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture redux

There still has been no good reason why this trmplate has to be different from basically every other of its type, as described above. Ethnicity templates usually have as images pictures of notable people; why is this one special? More imprtantly, this used to have pictures of notable Palestinians; what is the motivation and justification for changing it? -- Avi 12:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The children was the last picture to enjoy any consensus. The picture of the six men you inserted seems to be WP:POINT on your part. I've removed that picture and left it blank again. Your only argument against this picture is that other templates don't use pictures of children. That's not a policy arugment and considering how few ethnicity templates there are, there is no standard practice. But I don't feel like fighting right now, particularly since you were so kind yesterday. Let's drop it until other editors get involved again. Tiamut 12:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The only point is that this picture is consistent with the standard on other ethnic/national-group templates and educates people about prominent Palestinians. Why would you think that a picture of anonymous children is more encyclopaedic? I'm sure that we can change the makeup of people (maybe add some women) if that is an issue. Tewfik^Talk 01:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that other ethnic group template pictures are chosen by people of that ethnicity, who have better insight on who is and is not important to their ethnic commuinity. Half of the 24 templates don't have pictures and those that do, follow no standard practice. I don't agree that a composite picture of six men of arguable representive value is a suitable picture for this template and find it particularly offensive actually, as a Palestinian woman myself. Tiamut 01:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and I'm hoping that you aren't disqualifying Avi from editing because he doesn't claim to be Palestinian. As I said above, feel free to suggest other figures of representative value. Tewfik^Talk 02:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disqualifying anyone from anything. I'm merely stating the facts. As a Palestinian woman, I find the attempt to insert a composite picture of six men of arguable importance in the place of two little girls to be disturbing and not right. I'm entitled to that opinion as you are entitled to infer whatever it is that you want to out of the comments. I've been through the policy arguments and standard practice issues before (above and in the archives on the Palestinian people talk page). Please re-read in case you have forgotten. Thanks. Tiamut 02:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but saying "other ethnic group template pictures are chosen by people of that ethnicity" sounded like a suggestion that this ethnic group template picture should be chosen by people of this ethnicity, even if that wasn't your intent. Considering that I brought up the issue of female representation, I assure you there really is no need to continue being offended or disturbed. Instead, why don't you suggest which personalities you would rather see included, and we can work from there. Tewfik^Talk 03:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want "personalities" Tewfik. It's controversial to pick and choose, there are no clear stand out choices. I prefer a picture of anonymous but representative people. Two kids was really good, seeing as how more than 50% of Palestinians are under the age 15. When I think of something better than that, I'll let you know. Til then, I don't think you will be able to garner any consensus around which "personalities" should be included. Tiamut 03:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I am very surprised that there is no article on Hannan Ashwari; that should be a project for WPPalestine. Secondly, the fact that a large percentage of Palestinians is under 15 is irrelevant; there is no reason to specifically single this template out of the other 30-some-odd templates for special handling. -- Avi 14:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Avi, there is an article for Hanan Ashrawi (you misspelt her first name). Second, there are 24 templates and at least 6 of them don't have pictures as you noted above. There is nothing is Wiki policy that prevents us from placing a photo of children in the template. Again, I don't really understand where the objection lies to having a picture of ordinary kids to represent the Palestinian ethnicity. It's not a political template. It's about people and their culture. Like I said, you will not be able to garner agreement about "personalities" who should be included. There are a lot of divisions about who would be representative in this case. Tiamut 15:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversial to pick and choose? I don't think that the personalities appearing on other ethnicities are the only prominent ones, but people there were able to find a solution, and I have no reason to doubt our capability to do the same. As an aside, children form a large proportion of all societies. Tewfik^Talk 04:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

My solution is to include a photo of Palestinian refugees in 1948. Given that over 50% of the Palestinian population are refugees and every Palestinian has a family member that is a refugee, I'd say it is an appropriate and representative picture.Tiamut 14:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the solution is, other than to allow people of the given nationality to choose the image they feel best represents them. There can be no mandate on such editors to "portray notable members of this ethnicity", and certainly none to portray people they don't wish to. PalestineRemembered 19:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Refugees

Hello, Tiamut.

While I understand your sentiments, can you please explain to me why the refugee picture is any less POV than a picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber?

The picture posted here is just as neutral a representation as the refugee picture.

A Palestinian boy throwing a stone at the Israeli West Bank barrier. Picture taken by Justin McIntosh, August 2004.

