Talk:Palestinians/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25

Unaddressed questions

Until these four questions are addressed, I believe this discussion is going to continue in the same circuitous patterns. As I would like us to make some progress, I've created a new section that can hopefully move us toward that goal:

  1. Can I change descriptors at John A. Macdonald and Antonio López de Santa Anna to list them as Americans? If not, why not?
  2. If we apply the "Palestinian" label to Jesus, then what Palestinian Jew isn't going to be thrown into the Palestinian category? At what point do the distinct modern categories of Jew and Palestinian begin to have any meaning?
  3. If indeed this article is not about the contemporary people known as Palestinian, then please explain to me why the current population numbers of those currently known as Palestinians are listed in the infobox, and why the mainstream Jewish Israeli population is not included.
  4. If Jesus were around today, would he be "Palestinian enough" to be included in the population figures given in the infobox?

Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Evan, any Palestinian Jew can be thrown into the Palestinian category, just as any Palestinian Christian or Palestinian Muslim can.
This article is both about the contemporary Palestinians and the historical Palestinians they descend from. The Mainstream Jewish Israelis (I assume you're talking about the native Mizrahi Jews as opposed to the additional Jewish immigrants) population is not included in Palestinians because they are part of the modern state of Israel and the high majority do not wish to be included as Palestinians, although a minority actually do identify as Palestinian Jews.
If Jesus were around today, he would most likely be seen as both a Palestinian and Israeli Christian, seeing as his beliefs were clearly Christian, being the founder of Christianity.
And Evan, you said yourself that you agree that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew. The fact that he is Jewish does not change the fact that he was Palestinian. Many of the editors on this page and others would like to equate the ethnic term Palestinian with the ethnic term Arab (time and again might I add) which is not an accurate equation at all, yes it is accurate in a modern cultural and linguistic sense. Palestinians both modern and historically have various ancestries along with a substantial ancestry from the aboriginal populations of the region and have had various religions. This article is about the Palestinian people, which not only includes modern Palestinians but also historic Palestinians, such as Jesus Christ and his Disciples. It seems as some editors on this page would like to ignore Palestinian history, are we to ignore historical Palestinians? That doesn't seem like a very accurate thing to do on a wikipedia page about an ethnicity. I see on almost every other ethnic page they include historical members of their ethnicity. See English people including Alfred the Great, Norwegian people's St. Olaf, this continues with countless other ethnicity pages. To not include historical members of the Palestinian people would be to ignore Palestinian history. Lazyfoxx (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
1. I don't know enough about those names - I'll reply in due course
2. and 3. This discussion has shown the following:
  • If we were having this conversation in 1946, all Jews, Christians and Moslems born in the region since the Hellenistic period began would be called Palestinian
  • Today there are two ways to interpret the change the word Palestinian since 1948
  • viewpoint (I) The pre-1948 definition applies, except all Jews who renounced the identity post 48 are carved out of the definiton and became Israeli. The right way to refer to non-Jews who took Israeli nationality is disputed (see explanation at Israeli Arabs)
  • viewpoint (II) The word Palestinian lost all historical value post 1948. So only non-Jews born in the region post 1920 apply, and only if they didn't take Israeli citizenship.
And then there are other views in between. There is no RS consensus on this. And most other nationalities define their own histories, and including who qualifies, in their schoolbooks and national histories.
4. I agree with Lazyfoxx - Palestinian Christian.
Oncenawhile (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I think we may be getting somewhere, if slowly. On the subject of question two, I commend you both on your logical consistency, even if I believe it to be flawed. I still think a simultaneous application of the two definitions in this article is only going to confuse people. If we rewrote the article (and I mean to a close to total rewrite -- 70% or more) to reflect a balanced, but distinct, usage of the two definitions, I could see myself accepting the placement of Jesus in the infobox (see my mention of an Inhabitants of Palestine article). As it is, though, this article is quite clearly focused on viewpoint II, as you define above. I'm not arguing that either is right or wrong, but if we're going to acknowledge both definitions, then we really need to make that more clear in the article. To be honest, I really prefer the creation of Inhabitants of Palestine to give a broad overview of the region's different populaces from the dawn of human history until today, and let this page focus solely on those identifying as Palestinians with roots in the western half of the Mandate.
I'm really unsure about your answers to question four. There is a popular view among scholars (probably a majority one) that Jesus and his immediate followers lived and died as practicing Jews (see, for example James Parkes, "The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue" Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1961) and probably were not excised from the overall Jewish community until well after the destruction of Jerusalem. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I have stayed out of this discussion because my experience with this article is that even when tonnes of reliable sources are presented affirming something that some people don't like to hear, there is no way to get it included in the article, primarily due to block voting.
Its clear that there are no shortage of reliable sources stating that Jesus was a Palestinian, a Palestinian Jew or a Palestinian Christian.
Palestinian people of today recognize Jesus as one their ancestors. Yasser Arafat once famiusly said he was the first Palestinian martyr and Elias Chacour, a Palestinian priest, called him a compatriot. There are many other examples of this as well.
It is also true that pro-Israel sources like Bat Ye'or have contested the identification of Jesus as Palestinian. the question in my mind is if that contestation is significant enough to demand that we not include Jesus without reservations in a list of Palestinians or in the photos in the infobox.
I have to say that I agree fully with Lazyfoxx here: it is an unfair double standard to deny Palestinians the right to historical figures when all nations today are constructs and many other pages include figures who predate the formation of modern nation states or nationalities. It seems that the objections here are primarily basd on the mistaken belief, promoted by Israeli partisans, that Palestinians did not exist prior to the 20th century, that they just Arabs pretneding to be something different because they hate Jews. This offensive, outdated propaganda underlies many of the arguments made here, even if not stated explicitly.
As to Evan's questions, I think they are too general and that we have to approach the inclusion of figures on a case by case basis, giving priority to what reliable sources have to say. Tiamuttalk 08:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
"Palestinians" in the meaning of people who lived in a certain geographic area called "Palestine" certainly lived before the 20th century, but they generally did not have anything remotely approaching a Palestinian national self-identity in the modern sense, because 1) Palestine was not a nation 2) During long periods, "Palestine" had a very different geographic meaning than defined today, or there was no official province or administrative unit called "Palestine" -- including most of the Ottoman period, when the Arabic word Filastin tended to be something of a semi-antiquarian term (referring back to the Arab caliphates period) and/or something of a calque (i.e. used by Christians under European influence). The only sense in which Jesus can be legitimately called a "Palestinian" is in the scholarly sense, using Palestinian as a narrowly geographical term to refer to non-Arab peoples of ancient times (and even this is quasi-anachronistic, since the use of the word Palaestina / Παλαιστινη to cover Judea and Galilee did not fully take hold until ca. 135 AD, a century after Jesus' death). Any conflation between the technical geographic scholarly use of the word and the use of the word which only entered the English language in the last 50 years (a cultural/ethnic/political term -- not just geographical -- referring almost exclusively to Arabs) is frankly bizarre. To put this in its simplest terms, Vercingetorix is not normally called a "Frenchman" and Boudicca is not normally called an "Englishwoman", so why should Jesus be called a "Palestinian" (in the modern meaning)?? -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
There you go AnonMoos, doing exactly what we have described throughout this talk session, you Refer to Palestinians synonymously with the ethnic term Arab. Palestinians are descended from the people who have inhabited the region since prehistory. They are Arab in a Cultural and Linguistical sense. Stop purporting that Palestinians are Arabian immigrants that have only existed after the Islamic Conquest, that is completely false, is discussed not only in this talk page but also clearly stated in the article, and is an insult to the Palestinian peoples history to say such a thing. Lazyfoxx (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Boudicca is never described as an Englishwoman in RS. JC is called 'Palestinian' as is Justin Martyr, Sozemenos of Gaza, Saint George, Maximus the Confessor,Zosimas, St Hilarion, Epiphanius and many others in texts that splendidly conform to WP:RS. So this is pure obfuscation and blague on your part. The issue is, can a bunch of editors exercise a veto over usage established in highly reliable sources.
All that is being applied here is a stacked veto gaming sources by the sheer weight of blow-ins who know nothing of the topic, and whose unison with more familiar objectors to anything Palestinian has paralysed the page. You keep repeating mechanically that no one before Bar Kochba's revolt was 'Palestinian'. This is a hasbara theme, and has no place here, since you refuse to confirm what a simple google search will tell you: that 'Palestinian' is the default term in historical scholarship for the area nows called Israel/West Bank, and is customarily employed by all scholars, Jewish, goy, whoever, for describing the people and culture of that land from high antiquity down to modern times. The line you take is ideological, political, and contradicts these sources. These sources do not use the word 'Palestinian' in the modern sense as an 'Arab-speaking people'. They use it for a Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek speaking people. The OED says, apparently in its revised version, that the word has this double meaning, and all objectors here, toeing scrupulously an identifiable Israeli political line, privilege the second meaning, and object to the first meaning. So you are all espousing an ideological ban on the proper use of the term 'Palestinian' as normatively applicable to an ancient people of Palestine, from whom, in some good part, the modern people now called 'Palestinians' descend, according to the genetic sources cited on this page. Since this is the case, you shall all have to justify, at the appropriate time, why the primary OED definition of the term cannot be applicable to this article. I'll compose a list of a few hundred sources which use the term 'Palestinian' for the ancient population and many historic figures, and post it some time later this year. Some day, all of you interfering with the composition of articles according to WP:RS because of an apparent prepossession with cultural tabus and contemporary politics, will have to explain why, uniquely, we must ignore the overwhelming evidence of academic RS, which show that the term is never used in scholarship on antiquity to refer to 'Arabs'. If you wish to limit the article to the modern period, it must be reframed as 'Arabic-speaking Palestinian people', otherwise it does not reflect RS. Nishidani (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, nowadays the word "Palestinian" usually means "an Arab born or living in the area of the former mandated territory of Palestine; a descendant of such an Arab." That's certainly what it means when referring to the topic of this article, the "Palestinian people", which, as reliable sources in the article itself have pointed out, is an identity that formed at some point between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries. Jesus, Justine Martyr, Saint George et al were certainly not that. To quote you, Nishidani, "Why do you refuse to accept the definition given in the most authoritative modern dictionary of the English language?" And P.S. - if I see you one more time accuse editors here of "hasbara", of "toeing" an "Israeli political line", or of any similarly absurd ad hominem, you'll be taken to the board that deals with these kinds of violations. Jayjg (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
usually means is the operative word, and the change effected in the OED reflects the fact that the overwhelming use of Palestinian since the first intifada is in news venues, where it refers to the contemporary scene. Unfortunately, and no one here yet has seriously contested this easily verifiable fact, in scholarship on antiquity, 'Palestinian' is one of the default terms for anyone born in, precisely, what scholarly convention calls, as a neutral denominator, 'Palestine'. One writes untroubled, of 'The Palestinian Talmud', 'Palestinian Jews', 'Palestinian schools,' 'Palestinian thinkers', 'Palestinian disciples', 'Palestinian' because no one in his right mind would think that the substantive or adjective in those contexts refers to contemporary Palestinian people. Scholars assume that people are not stupid. As to violations, you entered here, and immediately called 'sophistry' the fact that I called the attention of editors to the fact there is a serious definitional problem with the word 'Palestinian'. The rest is history. So, points reciprocally made, let's stick to the issue, which, as I see it is.
Given that it is a scholarly convention to call people of Palestine from BCE to modern times, but especially from BCE to the Islamic era, 'Palestinians', whatever their ethnicity, how is the article to deal with this fact?
An answer is required because while so many of you deny the fact, the textual evidence is overwhelming. So, are you all arguing that the substantive and the adjective 'Palestinian' must not be used in wikipedia articles regarding the second and first millenium BCE -6th century CE?Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
This article is about the "usual" modern meaning of the term "Palestinian", and a specific people/cutural identity, the "Palestinian people". Unfortunately, and no one here yet has seriously contested this easily verifiable fact, when applied to people from antiquity, the term is not intended to refer to members of the subject of this article, the "Palestinian people", but instead to refer to completely different cultures, such as (in the case of Jesus) "Palestinian Jews".
Given that this article is not about people of Palestine from BCE to the Islamic era, and that those who are typically referred to as "Palestinians" (rather than, say, "Palestinian Jews") are members of an Arab cultural group and identity that formed in the mid-19th to mid-20th century, how is the article to deal with this fact?
An answer is required because while a small number of you deny the fact, the textual evidence is overwhelming. So, are you all arguing that non-members of the cultural/ethnic identity described by this article should be included in it, simply because the term "Palestinian" is used to refer to different things, as reflected in the different meanings provided by authoritative dictionaries? Jayjg (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's break this down analytically, point by point.
(a)You assert, prescriptively I think, that 'This article is about the "usual" modern meaning of the term "Palestinian", and a specific people/cutural identity, the "Palestinian people".
(a)Where is it written in the wikipedia rulebook that the article 'Palestinian people' as opposed to the articles about other stateless or formerly stateless peoples , i.e., Armenian people, Kurdish people, Basque people, Tibetan people, Breton people Welsh People, Druze People, Assyrian People, Catalan people Hausa people, Falasha people, Samaritan people etc.etc. must deal exclusively with contemporary Palestinians, and deny in the lead that they are an historical people? Most of the info boxes of these articles feature figures from the past, saints and whoever.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
You took the words right out of my mouth Nishidani, I completely agree. If we are to retain a neutral POV on this Page, why does the Palestinian page have a double standard, and a restriction while other pages seemingly do not? Like I said earlier, some editors on this page would like to ignore Palestinian History and Palestinian historical figures, which is completely their personal POV, something that is refrained from on Wikipedia. Lazyfoxx (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani, my claim was never that this article SHOULD deal only with contemporary Palestinians but that, as of now, a good portion of the article implies that it DOES. With the article in that state, adding Jesus to the infobox is deceptive. With the article as it is, you would need a source stating that he is part of the ethnic group known in modern times as the Palestinians (and I'm still not sure if that's your claim or not). At any rate, how does everyone feel about the above-suggested creation of a new article? Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that an article on wikipedia cannot be altered to differ from the way it now stands? If so, this is an absurd objection. Articles are always in progress, and no policy supports a veto on changin a page, even significantly, esp. if RS have been ignored. Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani, this article is not about the adjective (or even noun) "Palestinian". Rather, it is about the "Palestinian people". The article itself sets the parameters of what it's about, right in the section Palestinian people#Palestinian history and nationalism, which talks about the genesis of the identity of the Palestinian people, defining its members as being Arabs living in the geographical area often called Palestine, and originating at some point from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century (in fact, as a process occurring during that time period). If you're proposing to now include entirely different cultural groups from entirely different eras this article, then you'll need to find reliable sources stating that, for example, 1st century Galilean Jews and Roman pagans were also part of the cultural identity known as the "Palestinian people". These sources have been asked for before, without success. Please provide them. Jayjg (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't address my concern. I'll reframe the question, which you have sidestepped. The article 'Palestinian people' as so far written, differs from the examples in wikipedia of many articles about other stateless or formerly stateless peoples , i.e., Armenian people, Kurdish people, Basque people, Tibetan people, Breton people Welsh People, Druze People, Assyrian People, Catalan people Hausa people, Falasha people, Samaritan people etc.etc. In these articles, the people are denoted, not in terms of their contemporary 'political identity', but as an historical people? Why is the article on Palestinians, therefore, exceptional? Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
In response to this discussion, I read the article "A Palestinian Past: National Construction and Reconstruction" by Meir Litvak, in History and Memory, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Fall - Winter, 1994), pp. 24-56 (Indiana University Press). I'll put the PDF online if requested. Litvak makes the case that the identification of Jesus as Palestinian specifically, and the inclusion of Canaanite and other peoples from antiquity in a Palestinian identity generally is a phenomenon that has emerged since 1967. Prior to this point, Palestinian historians tended to emphasize the Islamic period in their historical accounts of their culture, and they tended to focus on a pan-Arab rather than a specifically Palestinian viewpoint:
Clearly the term "Palestinian" means two different things: (1) someone who lived in the Palestinian region in antiquity, and (2) a member of an ethnic group which, as a concept, has emerged in the past century and whose definition is evolving. This article is clearly addressing the second definition. Some people believe that Jesus and other members of group 1 are also automatically members of group 2, but this is a relatively new belief and it is not an uncontroversial belief. I'm not aware of policies that specifically address infobox use for members of ethnic groups, but my sense is that the contents of an infobox should be non-controversial since it is meant to be a very brief, statistical overview rather than a place for discussion. Since the inclusion of Jesus as a Palestinian is controversial and requires discussion, I would recommend leaving it out of the infobox. GabrielF (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
That's interesting but somewhat irrelevant (re: Hannan Ashrawi) -- Yasser Arafat spent the last four years of his life insisting that there had never been a Jewish temple in Jerusalem, but we haven't rewritten the factual presentation in our Temple in Jerusalem article as a result... AnonMoos (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Replied more extensively on your page, but for here, the article is not about Palestinian self-perceptions, which is what the article discusses. Some scholars deny Palestinians fit the bill as an 'ethnic group', though they are in Weberian terms. As an ironical curiosity, the Palestinians as Canaanites debate in the 1960s mirrored, and was influenced by the Israeli-identity-as-Canaanites theory led by Yonathan Ratosh, which was particularly influential in the preceding decade in Israel. Much of what your paper cites has parallels in Israeli identity debates. Only there, it does not occlude our speaking of the people as having historical roots, irrespective of modern concepts of self-conscious nationalism.Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Please don't clutter the page with irrlevant anecdotes and chat.Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(Response to Evan) Hi Evan, I appreciate your compromise suggestion about the two articles. Are you aware of any precedents for such a split of modern people / historical people articles in any other nationalities on Wikipedia?

