`:::::Tiamut, I'm only trying to indicate what type of scrutiny might be expected if there is a legit and not fringe controversy. (Also, the use of perjorative terms such as ridiculous or farcical do not strengthen your case, perhaps you could rephrase?) Personally, I'm inclined to trust your judgment but this doesn't mean that scrutiny isn't merited. So I did check the Kelman article you cite above, in which he states:   What would be the meaning of an Israeli acknowledgment-or, for that matter, an acknowledgment by the United States or other third parties-of Palestinian nationhood? Most important, nationhood implies certain attributes and rights; thus, to acknowledge that Palestinians are a nation would carry with it certain implications for issues that are currently matters of contention between the parties.  :::::Kelman here indicates that (recently) various major parties did not acknowledge the Palestinians as a nation and that it is/was a contested matter. Later, he says: ``Acknowledgment of Palestinian nationhood, with all of the implications that I have outlined, could hardly be described as a trivial exercise. While Israelis-in government, the media, and the general public-now freely use the term ``Palestinian,`` they do not necessarily conceive of the Palestinians as a nation with the attributes and rights that such a designation implies.`` Kelman thereby seems to contradict your view that the scrutiny of the 'nation' designation (i.e., your edit) is farcical because he says it is ``not a trivial exercise`` and that Israelis ``do not necessarily conceive of the Palestinians as a nation...`` Also, I would caution that, while Kelman advocates acknowledging nationhood, his article rarely uses the word ``nation`` and he deploys 'nationhood' in relation to political rights (tho' not nec. sovereignty), not as synonymous to people. In short, while I gladly concede that 'nation' might be accepted by all editors based solely on your reasoning, I don't think you should be surprised or uncharitable if some editors ask for various degrees of verification. Also, it's unfortunate that you happened to bring a source that seems to undermine or even contradict your claim. (You clearly did so in good faith, but it may raise doubts about the other sources.) Thanks for hearing me out on this.  |    `