I am going to replace the picture with what I think is a truly neutral choice. -- Avi 14:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Avi's "neutral choice":

The refugee picture that began this latest row:

Avi are you f-ing serious?!? Over 50% of the Palestinian population are refugees. Less than 0.001% are suicide bombers. Could you stop being provocative here and respect the fact that I have been trying to compromise? I didn't even understand your objections to the picture of the smiling children and with these kinds of statements and actions on your part, you are begging for an edit war. Tiamut 14:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The smiling children:

No, Tiamut, please understand that the Arab-Israeli conflict is a very sensitive dynamic in wikipedia. Also, those 50% children that you quote are often throwing stones at Israeli soldiers. Why isn't that picture appropriate? Rhetorical, of course the stone-throwing is not appropriate, as it is intentionally provocative. Well, the same could be said for a refugee picture as well. What is YOUR problem with the picture I posted? Also, I have never spoken to you incivilly or inappropriately; please afford me the same courtesy. -- Avi 14:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have answered you on your talk page and would appreciate if you self-revert now.Tiamut 14:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to explain the justification for a politically-charged picture on what is ostensibly a neutral ethnicity template. Use that picture in the articles on Palestinian refugees, that is where it belongs, and prominently so. But not on a general ethnicity template. I cannot in good faith revert to something I think is a non-neutral, politically-charged, culturally-insensitive representation. -- Avi 14:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Avi, I'm asking you nicely now. Please self-revert. More than 50% of Palestinians are refugees. Very few comparatively live in Yanoon. These are historical and present-day facts. Palestinian identity is tied to their identity as refugees. You may not like it, but it happens to be true. Please try and respect the fact that as a Palestinian, I find your constant reversions of my additions to that template somewhat offensive. I don't go to pages on Jews and replace photos of people there with what I think is more appropriate. Perhaps a little cultural sensitivity is in order, no? Tiamut 14:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Avi, once again, you do not seem to understand what cultural sensitivity means. Identity of ethnic groups is self-defined. If I start replacing pictures of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust with pictures of Israeli soldiers, that would be culturally insensitive. If I replaced the same pictures with pictures of Jews hanging out in New York, that would be culturally insensitive. Please. I'm asking you. Don't make this an edit war. Tiamut 14:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Avraham"

Tiamut, I am not arguing that those are the proper pictures for articles on Palestinian refugees! But not for the general Palestinian ethnicity template. Use them in their proper place, but templates are not meant to be used to make political statements, Tiamut. -- Avi 14:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a political statement. Every Palestinian either is a refugee or is related to a refugee. The displacement of 1948 was the single most important event in the history of the Palestinian people. You cannot deny the right of people to represent their identity and history as they see fit simply because in your minority opinion, depicting Palestinians as refugees (which more than 50% actually are) is somehow POV. I am really truly disappointed Avi. I expected much better from you. I cannot understand your policing of the photos in this article which isn't policy-based (in fairness, there is no set criteria for this issue), but rather seem to be influenced by emotion. I am asking you again, before I take this to an RfC, to self-revert. Tiamut 15:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Please review the discussion in the section above which provide the background that generated this request. Tiamut 15:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The above conversation seems to suggest that the choice is between a couple of girls who appear to be in a refugee camp and six not-so-famous guys. OK, I'd like to see the pictures, I suppose. I do not in the least agree that 'ethnicity is self-defined' - that's simply not acceptable here - but I certainly see nothing wrong with a picture of someone in a refugee camp. Like it or not, that's how the rest of the world views Palestinians - to my discredit, I can think of no representative images - say, in the background of news reports or stock photos in magazines - that do not involve the sun, dust, and corrugated tin roofs. Just the way it is, and it is unsurprising that the template would reflect it. If half of a certain set of people live in refugee camps, and that is how they see themselves, it is not POV to pick a refugee. Sheesh. Hornplease 15:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've examined the options by looking through the history. The Yanoon family isn't that bad, but I see nothing POV about the refugee column either. If Moshe Dayan had been photoshopped on, chasing them in an old jeep, then that would have been POV. Avraham, take a chill pill. If its the two girls in Hebron that's chosen, that seems perfectly acceptable. Most ethnicity templates that have several pictures have them to ensure that all possible appearances and backgrounds are represented; there is no hard and fast rule here. Hornplease 16:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a good number of pictures on the WikiCommons which are truly devoid of any potentially or arguably POV/political elements. I think it would be best to use one of those. Two of these are rather old, but then, so is the one used at Ainu people and likely in many other cases. These show the true traditional culture of the Palestinian people, before the refugee situation was created. LordAmeth 16:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

Lord Ameth, I appreciate your sober comments; however, two of those pictures are already used in the Palestinian people article where this template appears. Further, I do not see how a picture of refugees, or the picture of smiling children that Avi and others have resisted including before - for reasons still not quite clear to me - are unacceptable. It must be admitted that every choice is a political one. Palestinians are a people whose history and present is political, and we have every right to represent that faithfully and sensitively. I might further point out that the same people opposing the refugee picture as "political" (with the exception of yourself of course) advocated including pictures of politicans?!? As I wrote to Avi on his talk page, "It's very clear to me who's position is informed by the desire to politicize issues of identity and society and whose is not." Tiamut 16:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I might further point out that the same people opposing the refugee picture as "political" (with the exception of yourself of course) advocated including pictures of politicans?!?