Separately, I promised I'd come back to you on MacDonald and Lopez de Santa Ana. They both could qualify for more than one national label, but not American. That's obviously because the label American is not used in RS in that way. If you want my view as to why Canadians and Mexicans are not referred to as Americans, it's because they don't qualify for either the national (USA) or cultural uses of the word. The cultural use of the word was historically applied to "Native" Americans, which differentiates them from the immigrants. But immigrants to e.g. Canada do not become culturally "[Native] American" just because they immigrated to North America. That's the same reason why the Jewish leaders in Palestine in 1948 decided to declare the "State of Israel" rather than the "State of Palestine" - because being immigrants they were Palestinian only by nationality - they were not culturally "Palestinian". Which is of course is the same reason we are having this whole debate. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If "culturally Palestinian" basically means "Arab" (a meaning of the word "Palestinian" which was not too common during the 1920s-1940s, and only became known to the broad publics of English-speaking countries in the 1960s), then why is Jesus a Palestinian?? -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Anon, the culture of Palestinians has been many things throughout Palestine's history, because Palestine has had an amalgamation of many rulers who have imposed their cultures upon the Palestinian people, and the Palestinians have absorbed. During the time of Jesus, being "culturally Palestinian" would have been being a Latin/Aramaic/Hebrew/Greek speaking Pagan, Jewish, or Gentile Roman in Palestine. Palestinians gained the culture of Arabs into their culture from majority after the Islamic conquest and the centuries thereafter, adapting to their new rulers. There were also pre-muslim Arabs who also brought their language and culture to Palestine, but they for the high most part became fully Hellenized with the already present Palestinians, see Ghassanids. Lazyfoxx (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
It's of course true that many people who lived in the region during the 20th century had a long line of ancestors who also lived in the region -- but the vast majority of those ancestors would not have had a strong "Palestinian" self-identity. During long periods of time, the word "Palestine" either did not refer to the whole territory later included in the 1923-1947 mandate (e.g. caliphal Jund Filastin did not include the Galilee, etc. etc.) or was not the name of any official administrative unit (such as the Ottoman period, during most of which the Arabic word Filastin was used mainly either nostalgically to refer back to the glory days of the Arab caliphates, or by Christians under European influence...). Today the word "Palestinian" in its modern political/cultural/ethnic sense refers almost exclusively to Arabs, and has no substantial continuity or commonality (except for the technicality of sharing a common etymological origin) with the scholarly use of the word as a geographical term to refer to almost exclusively non-Arab peoples of ancient times... AnonMoos (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, who said 'self.identity' has anything to do with being a 'people'? I appreciate the difficulty many are having in answering my request to examine the many pages dealing with people, where 'self-identity is not regarded as relevant. But that is the crux. Why are editors ignoring the problem? Because, as so far written, in ignorance of comprehensive sources, the Palestinians are made out to be a people who recently 'invented themselves', and did not, presumably have ancestors.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani -- between the time when the Philistines lost their distinctive cultural identity and assimilated into the general surrounding "Canaanite" population (i.e. before 500 B.C.) and the 20th century, there was no Palestinian people in the sense of a group which had a reasonably strong exclusivist/nationalistic/separatist self-identity under the name פלשת / Παλαιστινη / Palaestina / فلسطين. Rather, during that long period "Palestine" was merely one of a number of geographical terms used in the Levant -- sometimes (only after 135 A.D.) used as the name of a province of an empire, often not. The word had somewhat a somewhat fluctuating and variable geographical denotation, originally referring only to the southern coastal plain (roughly Joppa to Gaza), and subsequently expanding and contracting in definition as empires reorganized their provincial boundaries etc. Generally, people considered their religion and their lineage or clan or village or tribe to be far more important in defining who they were than the fact that they happened to live in a region called Palestine. So there may be quite a bit of continuity with respect to inhabitants of Palestine having ancestors who also lived in Palestine, but there's no continuity of a Palestinian identity -- or in the definition of the word "Palestinian" -- down the centuries. In fact, the borders of the British Mandate were determined in 1917-1923 by European colonialists drawing semi-arbitrary lines on a map without much consultation with the inhabitants of the area -- and the British Mandate was different from any previous definition of Palestine. All this means that modern-day Palestinians may have very deep historical roots in one sense, yet an organized separatist Palestinian national identity only came into existence quite recently in historical terms -- and it also means that equivocating between very different meanings of the word "Palestinian" to produce incongruous anachronisms such as effectively retroactively claiming that Jesus was an Arab (which is the only way to claim that Jesus was a "Palestinian" in the modern sense of the word relevant to this article) is really quite absurd and nonsensical... AnonMoos (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I see this controversy has spread, with some interesting results. Can we just call this whole argument off and call it at no consensus? I'm going to be out of town for about a week, so anything that happens here is going to escape my notice. Whatever. I'm out. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 07:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason to call this "argument" off. If all of the editors on this page would be editing from a neutral POV, there would be an immediate consensus in lieu of the facts that myself, Nishidani, Oncenawhile, Tiamut, and others have repeatedly stated and sourced that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, a highly important Palestinian historical figure, and is worthy of being in the Palestinian infobox just as other Ethnicities claim historical figures that helped shape their countries and people. Israeli's with an anti-Palestinian agrenda will as a majority never accept that Jesus was a Palestinian, because that would go against their beliefs, what they were taught in "school", which we have been seeing clearly on and off this page, their belief that all Palestinians are non-native Arabian immigrants from the last couple centuries. Lazyfoxx (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:AGF and WP:NPA.--Shrike (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
There have, as of yet, been no sources brought forward which state that Jesus is a Palestinian in the modern sense. This article covers Palestinians as defined by the modern sense. Veiled accusations of hasbara and other things will do nothing to help your argument. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 07:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Evan, the modern sense? It is stated on this article with sources provided, even in the first sentence mind you, that the Palestinian People are descended "from the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries." The modern sense of what a Palestinian is includes the Palestinians from history that modern day Palestinians descend from. Lazyfoxx (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Lazyfoxx. By the way, it's not just scholars who use Palestine / Palestinian to refer to the region in the time of Jesus. Today, in modern times, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, who apparently followed a direct line of leaders of the church in Jerusalem since the brother of Jesus (James the Just), is known as the patriarch of "all Palestine". Like the scholarly community, the church tries to avoid changing key descriptors at the whim of modern politics. This is supposed to be a scholarly article, so we need to find a way to get through all the political noise and focus on the RS. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The consensus will not be easy.
  • It is right that for all other "Peoples", the policy is to refer to any man/women from the antiquity to today who lived in their "territory" broadly viewed as one of their member even before the birth or their nation
  • It is right that there is some disctinction between Modern Palestinian People (a Nation born between end of 19th century and 1920) and the inhabitants of Palestine (from the time where Roman gave this name this provincia of their empire).
The issue is of course linked to the political struggle around the historical "ownership" of Palestine.
A solution may be to move this article to Palestinian people (modern nation) and to create Palestinian people (history).
About Jesus of Nazareth, he is therefore a Jewish people and a Palestinian people but he has of course no link with the modern Palestinian nation and the Israeli nation.
91.180.118.189 (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not include JC as a member of the Old Yishuv as a compromise. That way he is not listend as Palestinian, Israeli, Jewish, or Christian? DionysosElysees (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)DionysosElysees

