Talk:Ethnic conflict

Israel/Palestine should be removed.
If we speak of pre-1948 Palestine: the description of ethnic conflict does fit, but post-1948: it is closer to a national-territorial dispute.

Not to mention not every Palestinian Arab supports views and polices of his people and state, such as Walid Shoebat, neither does every Israeli-Jew, such as Shlomo Zand. In fact: you have cases in which one identifies with the nationality of the other, such as Uri Davis describing himself as a "Hebrew Palestinian", and people who are considered Palestinians under the PLO's charter primarily identify as Israelis (Pre-Zionism Palestinian Jews, and some Israeli Arabs). This is especially said when the article defines ethnic conflict as "conflict must expressly fight for their ethnic group's position within society", yet the Arabs and Jews of Historical Palestine are no longer under single rule to be in the same society ever since Mandatory Palestine's termination at the midnight of May 14th ,1948.

Ethnicity doesn't seem to be a primary factor after 1948, rather than nationality which is not exclusive to the ethnicity of one of the 2 belligerents of said conflict.

I suggest replacing Israel/Palestine -a conflict whose primary issues lie in the final status of the Palestine refugees, and Israeli-occupied areas rather than ethnic dominance - with its pre-1948 phase, the "Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine " Wikipedia article, as indeed the conflict was between Arabs and Jews, rather than Palestinians (who some could be Jewish), and Israelis (who some could be Arabs), and such communal lines determined by ethnicity were recognized of the time , but no so much today as nationality. 188.54.112.228 (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The mysterious Petersen
The mysterious Petersen makes a cameo appearance in connection with the discussion of primordialism: "Primordialists have reformulated the "ancient hatreds" hypothesis and have focused more on the role of human nature. Petersen argues that the existence of hatred and animosity does not have to be rooted in history for it to play a role in shaping human behavior and action:..." Petersen doesn't appear in the bibliography or anywhere else. Banderswipe (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It's Varshney saying that Petersen said that, so at least in a pedantic sense, the info and the quote are attributed correctly. You'll need to use an ocr tool like Tesseract (software) if you want to scan for words in Varshney rather than reading the full text (the pdf file appears to be a scan, without searchable plain text). I fixed the quotes per MOS:QWQ. The more difficult question remains: is it better to only cite Varshney, whose pdf is open access, or should Petersen 2002, presumably only an offline book, also be cited for completeness, with most of us (e.g. me) being unable (or lacking the time and interest to order an inter-library loan) to verify the content? And is Petersen 2002 especially notable for having said this? or is s/he someone who summarised the point well?The ref is written Petersen, R. D, 2002. Understanding Ethnic Violence. New York: Cambridge University Press in Varshney. Petersen, R.D. does not currently appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Boud (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)