— Tiamut

Maybe I need to explain myself further. Using pictures of prominent people, even though they may be politicians, most often does not have an agenda behind it. Most ethnicity templates use pictures of prominent members of that ethnicity as pointed out above. Using pictures, even if they are not of politicians, but which are designed to either openly or subtly suggest an agenda (The Palestinians are displaced refugees, caused by the Israeli occupiers) IS a problem, and that is what I meant by politically charged. -- Avi 16:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Where in the picture of the refugees does it say "Israeli occupiers"? This is what I mean Avi. As I have pointed out time and time again, more than 50% of Palestinians are refugees. More than 50% of them would agree that a picture of refugees in an template representing their identity would be appropriate. But not all would agree on a picture of Mahmoud Abbas. This is an ethnicity template not the Arab-Israeli conflict. Keep your POV in check. Tiamut 17:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the fact that many Palestinians are refugees is not contested in any POV. The original and continued responsibility for it is contested.Hornplease 17:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Where in the picture of the refugees does it say "Israeli occupiers"?. I agree it does not, Tiamut. That is why I said both overt and covert. Why specifically pick a refugee picture when other less-charged pictures are available? -- Avi 17:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because the pictures that appear less charged to you are considered far less informative or representative. In any case, I think your concerns are not borne out by the actual material here; one has to already believe a particular narrative about Palestinian suffering in order to interpret pictures of refugees in the manner in which you suggest. There's simply nothing loaded about choosing a picture that indicates that most Palestinians self-identify as refugees. As I said, that is hardly contested by anybody. Hornplease 18:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I came because of Avi's solicitation on WPPalestine. I think "Image:Peasant Family of Ramallah 1900-1910.jpg" is fine. It is a formal picture of a Palestinian family. It is unknown whether these individuals became refugees or not, especially the family from 1900 whose picture is almost two generation prior to the exodus. Because there isn't a clear connection to claiming these Palestinians are refugees, I do not see this picture as being a POV issue. --Abnn 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the photo of the refugee caravan is POV-pushing, covertly or overtly. For the reasons Tiamut and Hornplease have stated, but also another. Palestinians are a diasporic nationality, and the Nakba is absolutely central to their identity. Even their detractors agree, though of course they frame the matter as a point of derision – i.e., the Palestinian nation is a modern creation, they only became a "people" through the creation of the state of Israel, etc.(you know the routine). Some may for their own reasons feel resentful or querulous when they see a picture like this, but this really is neither here nor there. WP:NPOV applies to subject matter, not the feelings of editors.--G-Dett 18:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle. I think the refugee picture is a great one for the article on Palestinian refugees, and it could be great in templates specific to that topic or about the diaspora or about the exodus. Its appropriateness to just simply the ethnicity template is more debatable from my perspective. I'm going to add the picture elsewhere, because it is a valuable one. --Abnn 19:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I too have mentioned above that I think the picture is excellent for an article on Palestinian refugees, my question is its apropos in categorizing all Palestinians. -- Avi 19:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that of the 4 pictures above, the 1900 image is the most iconic, which is what we're going for. The Fez picture is OK, but maybe narrower than it needs to be. - Richfife 19:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a terrific image. --Ian Pitchford 19:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the 1900 image would be a terrific choice. -- Avi 20:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate my agreement with a neutral picture. I personally think pictures of prominent Palestinians is ideal, but a historic picture is also in use on many templates, and it also seems to enrich this template. Tewfik^Talk 21:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the refugee column looks better, but I can't make any aesthetic arguments for it other than that it looks dynamic somehow. Hornplease 05:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I really would like to hear Tiamut's opinion, on the template. As for the refugee column, it is now used in three articles, and to good effect, IMO. I maintain it is an excellent choice for articles dealing with the Nakbah (did I spell that properly?), Palestinian refugees, or the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, but not to categorize ALL Palestinians. Personally, I too prefer notable figures in ethnicity templates, but the 1900 picture has a richness and character to it; much better than the one I found (Yanoon family), and much more indicative of Palestinian culture, too. -- Avi 16:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated previously, I believe the refugee picture is the most appropriate for a template of the Palestinian people because as G-Dett has also pointed out, Palestinians are a diasporic people, more than half of whom live in exile due to the events of 1948. The inclusion of such a picture is not in any way POV, despite the protestations of a minority - rather, it is a faithful representation of the facts. That the facts are rather sad or disturbing does not mean we should shy away from presenting them faithfully. That said, I don't have a huge problem with the picture in place right now. Indeed, I added it to the WikiProject Palestine template that is used on pages tagged to the project because it is a beautiful picture and includes balanced gender and age representation and represents Palestinian culture before its undermining or politicization by the establishment of the Israeli state. I would have preferred to use another picture of the ethnicity template since this one has so much exposure already now and it would be nice to present another view, but if consensus is leaning toward this picture, I will concur with its use for the time being. Tiamut 10:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, regardless of whether or not you think that it's POV, you have to admit that something which doesn't show them as refugees is better. The goal here is not to reinforce stereotypes, not to show how sad or pitiful or tragic a people's situation is, but simply to show that they are a people. Our article on Okinawa doesn't consist primarily of pictures of the destruction, our articles on Hiroshima and Nanking and Dresden do not focus primarily on destruction, and neither should this. If I put up a picture of a concentration camp as the picture for "Jewish people" or "Jewish ethnicity" or whatever, and made the same claims you are, that Jews are a disasporic people, that their history is sad and disturbing... you wouldn't support the use of that picture in that context. Please, take a look at what you are doing, and admit that showing Palestinians as refugees, as sad or poor or destitute automatically implies the events of 1948 and therefore automatically implies an anti-Israeli POV. That's not neutral, my friend. LordAmeth 21:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is neutral and no it doesn't imply an anti-Israel POV. Neither does the picture show them as "sad or poor or destitute". Its simply a photograph of people, mostly women, walking on a road with children. There is no Israeli soldier pointing a gun at them, no blood, no homes destroyed or tears in their eyes. It's a historical document that captures a particular moment in time without "automatically impl[ying] an anti-Israeli POV." That's your interpretation -which requires an enormous reading into a non-existent sub-text in the picture. I'm sorry if you find the fact that Palestinians were made refugees by Israel's creation and that the majority of them are still refugees today disturbing, but that's reality. Deal with it. Tiamut 21:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"...the fact that Palestinians were made refugees by Israel's creation and that the majority of them are still refugees today disturbing" - exactly, you also picked up on the implication. Tewfik^Talk 06:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was addressing Lord Ameth's comments and stating the facts. That they disturb you or others is not really my problem. They are the facts. And at Wikipedia, we don't shy away from representing controversy just because some people might be offended. Tiamut 10:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understood - I was quoting you. You argued that there was no implication, but then went on to elucidate what that implication was. Anywaysm this seems to have been settled. Tewfik^Talk 01:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish" Palestinians