St George

Was in the infobox for years two months, and no one protested. JC was edited, which being a new edit, was protested, and then, deftly St George was also elided, presumably because, if St George (born in Palestine) then Jesus. Rermove the premise.

This is not being sensibly discussed. St George is the patron saint of the Christian Palestinian community, which was not 'invented' as a nation (the objection to 'Palestinians' generically), but has, by all consensus, existed in continuity, much as the Jews, since antiquity, in Palestine. Since the Christian Palestinian Churches are attested as perduring in that land, and since their patron, St George, is said to have been born in that land, I fail to see how anyone can challenge, in terms of policy, St George's presence on this page. I think explanations (no chat please) are necessary. Prego.Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have sampled several revisions and I only found this [File:Palestinian_infobox.jpg] picture in the infobox.Saint George was added on 21.12.2011.So I don't understand how Nishidani can claim that he was in the "infobox for years".The same rationale that apply to JC should apply to other people that is not part of Palestinians as was explained by numerous people in RFC.--Shrike (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Lazy foxx lives up to his name, he said 2 years and I presumed he had checked. My bad, and never trust anyone. The point remains. You have not replied to a specific question I have posed, which was not raised in the RfC, and therefore needs to be answered. I repeat: No one doubts that the Palestinian Christian community has lived continuously in that land since Roman times. They descend from, in good part, and conserve the traditions of, that ancient community. Their saint is St.George, whom tradition says was born in Palestine. He is the patron saint of Palestine. Why then cannot, uniquely (since on parallel pages for peoples we make no such objections), the native Patron saint of this millenial Palestinian community not be included in the info-box?Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It was already explained that this article about Palestinian Arabs, when there will be article about Palestine inhabitants then it will be appropriate to include it there.--Shrike (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Look, repeating yourself is not a response to my question. Nothing has been 'explained'. Opinions have been registered in an open RfC on a different question. promising to fork a Palestine inhabitants (compare Israelis, not 'inhabitants of Israel!!) may be a clever dodge, but has nothing to do with this, esp. since the article does not exist. You are not obliged to give an opinion on something you appear not to understand.Nishidani (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely with Nishidani's statement, it is not being sensibly discussed. Lazyfoxx (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani -- the issues for St. George are almost exactly the same as the issues for Jesus (except that St. George lived after 135 A.D., which Jesus didn't), so I really don't see the point in starting up a separate discussion about St. George at this time. Whatever is decided about Jesus will also apply to St. George. By the way, St. George is also the patron saint of England... AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has not been closed. Editors who contributed an opinion, have so far not deigned to reply to two specific questions I raised. Differences, we are told, are to be resolved on the talk page, not by a mokusatsu policy, but by addressing all 'concerns'. Editors above have refused to confront the hundreds of sources describing Jesus as Palestinian, preferring their personal views, except for one GabrielF who cited a paper that is not germane to the linguistic descriptor in RS, that go beyond the narrow definition, as opposed to the first definition, used by the OED. St George was born in Lod/Lydda in Palestine, was classified by the Catholic church as a Palestinian saint, had churches dedicated to his memory from Byzantine times, and had a crypt bearing his ostensible remains in Palestine, and for 1500 hundred years has enjoyed a cult, there and at Beit Jala among native Christian Palestinians, either as their autochthonous patron saint or as a holy man among Palestinian Muslims. The persistence of a local cult which has survived since late antiquity as a locus of native reverence, is okay, apparently, if it is Jewish (Joseph's tomb) 'one of us', but absolutely out of order if it is not-Jewish, 'one of them', though in both cases serious arguments say neither existed. One can equivocate on self-identifying as a Palestinian 'nation'. But one cannot equivocate in the same way about a contunuous historical community of confessional Christians who, since the 5th century CE, identify with a figure as a symbol of their credal and confessional identity. You all say, St George can't be mentioned as a native of Palestinian, as sources call him, because the wiki page on Palestinian people selectively defines them, as per Golda Meir, Joan Peters, as a people who came into existence only recently. This confuses 'national identity' with ethnic identity in the broadest sense. The objections are political so far, and I insist the technical question, based on the evidence of comparable pages for peoples, where no such objections are apparent, be addressed. All I can see is an ethnic veto so far, which cannot get over the hackneyed popular confusion of 'race' and popular identity.Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Unaddressed question, ignored in the RfC on Jesus.

