Talk:Palestinians

Palestinians as natives

This is removed again, along with bunch of sources by Pyramids09 [1].

I'll be reverting the change for now, since there was a previous talk page consensus. See Talk:Palestinians/Archive_24#Indigeneous

Let me know if this needs to go through an RfC. This has been discussed over and over. Bogazicili (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I also don't understand why sources such as Native Peoples of the World: An Encyclopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues were removed. Bogazicili (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Loss estimate of $300bn

The following claim is included in this article:"Recent estimates of the cost to Palestinians in property confiscations by Israel from 1948 onwards has concluded that Palestinians have suffered a net $300 billion loss in assets." This is also included in the lead of the article. The lead includes this claim and credits Perry Anderson, yet the citation included directly credits a different source for the claim; Anderson cited an analysis included in a book.

The book cited by Anderson includes 2 different valuations of losses from seizures in 1948(not 1948 onwards as claimed) with damages in 1948 prices, the first being meant as a framework for which to calculate the fair value of compensation. An arbitrary rate of 1.71% above inflation is chosen for illustration in the introduction to reach just under $300bn(2008 prices), but the analysis does not include any justification for this rate nor claims to calculate the present value, instead providing a framework to do so. Another estimate for losses is also included that reaches approximately $300bn(2008 prices) by assuming an arbitrary rate of 4% real growth. Neither of these provide an estimate for the value of losses, only the value for compensation for said losses which differs from simply calculating the value of assets seized in 1948 in modern prices by factoring in growth in the real value of assets over time.

Equating either to a "net $300 billion loss in assets" is incredibly misleading given that this is not what the estimates are. Anderson doesn't claim this in the article he wrote either, calling the estimates the "value of property…confiscated…and associated losses". Given this, the estimate should be placed in proper context, possibly including a note explaining the valuations. The valuation of the assets in 1948 prices should also be included. Originalcola (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Pinging editor who added this material. @Bogazicili Originalcola (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Originalcola: I didn't add that part. Check again. Or provide a diff please, was it re-added when I reverted something else? Bogazicili (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I didn't look close enough when trying to find when it was. Somebody changed the layout of the lead at some point which made me think you added it when looking at past revisions. It was added back in 2016 by a retired editor. Originalcola (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2025

Change Saudi Arabia's Palestinian population number in the textbox from 1,000 to 461,000, as is written in this source. Omar Hall (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:JOSHUAPROJECT; it is not a reliable source. Skitash (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 3 June 2025

The number of Palestinians in Saudi Arabia according to source used:

Diff:

−

Saudi Arabia shows 1,000

+

426,000

Tisthefirstletter (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2025

Change answer to Palestinians are not Muslim FROM this “the majority of Palestinians are not Muslim” TO “the majority of Palestinians are Muslim.” Specifically: Up to 99% of Palestinians are Sunni Muslim, with the majority being Sunni Arab; Sunni referring to those who practice Islam and Arab referring to a persons national identity.

So literally 99% of the population is Muslim, but when I google “are the majority of Palestinians Muslim?”, the Wikipedia answer on the first 2 results is “That is not true, most Palestinians are not Muslim, the majority are Sunni Arab.” Sunni is a person who follows Islam, and a person who follows Islam is a Muslim!!

So misleading this answer is. If the basic brained people of this world just read your answer, you’ll be misleading them bc they won’t understand that Sunni is what a Muslim believes in and lives, which is their religion of Islam! And Arab just means where they are located physically, so literally Muslim Arabs aka 99% of Arab Muslims. 2601:282:2380:4770:E0AF:C1D3:E833:6305 (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Search engines are bad now. Tell Google to either design an AI that reads Wikipedia better or to stop reading it at all, because nothing is wrong with our article. Remsense 🌈 论 13:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

By "Wikipedia answer", as Remsense suggests, I guess you mean Google answer. If so, Google machines decide what to construct and display to Google users, in knowledge panels for example or via their generative models. Wikipedia editors write this article, and Wikipedia can only control content accessed via URLs controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation e.g. en.wikipedia.org. So, the only thing you can do here is point out an error in this article. What other organizations do with the content is up to them. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland this is the second such complaint I've seen today. I have a bad feeling someone tweaked their model or front-end and we're going to be suddenly buried in this sort of thing. I can see it coming already that we're going to be increasingly pressured to start rewriting articles as to place certain data where incompetent, buggy LLMs can easier find and correctly interpret it—or otherwise faced with bad edits from editors who are just trying to make the LLM output work. I never anticipated that this would be the most perfidious way LLMs threaten our project, rather than spambots and articles hallucinated from scratch. Remsense 🌈 论 13:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Yep, and this one recently because the US is apparently in the wrong place in a string, the first time I'd this kind of request. It's not looking good. I assumed we would get requests from people who wanted to engineer things to make their preferred belligerent in a conflict look better via LLMs, but I wasn't expecting people to not realize that Google content is not Wikipedia content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)