How many are there, and what makes them "Palestinian"? Are you referring, for example, to the 1000-2000 Eastern European origin, Yiddish speaking, non-Arabic speaking members of Neturei Karta? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The British census of 1922 registered 752,048 inhabitants in Palestine, consisting of 589,177 Palestinian Muslims, 83,790 Palestinian Jews, 71,464 Palestinian Christians (including Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and others) and 7,617 persons belonging to other groups --Java7837 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

He was talking contemporary, not Mandate. <eleland/talkedits> 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Not every inhabitant of Palestine is "Palestinian". Beit Or 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Prior to 1948 they were — Ariel Sharon's birth certificate listed him as "Palestinian." However the term is now understood to refer to what used to be called "Palestinian Arabs." A handful Israeli Jews on the extreme left who favour a "one-state solution" identify as Palestinians; some of them even live alongside Palestinians in the territories (ie, not as settlers) and one serves as a non-voting member of the Palestinian National Council. However I don't see the need to highlight this currently rather obscure fact in a template which ought to be about the bare essentials. 97% Muslim, 3% Christian, "others" is good enough. <eleland/talkedits> 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Eleland; based on this reasoning; shouldn’t it follow, that 97% of Palestine should go to the Palestinian Muslims? Itzse (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Itzse, are you here to contribute, or to amuse yourself making puerile and stupid WP:POINTs? You're deliberately conflating the multiple meanings of "Palestinian." It's the same semantic game that some people use to claim that Arabs can't be anti-Semitic, since Arabs are a Semitic people. Please cut it out. <eleland/talkedits> 22:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Eleland; I'm dead earnest; but you missed the point I made. Please explain what semantic game I was trying to play. Itzse (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Quran actually supports Jews returning Israel, since Allah is so violent he might send Muslims to hell for opposing Zionism (satire)--Java7837 (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)