Where is it written in the wikipedia rulebook that the article 'Palestinian people' as opposed to the articles about other stateless or formerly stateless peoples , i.e., Armenian people, Kurdish people, Basque people, Tibetan people, Breton people Welsh People, Druze People, Assyrian People, Catalan people Hausa people, Falasha people, Samaritan people etc.etc. must deal exclusively with contemporary Palestinians, and deny in the lead that they are an historical people? Most of the info boxes of these articles feature figures from the past, saints and whoever. Please provide a coherent explanation based on wiki practice in this specific area of 'peoples' pages.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Palestinians are not actually completely comparable to any of the other groups mentioned by you, since all of them have either a distinctive religion or a distinctive language unique to themselves -- while Palestinians are distinguished only by geography (a geography whose British Mandate incarnation was largely determined by European colonialists drawing semi-arbitrary lines on maps without much consultation with the inhabitants of the area). The Welsh language and the Samaritan religion have both existed for many centuries, while the definition of geographic Palestine has changed many times, and the development of a strong separatist nationalist "Palestinian" self-identity has taken place rather recently, on a historical time-scale... AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Cite me your source for the definition of 'a people' that requires them to have 'a distinctive language' or 'a distinctive religion' unique to themselves. The 80% of those defining themselves as Welsh people do not speak the language, and they have no distinctive religion. The same is true of Breton people, or for that matter Flemish people, Cornish people. 75% of the Basque people speak Spanish, not Basque, and their religion is that of their conquerors. The proposal to split this into Palestinian people and Peoples of Palestine suggests an agenda rather than a desire to resolve a technical issue. Look at Macedonians where the issue is resolved not by a 'people' vs. peoples in a territory distinction but by continuity of ethnic designator, divided into modern and ancient (Ancient Macedonians). On the ethnic group page, editors have no problem in including an image of Georgi Pulevski who was born long before the the Republic of Macedonia came into existence, and (in both cases Macedonians is used), See Bosnians, the page includes sections dealing with the history of the area, and hosts images of ‘Bosnians’ from the distant past like Tvrtko I of Bosnia. See also Swiss people, having neither a unique linguistic or confessional unity, where the page bears an image of the medieval Nicholas of Flüe, who, as St George for Christian Palestinians, is the patron saint of the country, though living 4 centuries before the emergence of the Confederated Swiss state. Look at Danube Swabians which includes an historical section, though they are not considered a unified people. None of the objections here address wiki practice on ethnic or people pages, and that requires an explanation, and a resolution that is consistent with practice, otherwise you are all making an exception of Palestinians. Palestinians are not distinguished by geography. Most of them are in the Palestinian diaspora, all over the world. Please think, and, preferable, find sources to justify claims that may be personal opinions. Wikipedia requires sources, not adventitious opinions. Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The precursor of Switzerland, which existed in the Central Switzerland region where Nicholas of Flue came from, came into existence in 1291, before Nicholas of Flue was born, and it contained the basis for Eidgenossenschaft, which is how the Swiss people defined themselves as a group. Nicholas of Flue would have had a very similar identity as a modern Swiss person. GabrielF (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
'In Switzerland, a kind of 'national' consciousness, in the sense of an active identity encompassing both the various cantons, or Orte, of the Old Confederation and the confessional boundaries, only began to form during the Enliughtement of the eighteenth century.'Albert Tanner, 'Switzerland: a European Model of Liberal Nationalism?,' in Iván Zoltán Dénes, (ed.) Liberty and the search for identity: liberal nationalisms and the legacy of empires, Central European University Press, 2006 pp,109-138, p.112Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I did not in fact make the claim which you attributed to me; instead, I merely pointed out that some of your claimed analogies were not particularly helpful. Ethnic (Slavic) Macedonians are certainly a better analogy than those which you listed in your message of 15:01, 8 March 2012 -- and some Greeks and Bulgarians claim that the Macedonian ethnic identity was semi-artificially concocted by Tito as part of nefarious plans to take territory away from Greece and/or Bulgaria, while to this day Greece does not recognize the name of the Republic of Macedonia, Bulgaria does not recognize the existence of a Macedonian ethnicity distinct from Bulgarian ethnicity, and the autocephaly of the Macedonian Orthodox Church is not recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Those kinds of things are likely to happen when a rather late-developing ethnic/political identity comes into existence, and is perceived by neighboring countries to be aggressively irredentist and/or historically revisionist... AnonMoos (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I am interesting in using scholarly sources, to see what scholars say, for that is how we write pages. I am not interested in debating impressions, opinions or takes, or personal views editors entertain about complex subjects. My point is, a couple of dozen wiki pages on 'Peoples' are written allowing material, photos, etc. which, exclusively for the Palestinian pages, a majority in th I/P area with no record of constructing worthwhile pages on Palestinian culture and history, refuse to admit onto this page. All wikipedia articles aspire to coherent principles, and encyclopedic cogency of format and approach in related areas. Therefore, there is a real problem, and I wish this to be addressed by editors, with due consideration for policy, internal coherence over related articles, and regard for scholarship. The rest is irrelevant. I have given links, so anyone can verify that what is vetoed here, is not vetoed on other stateless peoples' pages.

Therefore, if you want to contribute, please provide me with the sources on which you ground your opinion, esp. since I will undertake to refer anything I affirm here, if asked, to a respectable academic work. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree. It makes a mockery of Wikipedia that we have been debating this for so long with streams of sources and wiki precedent being provided by only one side of the debate. If the "no" editors cannot back up their views, what value do those views have?! Oncenawhile (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Baruch Kimmerling, The Palestinian People: A History, Harvard University Press, 2003, considers that the Palestinian People was born in 1834. Therefore according to that source, anybody who lived before cannot be a member of the Palestinian People.
Jesus or St-Georges lived in Palestine but were not part of a 'Palestinian People'.
Based on that source, the only way out is to create two articles : Palestinian People (modern nation) and another that could talk about the unhabitants of Palestine since the Roman Empire.
81.247.85.132 (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Again you are confusing modern national consciousness as a political identity, and the identity of a people, located in a specifically defined geophysical area, over time. The wiki articles cited make no such distinction generally, and therefore the objection is not to the point. The objection has been documented with Kimmerling and Khalidi. I noted the error earlier and had no response. I noted that Khalidi in his book distinguishes modern national self-consciousness (as with Switzerland above) from the continued existence of a people in one land. I'll repost it therefore, and requesty why this passage is being ignored:Speaking of the conflicting narratives behind the complex identity of the Palestinians, the Israelis, and many others Khalidi mentions the archeological excavations carried out after 1967 by the Haram al-Sharif’s southern wall, where 25 strata from 12 distinct periods were uncovered, and comments.

'Each stratum is part of the identity of the Palestinian people as they have come to understand it over the past century — encompassing the biblical, Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Fatimid, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mameluke, and Ottoman periods.' Rashid Khalidi,Palestinian identity: the construction of modern national consciousness, Columbia University Press, 2009 p.18

That indisputably reads to mean that now 'Palestinian identity' for Khalidi encompasses all these periods, something a block of editors refuse to admit. The refusal reminds me of another passage:

‘In much of American, European, and Israeli discourse, . .in spite of lip-service in favour of recognizing the existence of the Palestinian people- there remains today the familiar undercurrent of dismissiveness of Palestinian identity and Palestinian national claims as being less genuine, less deep-rooted, and less valid than those of other peoples in the region. . . The modern Jewish national identity fashioned by Zionism, and Israel’s claims as a nation-state within the contemporary world order, are usually the unspoken referent for this belittling of the Palestinians. .Like most nationalist impulses, this attitude is driven by unawareness of the constructed and extremely recent nature of all modern national identities, including that of Israel. Paradoxically, some of the same attitudes can be seen in the perspectives of pan-Arab nationalism and political Islamism, whose advocates see these structures of identification as more “genuine” and deeply rooted than Palestinian identity. Both are, of course, quite modern invented responses, using modern political forms, to modern conditions, and neither is nany more “ancient” than Palestinian nationalism or Zionism.’ Khalidi, ibid. pp.xxiii-xxiv

I.e.it is documented that in the view of the major expert and theorist on the subject, and a Palestinian to boot, American and European Israeli discourse is dismissive of the 'deep roots' of Palestinian identity, and most objectors are, arguably, in an ethnic WP:COI on this, lacking the serenity to look at the question encyclopedically, as opposed to politically. The article requires, for this reason, experienced editors and administrators who have no horse in the race, no allegiances either way, and can review, and write the article according to WP:NPOV, irrespective of the Christ-Palestrinian issue. This issue should be the basis for a serious and more general RfC, since the neutrality of the encyclopedia is compromised by ethnic and political partisanship which so far has failed to be addressed, though all know of it. Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
As has been repeatedly explained above, one can fully admit and accept that such "deep roots" exist, in the sense that many Palestinians have ancestors who have lived in the region for a long time, while also recognizing the historically valid fact that the vast majority of such ancestors did not have any very meaningful Palestinian identity. As for sources, you're the one who seems to be most fond of introducing the discussion of broad sweeping grand issues to this page, and your lists of excerpted quotations merely provide further examples of the narrow technical geographic scholarly use of the word "Palestinian", without providing evidence that there's any real meaningful continuity or connection between this meaning (i.e. to refer to non-Arabs of ancient times) and the (post-1950) modern cultural/ethnic/political meaning of the word (to refer almost exclusively to Arabs)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
@ Nishidani :
I understand what you write and I agree with you that this topic is polluted by the political debate that claims that the Palestinian identity has weaker roots than Jews. But we should not be influenced by this political debate.
To answer your concern of different treatment between the Palestinian People and the other ones, see the Flemish people. The articles makes their history start at the birth of their national identity whereas there was a Count of Flanders between 9th and 18th century or there are references to Flemish art before the birth of this nation.
Khalidi refers to the 'unhabitants' of Palestine, not the Palestinian People. Do you agree that there is a difference between the modern Palestinian nation and the unhabitants of Palestine (among whom we find Jews, Samaritans, Arabs, Druzes, Beduins, ...) ?
Jesus of Nazareth have lived in Palestine nearly his entire life but he is certainly less linked to the Palestinian People than Edward Said who was there only during his childhood.
81.247.85.132 (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the most relevant quote from Khalidi:

As with other national movements, extreme advocates of this view go further than this, and anachronistically read back into the history of Palestine over the past few centuries, and even millenia, a nationalist consciousness and identity that are in fact relatively modern. (Rashid Khalidi. Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness. Columbia University Press. 1997. p. 149.)

Khalidi, a well known Palestinian historian, describes people attempting to do what is being done here (anachronistically read a Palestinian consciousness and identity back millenia), as "extreme advocates". Per WP:NOR and WP:V, could those attempting to do this please provide reliable secondary sources indicating that Jesus was a member of the Palestinian people, the subject of this article? That is the only "unaddressed question" that has been "ignored" here. Jayjg (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The most relevant quote you refer to is 'most relevant' in so far as you cherrypick it and showcase it because you think it justifies your veto. But the quote says'nationalist consciousness', which, for the umpteenth time, is distinct from the common culture of a people in a territory. 'Nationalist consciousness' is technically what 'West European theories' dealt with. 'ethnic communities perduring in a single territory' is what 'East European theories' of identity deal with, and the former are, since J Armstrong's Nations before Nationalism thirty years ago, under challenge, and the modification is respected on most wiki peoples articles except this one, where a political majority wishes to confuse the two, and privilege the former. As to cherrypicking, since you refuse to address it, I'll repeat my quotation from Khalidi:

'Each stratum is part of the identity of the Palestinian people as they have come to understand it over the past century — encompassing the biblical, Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Fatimid, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mameluke, and Ottoman periods.' Rashid Khalidi,Palestinian identity: the construction of modern national consciousness, Columbia University Press, 2009 p.18

Since Khalidi explicitly asserts a position about the 'identity of the Palestinian people' as going back to Biblical times, no amount of harping on the passages which say the obvious about the other issue 'nationalist consciousness, can change the fact that this article is not obliged, uniquely, to restrict itself to 'nationalist consciousness' to the detriment of the historical patrtimony and identity of a Palestinian people. That is done in the dozen articles I cited, and it is denied to this. And the reasons are obvious. They are not grounded in policy or practice.Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
So, your argument is that the 1st century Jesus, an Aramaic and Hebrew speaking Galilean Jew who practiced Judaism, shared a "common culture" with the modern Palestinian people, a 20th-century, mostly-Muslim (with a small minority of Christian) Arabic-speaking people? Per WP:NOR and WP:V, please proved reliable secondary sources that indicate Jesus shared a "common culture" with the modern Palestinian people, the subject of this article? Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

@Jayjg, @Anonmoos, you need to contextualise this debate in the context of the worldwide question of Nationalism and Ethnicity. Your comments are parochial - suggesting you don't actually understand what is being said. Nishidani is not claiming that "Palestinian national conciousness" is thousands of years old, so you are wasting your time refuting that. All that is being claimed throughout the discussion on this page is that no ethnicity in the world can claim a national conciousness more than 250 years old. (As an example, Anonmoos, you keep mentioning the term "Arabs" - you should do a bit of research and you will see that Arabic identity is also a modern invention).

Yet the vast majority of ethnic groups do include people from before the "age of nationalism" in their national histories (see Historiography and nationalism). So if you want to contribute to this debate, you should answer the questions raised about Palestinian identity in the context of other unrelated national identities. Otherwise you are simply wasting everyone's time.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content. Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Ocenawhile -- The English and the French claim Boudicca and Vercingetorix as national heroes in a sense, and have erected statues to them in London and France (London statue, French statue), but those who know anything about history do NOT claim that Boudicca was an Englishwoman or that Vercingetorix was a Frenchman, because in fact they simply WEREN'T (note that the French statue has the word "Gaule" on its base, not the word "France"). The Palestinians are perfectly free to claim Jesus and St. George as kind of retroactive national heroes in spirit (in the same way that the English claim Boudicca and the French claim Vercingetorix), and there would be no real legitimate objection to this. However, the minute they claim that Jesus and St. George were themselves Palestinians in any literal meaningful non-geographic sense, then that's the moment when the trouble immediately begins. If a "Palestinian national consciousness" did not exist in the time of Jesus, then the only way that Jesus can be considered Palestinian is if there is illegitimate confusion between the narrow technical geographical use of the word "Palestinian" by scholars and the modern ethnic/cultural/political use of the word "Palestinian", or if (following Ashrawi) it is somehow claimed that "Jesus was an Arab"[sic] -- and I consider both of these alternatives to be somewhat grotesquely bizarre, since Jesus was simply NOT an Arab, and during Jesus' lifetime, it was those who were remote from the area or knew little about it who were most likely to refer to Judea or Galilee as "Palestine", while the modern ethnic/cultural/political use of the word was not familiar to the broad public of English speaking nations until the 1960s. Those are some pretty big historical gaps to try to bridge with mere semantic blurring and fuzziness! AnonMoos (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Only a few selected nationalisms in the modern sense were politically important before 1848, but in many cases the "primordial" bases of nationalism (differences of religion, language, etc.) were in existence before there was a political movement which built on such differences. That's not true to the same extent for Palestinians -- the PLO calls the 1923-1947 boundaries of the British Mandate as "Historical Palestine", so draw your own conclusions... AnonMoos (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Anonmoos, your examples of Boudicca and Vercingetorix don't work only because the "retrospective national histories" of England and France go back only as far as the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain and the Capetian dynasty respectively. However, even at that shorter length the national histories are still modern constructions, as the "sense of being English / French" did not occur until after the French revolution. So for example, Wat Tyler did not consider himself English and Joan of Arc did not consider herself French. If you want to check this, there are hundreds of books you can read on Nationalism. This one was an important milestone on French identity that you might find interesting. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
To repeat, do not repeat arguments you make which have been comprehensively abolished, as I did with Boudicca and Vercingetorix. The Palestinians are not claiming anything for the moment. Reliable sources use an adjective that wikipedians are uncomfortable with (b)one Palestinian community, the Christian community, with 2000 year old roots in that country, reveres St George, of Lydda, as their community saint. Since the Christian community's traditions have a millenial continuity, its cult 1,500 years of history, since the people are Palestinian because they descend from, in large part, an area called Palestine since antiquity, you and the others have to explain why St.George, viewed by Palestinian Christians as one of their ethnic tradition, cannot be allowed on this page, which covers not only 'Arabs' but also Christian Palestinians. So far we have a confessional veto, that's all. Not any arguments of substance, and certainly a good deal of sidestepping around serious arguments backed with RS quotations which do not support the veto here.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
During a number of centuries, the majority of the inhabitants of the southern Levant under the Roman, Byzantine, Rashidun, and Umayyad empires were superficially-Hellenized Aramaic-speaking Monophysite "Syrians" (as they were most frequently called). Does that make Jesus a Syrian? -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Anonmoos, see my comment above. The starting point and scope of "national histories" is a political art, not a natural science. If the Sykes–Picot Agreement had been drawn differently to include Palestine in Syria, in that parallel universe Jesus might today be called Syrian by English language RS. But as it is, the RS call Jesus a Palestinian. To my comment above, I dare you to go onto the page of John Ball (priest) and remove all references to him being English. Or a better use of your time might be to read one of the books on nationalism i mentioned. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid your suggestion seems more mischievous than serious, since even if John Ball didn't have a sense of Englishness which was strongly-nationalistic in the post-1848 romantic nationalism sense, he still spoke the English language, and was a native inhabitant of a sovereign state called the "Kingdom of England" which had reasonably-well defined borders and was recognized by surrounding sovereign states. By those types of criteria, Jesus was not a "Palestinian" in the modern sense (he didn't speak Arabic to start with). By the way, if you want to help with John Ball, you could try to find a bigger complete image of File:John Ball encouraging Wat Tyler rebels from ca 1470 MS of Froissart Chronicles in BL (detail).jpg (something I've had in mind for almost 3 years, but haven't achieved). AnonMoos (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I found a link to a better version - see your talk page. Now, back to the point here - I think you're beginning to understand. But reread your post above and you'll see the issue - who are you or I to be deciding what factors make a historical person a Palestinian. We are just wikipedians. We have to let RS decide. My explanations about nationalism are just to help you understand why RS call Jesus and St. George Palestinian - because "nationalism" is more an artform than a science. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Again you are using personal arguments to counter sources. Please don't do that. The key question is, since Khalidi, distinguishes the 'nationalist consciousness' of Palestinians from 'the identity of the Palestinian people' and since most of the comparable wiki articles allow both elements to configure the 'X people' page, why must the article on the Palestinian people withhold any discussion of their identity. And specifically, can the following specification about the identity of the modern Palestinian people be registered on this page or not?

'Each stratum is part of the identity of the Palestinian people as they have come to understand it over the past century — encompassing the biblical, Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Fatimid, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mameluke, and Ottoman periods.' Rashid Khalidi,Palestinian identity: the construction of modern national consciousness, Columbia University Press, 2009 p.18

To paraphrase, 'according to Rashid Khalidi the identity of the (modern) Palestinian people encompasses the biblical, Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Fatimid, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mameluke, and Ottoman periods.'
He is a major source for the article, and I would like anyone objecting to this to explain why it would be inappropriate to incorporate this passage on the modern identity of the Palestinian people.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
That's nice; under the Umayyads and Abbasids (wonder where the Abbasids went in that quote?) the caliphal sub-province of Filastin did not include the Galilee (see http://www.mideastweb.org/palcaliph1.htm for map) -- to pick just one example among many of the shifting definitions of "Palestine" -- so I guess Galileans can't be Palestinians? AnonMoos (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum-sandpit for playing about in. Most of us reserve remarks one or two a day, and spend several hours between comments, thinking about them. If you can't help making comments every few minutes, please use your own talk page. What you wrote has nothing to do with the problem, and is a personal jab at an RS we all accept. So be cooperative, stay on point, do not mess the discussion with thoughtless ideas, etc. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
You were the one who chose to raise the broad general sweeping overall issues of the nature of national or ethnic identity directly above. However, I certainly feel a mini-wikibreak coming on! AnonMoos (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:NOR and WP:V, could those attempting to do what Rashid Khalidi describes as "anachronistically" reading a Palestinian consciousness and identity back millenia please provide reliable secondary sources indicating that Jesus was a member of the Palestinian people, the subject of this article? Jayjg (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jayjg, I am so sorry - i must have hurt your feelings. Please respond to the following questions which go directly to article content: Do you agree with the statement that "no ethnicity in the world can claim a national conciousness more than 250 years old"? If so, how come most other wiki-articles about national people are able to include figures from before the age of nationalism? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content.. Jayjg (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious that Jesus was ethnically a Jew, not a Palestinian. Calling him a Palestinian is like calling a Greek who lived in Anatolia 2,000 years ago a Turk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatKhan,The (talk • contribs) 04:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg. You are sidestepping my request for a response to this passage in Khalidi, whom you elsewhere quote favorably.

'Each stratum is part of the identity of the Palestinian people as they have come to understand it over the past century — encompassing the biblical, Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Fatimid, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mameluke, and Ottoman periods.' Rashid Khalidi,Palestinian identity: the construction of modern national consciousness, Columbia University Press, 2009 p.18

He is talking of the identity of the Palestinian people, he is saying it involves the deep past. Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and answer the question. Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I can field this one. Khalidi is saying that Palestinian people are made up of many earlier civilizations and inhabitants. Each has left a mark. But he is not saying that each, the Biblical, Roman... through Ottoman was Palestinian people. They are just ingredients of the demographic and political mix that eventually formed contemporary Palestinian people in the same fire as Palestinian identity.
Concider this, a cake is composed of flour, sugar, eggs, etc. I add all these together to make a cake. But the flour is not cake and the sugar is not cake. Eggs contribute to the cake, one could even call them essential. But an RS cookbook doesn't prove eggs are cake. And Jesus ain't Palestinian people. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Firstly your username - I believe the verse reads "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me". Doesn't it seem a bit aggressive?
Secondly, metaphors about cooking (or any other topic) should not be used to deflect discussion of the actual issue. This is a debate about Historiography and nationalism. The only way you're going to make headway here is if you talk in terms of making this article comparable to other articles about "a national people". Oncenawhile (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
...which he has done, of course. Should we now add Godfrey of Bouillon and Tancred, Prince of Galilee to the infobox? Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Answer the question, and don't delegate, since Cool Hand Luke up there can't construe the passage in question. The examples are, self-evidently off-topic, and hardly require rebuttal.Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
User:Luke 19 Verse 27 has answered you more than well enough, there's no need to me to repeat his response, since his examples are self-evidently on-topic, and constitute a complete rebuttal. Now you answer my question, rather than resorting to your "familiar dodge"; Where are the reliable secondary sources indicating that Jesus was a member of the cultural group known as the "Palestinian people"? You've been "sidestepping" that question for days now. Jayjg (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

@Jayjg, please respond to the following questions which go directly to article content: Do you agree with the statement that "no ethnicity in the world can claim a national conciousness more than 250 years old"? If so, how come most other wiki-articles about national people are able to include figures from before the age of nationalism? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the source for your statement, and how is it relevant to article content? Where are the reliable secondary sources indicating that Jesus was a member of the cultural group known as the "Palestinian people"? Jayjg (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
That is again, ignoring the question, by asking another. A familiar dodge. Construe the passage by Khalidi correctly and tell me why it doesn't deny the inferences (WP:OR) you have drawn from the other passage, which has a different emphasis.Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
@Jayjg, I will answer your first question if you explain why you are asking. Do you disagree? Scholarly literature on this topic is vast so we will be able to clear the 250 year point up very quickly if that is what you are questioning. As to your second question, I politely request that we stay focused on one topic at a time. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. I'm not here to speculate about unsourced theories, and I first asked my still-unanswered question on 02:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC), long before you asked yours, so my question is the first topic one which to focus. Jayjg (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Since you underwrite the pseudo-answer given by Luke, I'll paraphrase it to show he misunderstood Khalidi, and repeat my request that you respond to my original question since Luke failed to understand the passage, misconstrued it, and thus failed to provide the answer I requested from you.

I can field this one. Khalidi is saying that Palestinian people are made up of many earlier civilizations and inhabitants. Each has left a mark. But he is not saying that each, the Biblical, Roman... through Ottoman was Palestinian people. They are just ingredients of the demographic and political mix that eventually formed contemporary Palestinian people in the same fire as Palestinian identity.

Khalidi nowhere says 'Palestinian people are made up of many earlier civilizations and inhabitants,'if only for the simple reason that the sentence is nonsensical, which is why I did not reply to it. Outside certain wiki pages, only in a remedial grammar class student paper would you find a sentence of the kind: 'people are made up of many earlier civilizations and inhabitants.'
Khalidi wrote:-

'Each stratum is part of the identity of the Palestinian people as they have come to understand it over the past century — encompassing the biblical, Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Fatimid, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mameluke, and Ottoman periods.' Rashid Khalidi,Palestinian identity: the construction of modern national consciousness, Columbia University Press, 2009 p.18

the issue is not the ethnic make-up of a people, but how they self-identify, and their sense of historic roots.
which means: 'the identity of the Palestinians people, as they perceive it now, is reflected in each stratum of the historic past of Palestine, encompassing the biblical, Roman, Byzantine, Ummayid, Fatimid, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mameluke and Ottoman periods.'
You're welcome to fine-tune this if you think this close paraphrase distorts or misses something. But the words in the original, and in the paraphrase, explicitly frame modern Palestinian identity, as a national consciousness, as heir to the whole historical record of that land, which is what you deny.
So please don't avoid the question. I.e., are there any objections to including in the lead the following point.

'according to Rashid Khalidi the identity of the (modern) Palestinian people encompasses the biblical, Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Fatimid, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mameluke, and Ottoman periods.'

since it (a) summarizes what is in the article body and (b) the lead so far only allows evidence of genetic continuity but, as per the above discussions, ignores/holds hostage any reference to the sense of cultural self-definition of the Palestinian people as per by Khalidi.
Nish, its already in the article in a different phrasing in the second paragraph of Palestinian history and nationalism. I have no objection to your proposed phrasing which is simpler and more direct. Tiamuttalk 15:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks dear, but I thought we were discussing the lead. If you go back, Jayjg removed an RS quote to the effect that there are historical continuities and relocated it to the main body, with the result that the lead no longer accepts a sense of Palestinian identity with the long past, and most editors here support the elision of any suggestion that the Palestinian people's page can refer, as most other peoples' pages do, to figures who are venerated as part of that tradition. A lead that does not allow this key part of the main text to be summarized is, technically, defective. Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Preconditions

I have set out Jayjg's preconditions to answering questions in a table below as I am losing track. Jayjg, if there are any others i have missed, please feel free to add them.

Precondition Status
Comment on content, not on the contributor. Done
Review WP:NPA and WP:TPYES Done
Review WP:NOTAFORUM Done
Focus on Jayjg's question from 4 March "which reliable sources identify Jesus as a member of the "Palestinian people"?" Done

The answer to your 4 March question has been provided numerous times, but you have not yet acknowledged it. For example Tiamut put it well on 5 March "it is an unfair double standard to deny Palestinians the right to historical figures when all nations today are constructs and many other pages include figures who predate the formation of modern nation states or nationalities". In other words, the threshold you are suggesting in your question is NOT applied to the vast majority of other wikipedia articles about a people, so it should not be applied to this one.

Now, please could you answer the question: "Do you agree with the statement that "no ethnicity in the world can claim a national conciousness more than 250 years old"? If so, how come most other wiki-articles about national people are able to include figures from before the age of nationalism?". Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, your entire comment and chart is inconsistent with the first listing of the chart you claim to have resolved.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I considered that before making the post - your suggestion is incorrect. My points about preconditions are directly responding to questions posted by Jayjg, not about Jayjg himself, and the second half of the post is directly focused on the article content dispute. I would be grateful if you could also respond to the question being posed about the article content. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
There still isn't an RS identifying Jesus as Palestinian. Just an argument that "other nationality pages get away with whatever they want, so why can't we!" Since this went round and round the Jesus talk page, there is no use reviving it here. I stand on my interpetation of Khalidi and my ensuing cake metaphor. This page should point out the numerous tributaries to modern Palestinian identity, but not be a history of the inhabitants of Palestine nor be a coathanger for any particular view of said history, like Said's history. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see the huge number of RS posted in the discussions above by Nishidani. Then please retract your statement "There still isn't an RS identifying Jesus as Palestinian" Oncenawhile (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I.e. if memories need to be refreshed.

Much is made today of pre-Pauline hellenistic Christianity, whether pre-Pauline hellenistic Jewish or pre-Pauline hellenistic Gentile. To this category all concepts that manifestly antedate Paul but are judged too advanced for native Palestinians (Jesus and his disciples) are assigned; . .Rather than building hellenistic castles in the air, this work will centre its attention upon Palestinian foundations.’ Richard N. Longenecker,The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, (1970 SCM) Regent College reprint, 2001 p.8 n.15

I guess, uniquely to wikipedia, native Palestinians does not parse out as 'Palestinian'.:)Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but as has been repeatedly explained above, you can cut-and-paste in megabytes of quotations from scholarly discussions of ancient religion, and as long as those quotations only USE the word "Palestinian" in its narrow technical geographic sense (i.e. to refer to non-Arab peoples of ancient times), -- and do not in some manner directly discuss, address, or take on the question of whether there is some substantive not-solely-etymological connection or continuity between this narrow technical scholarly meaning and the modern post-1950 meaning of the word to refer almost exclusively to Arabs -- then your quotations really don't do you any good with respect to the main issue under contention here... AnonMoos (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
What you refer to as 'explained above' refers to numerous comments that, in defiance of scholarly usage for antiquity, keep confusing ethnic and cultural/topnymic usage. No megabytes of quotations have been added. For your personal information, the word 'Palestinian' does not in historical usage re the area exclude 'Arabs' whom you appear to think 'arrived' with Omar in the 638. Editors should refrain from giving half-baked opinions in defiance of what sources say. We write to sources, not to some preconception about what would be nice, or politically correct, or whatever. The word 'Palestinians' in these sources does not, any more than the modern word, have a racial/ethnic meaning. It refers to inhabitants of that territory, in modern and ancient times.Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
What is essentially being said, I think, is that "Palestinian" always refers to Palestinian people. Every scholar, if he is qualified, will use the term for indiginous Palestinian inhabitants, who are the subject of this article. Any source that does not use "Palestinian" in this context is obviously not qualified.
This doesn't include the use of the term in the 1920-1948 years. Any source from this time is excluded, but any source from a time before or after is always, always talking about the people who have lived there since time immemorial. But not the Jewish ones, except Jesus who was a Christian, and therefore a Palestinian Christian, and therefore a Palestinian person.
I reject this argument. As the article says, "The history of a distinct Palestinian national identity is a disputed issue amongst scholars." This means you can make a stack of RS supporting several sides. For the benefit of the article, this talk page should be used to discuss ways to benefit the informative nature of the article, not to lobby for a one-sided narrative. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
What you or I 'think' is besides the point. We just stick to what sources say. All the above is just personal impressionism.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
ps. I did enjoy the joke about Jesus being a 'Christian'. That's one for the books.Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by deleting Safed Plunder references

The Safed Plunder source issue has been resolved. The history section of this article starts by explaining the situation in the 1830s. The section goes on to claim that the so-called "Palestinians" are descendant from both Arab settlers and indigenous Hebrews/Canaanites. So this articles claims that the so-called "Palestinians" are descendant from the indigenous people meanwhile editors are intentionally leaving out that the Arabs who settled the area after the Islamic conquest exterminating that indigenous population in such incidents as the 1517 Safed pogrom, 1517 Hebron pogrom, Safed Plunder, 1660 destruction of Safed, and the 1660 destruction of Tiberias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DionysosElysees (talk • contribs) 15:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Problems

This is deeply problematic.

Genetic analysis suggests the Muslims of Palestine are largely descendants of Christians[21] and Jews of the southern Levant stemming from a core population that lived there in prehistoric times.[22]

As far as I can see, Naim Ateek's paper, “Jerusalem in Islam and For Palestinian Christians,” P.W.L. Walker, ed., Jerusalem Past and Present in the Purposes of God." Cambridge: Tyndale House, 1992. Pbk. ISBN: 0951835610. pp.125-150, nowhere says that 'Genetic analysis suggests Muslims of Palestine are largely descendants of Christians'. The paper says, before the Arab invasion, the majority of Palestinians were Christian, but also says that Jesus preached to Samaritans, Romans, Syrophoenicians, and certainly though it is a guess, Arabs, and that the indigenous people at the time of the Arab conquest were variegated ethnically, Jews, Arabs, others, etc.So?Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

During Jesus' lifetime, the only Arabs in the vicinity were the Nabateans, who lived to the southeast of the Dead Sea, in a region where there were few Jews. The word "Arab" (nominative singular Αραψ) and derivatives occur only in Acts 2:11 (as an exotic nationality, a few of whom were pilgrims in Jerusalem after Jesus' death), in Galatians 1:17 (as a geographic reference, explaining how Paul went from Judea to Damascus by a roundabout route south of the Dead Sea), and in Galatians 4:25 (in an allegory on Hagar)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
And Edmund Hillary climbed Everest. You really should read the OT/Tanakh some day, and note the 28 instances of 'Arab and its derivatives' if you want to think about the word, but that is not germane to the issue I raised. Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
That's nice -- you were the one who chose (for some reason which only you know) to raise the issue of whether Jesus ever preached to Arabs. It seems statistically likely that there was an occasional Arab or two among the "mixed multitudes" which sometimes heard Jesus preach, but there's no record of this in the text of the New Testament (and such Arabs would have had to know the Aramaic language to have any real understanding of what Jesus said), and it's quite clear that Jesus did not preach to Arabs as a group... AnonMoos (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Please try to (a) read sources (b) read what other editors note and (c) reply to the gravamen of the points raised, without intruding wild speculations or distortions, as you have done now twice. The source, which is in the text, referred to Jesus and the Arabs, something that in itself does not interest me. I'll be kind and say the obvious, which is however not relevant to this section. 'Arabs' long pre-existed the NT, for several centuries, and were involved in that area, and your assumption is, that they went everywhere, but never set foot in Eretz Israel/the Holy Land/Palestine. Some people have a real obsession about that ethnonym, and it generates the most extraordinary chat. So, enough, and if you wish to be useful to the page, please stick to the point I raised about the sentence in the article based on Naim Ateek's article. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
During Jesus' lifetime, the Nabateans were outside the Roman empire, while Judea and Galilee were inside. During that period, the words "Palestinian" and "Arab" were pretty much incompatible, since Palaestina / Παλαιστινη tended to refer to the Mediterranean coastal plain, while Arabs tended to inhabit the third tier -- i.e. the arid areas which were inland from the hills/mountains which were inland from the coastal plain. Arabs visited Judea and Galilee reasonably often to trade etc., but they did not live in Judea and Galilee in large numbers. Frankly, you seem to be a lot more "obsessed" than I am, since you were the one who chose (for inscrutable reasons known only to yourself), to raise the issue of whether Jesus preached to Arabs... AnonMoos (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
All your comments on Nabataeans here are personal research, and if you have RS for your assertions (e.g.'During that period, the words "Palestinian" and "Arab" were pretty much incompatible,' please have the courtesy to supply them. I am not interested in editors' opinions on history, and the page must not reflect them. So please refrain from chatting, and please refrain from ridiculous assertions that happen to be untrue ('you were the one who chose (for inscrutable reasons known only to yourself), to raise the issue of whether Jesus preached to Arabs...'). You ared just clogging the page so far.Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Naim Ateek is not a biologist. He's a cleric. He's not a reliable source for genetic studies or interpretation thereof. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
My point exactly.Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I think No More Mr Nice Guy was trying to say that an RS needs to have its quotes and conclusions put into articles in the right context and place. Otherwise it stops being citation and starts being something more like WP:Soapbox or WP:OR. As to your point, Nishidani, I wasn't aware you had a point. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'll repeat what I wrote, and which NMMGG acted on.

As far as I can see, Naim Ateek's paper, “Jerusalem in Islam and For Palestinian Christians,” P.W.L. Walker, ed., Jerusalem Past and Present in the Purposes of God." Cambridge: Tyndale House, 1992. Pbk. ISBN: 0951835610. pp.125-150, nowhere says that 'Genetic analysis suggests Muslims of Palestine are largely descendants of Christians'.

Look up the word 'imply', and figure out why, if an editor says a source does not say what it is made out to say in the article, the implication is that it should be removed. How explicit do we have to be round here. Do I really have to dumbdown the obvious? My point is, yes, quite a few have problems reading elementary English. It's not hard to learn.Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

POV irrelevancy

This is in contrast to the various massacres carried out by the settling Arabs upon the indigenous (Old Yishuv) Jewish population in such events as the 1517 Safed pogrom, 1517 Hebron pogrom, Safed Plunder, 1660 destruction of Safed, and the 1660 destruction of Tiberias which all took place prior to Zionism.

(a) 'This is in contrast to the . .' (An editorial statement and judgement) (b) 'Settling Arabs' is extremely, and identifiably POV, suggesting that the Arabs, an outside immigrant community, came to settle at the time of the pogroms listed, and did so against an 'indigenous population' which was Jewish. (c) No reference is given linking these events from 1517 to 1660 to the 'Palestinian people'. If we like to get nasty, we can start stacking the page with every 'pogrom' or 'massacre' of Palestinians - Jewish, Arab, Turk, Greek,- whoever, since the year dot, from Byzantium through Sassanid times (chronicles speak of the Persians killing 60,000 Christians, assisted by Jewish forces, in the 612 CE conquest of Jerusalem)etc.etc. This sort of ethnic enmity mongering has no place in this article. Wiki articles are not media through which to plaster a history of victimhood and grievance by any single group in a complex multiethnic world. Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That passage I added immediately follows a so-called "Palestinian" claim that they are descendant from indigenous Hebrews. Therefore i must be mentioned that there was an indigenous Hebrew population living in Israel/Palestine during the period that so-called "Palestinians" are claiming that there was a so-called "Palestinian" people. In addition during the very event that is being claimed was the catalyst for so-called "Palestinian" identity in the 1830s, the Arabs exterminated the indigenous Hebrew/Jewish population of Safed. Leaving this out is tantamount to genocide denial. You're promoting the so-called "Palestinian" propaganda that "Jews and Muslims lived peacefully before Zionism." People like you have already tried to get the Safed Plunder article deleted to promote so-called "Palestinian" propaganda and all that happened was the sources were improved. If anything the earlier genocides could possibly be left out but the 1834 Safed Plunder is undoubtedly an essential component of this section of the article.

DionysosElysees (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)DionysosElysees

Please read the page, construe its sentences, and check its sources. No one is claiming anything. Your edit is WP:OR, and is figured as an editorial judgement, and as your comments here show, you allow your personal scepticism about sources to overrule those sources, and edit in your opinions as though they were a reliable source for the encyclopedia. I've replied more comprehensively on my page. Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"personal skepticism" you're the one who has constantly accused people of "hasbara" and "pro-Israel bias." This section is almost solely speaking of the 1830s and then goes on to claim that the so-called "Palestinians" are descendant from an indigenous Jewish population. Therefore a reference to a genocide of that indigenous Jewish community in the 1830s is completely fitting if you're a logical person. Being that you're the one always accusing of "hasbara" and "pro-Israel bias" Yes or No, did these massacres happen?

DionysosElysees (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)DionysosElysees

You mean, to follow your 'logic', Christian editors should add to this page that perhaps 60,000 Christians were murdered by Sassanid Persians and their Jewish supporters in Jerusalem in 612, and Muslim and Jewish editors that the streets of Jerusalem ran with the blood of their ancestors for several days when the Crusaders captured it, and then, go back to the Canaanites, Amorites, etc.etc. who were all subject to genocide by the chosen people according to the Book of Joshua? Don't be ridiculous.Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Except by the most convoluted logic, the sentence in question has nothing to do with the paragraph to which it was appended. Please see WP:Synthesis. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So Jews helped the Persians in liberating their country from a group of people oppressing them? Oh yes so bad. Canaanites and Ancient Israelites were the same group of people. Don't bring your ridiculous religious lies into this and use facts. You can't claim your descendant from a group of people you exterminated its like ethnic Germans claiming they're descendant from Ancient Israelites.

DionysosElysees (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)DionysosElysees

I note the edit summary, 'rt rv terminology to earlier version; you cannot have one sentence first saying that they are Arabs and then contradicting this by saying they descend from Jews.'

There seems to be an extraordinary amount of confusion on these pages, confusing 'race' and 'culture'. Jews and Arabs are basically 'semitic' peoples speaking closely related languages. The distinctions that arose after the return from the Babylonian exile are one thing, leading, under Ezra and Nehemiah, the earlier period of Palestine knows of no such distinctions: we have, in the bible itself, Kenites, Kenizzites, Yerahmelites, Kadmonites, Hurrians, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaim, Amorites, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Girgashites, Jebusites, Midianites, Philistines, Danites, Egyptians, Arabs etc. as active within that land. Many of these were closely related 'ethnically', several not, and many were absorbed into what was later to be the people of Yisrael. The genetic sections deals with ultimate core populations in the earliest period from which substantively the modern populations descend. To get one's knickers in a knot about the word 'Arab' versus 'Jew' is to confuse things here. The 'Arabs' themselves are, as T E Lawrence himself remarked in The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, a 'manufactured people', (Shlomo Sand argues a similar thesis with the Jews), and the Palestinians, English observers long observed, are a highly mixed people. 'Arabs' (culturally) can quite easily, in this sense, derive from Jews, as several well-known Jewish communities derive from non-ethnic Jewish populations (just as the early population of Israel/Judah was mixed).
Therefore, could we please keep out versions like Muslim/Islam from Palestinians, many of whom descended from non-Muslim converts (Christian communities in Palestine, who converted to that creed, as many converted to Islam)? The way the most recent revert puts it, Muslim Palestinians come from the core Canaanite population, but Christian Palestinians do not, which is sheer nonsense. The editor above allows that the Jews themselves come from the Canaanite population, which preceded them. I know it defies our modern sense of racial integrity, but all of that is sheer bullshit, as we should know by now. Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
It's what the source says. "The results match historical accounts that Moslem Arabs are descended from Christians and Jews who lived in the southern Levant". Aren't you always telling us we should stick to the sources?
Also, while we're on the subject, someone removed the statistic about Jews from the genetic stuff in the lead. As you have argued previously that this article is about anyone descendant from people who lived in Palestine throughout history, and not just Palestinians as a modern English speaker would understand the term, what's your opinion on including the relevant information about 70% of Jews being genetically part of this group? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't belong in the article as the info is about Jews while this article is about Palestinian people. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
There's a principle at stake, which you both should mull. If Palestinians include Palestinians from the past, when the default historical term is Palestine in scholarship, Jews are in that sense Palestinian, and can go in. But if editors want the Jews not to be so defined (geographically and culturally) it would be contradictory at the same time to include them in an article on Palestinians. Above all, narrative coherence.Nishidani (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree. Either this article is discussing the Palestinian people as most English speakers would understand the term, ie Arabs descended from those living in British Mandate Palestine, in which case Jews don't belong in this article. Or it's discussing "Palestinians" in the sense of anyone descended from people living in the southern Levant throughout history, in which case Jews do belong.
Personally, I think it should be the former. But since someone changed the lead to define it as the latter, I thought the genetic information about Jews belongs in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
'Arab' unfortunately is misleadingly ambiguous, suggesting or insinuating ineludibly genetic descent from a foreign (invading population), and that tends to be the Israelocentric POV, while the Palestinian side has an interest in affirming the contrary POV. I don't think either side does well to engineer language in a way that delegitimates the deep historic continuities in both identities with that land. If the Palestinians only descend from 'Arabs', then the idea is that they came there after 638 CE., which the genetic papers deny. From high antiquity, Palestine has had settled populations on its fertile plains and coastal lands, and invasive populations from its desert and hill perimeters (Ibn Khaldun developed his theory of history from this dialectic). The Bedouin, as opposed to the majority Palestinian population, are ethnically 'Arab', the Palestinians generally 'culturally Arabized', and just using 'Arab' erases a fundamental historical distinction between the two.
If we weren't all hung up on ideological nuance, and so afraid round here, we would simply do the right thing by the historical record, and write: 'The word 'Palestinian' in contemporary usage predominantly refers to an Arabic-speaking population of historic Palestine. In the scholarly literature on that country's history, it refers more broadly to all inhabitants born in that country, irrespective of their ethnicity. Genetic analysis suggests that contemporary Palestinians, like the Jewish people, in good part descend from an ancient core population of that area.'etc. But until we have a RS that says this, which is obvious and neutral, we can't violate WP:OR (unless we all just agreed to WP:IAR, and get the narrative on this to cohere with what the historical and scientific evidence says). Cheers Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
First of all, 'Arab' is not misleading, particularly when the term is linked to an article that explains quite clearly in the first sentence of the lead that the term does not necessarily mean genetic descent.
Second, saying it's an "Israelocentric POV" is ridiculous considering that Palestinians consider themselves Arabs, as I'm sure you're aware.
I wouldn't object to the lead saying that in certain fields of scholarship the term refers to inhabitants of the region regardless of their ethnicity. You've only really shown this is the case for biblical scholarship so far. It shouldn't say "Arabic-speaking" but "Arab", and not "historic Palestine" but "British Mandate Palestine", though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
(1) 'Arab' in English use is definitively deceptive, given the actual data showing Palestinians are 'Arab-speaking' but not 'Arabs' in the common acceptance of that term. Arabs do not descend, as determined, from a core 'Canaanite' population of Palestine. The dyscrasia is self-evident to the reader who slowly parses the whole article.
(2) Palestinians increasingly self-identify as 'Palestinians'. That they are culturally and linguistically 'Arabs' should not lead to the impression they are ethnically 'Arabs'. The Arab component of their society in the ethnic sense of that word is predominantly Bedouin. I prefer clarity to confusion. Their nationalism was pan-Arabic, and for several decades has become 'Palestinian'. Many editors are more comfortable with 'Arab', which implies they are alien (before the British Mandate the English denied the entente referred to autonomy for Palestine, since Palestinians, whatever they themselves thought, were not regarded by ethnologists at that time as 'Arabs'. The 'Arab' world for the incumbent English colonial authorities ended at the Syrian-Transjordanian border.
(3) All major historical works from antiquity down to Mandate times I am familiar with speak of Palestine. Why 'British Mandate Palestine' should be the temporal limit for speaking of Palestinians is lost on me, kind of. Why the modern genetics section should remain in narrative conflict with the rest of the text is obscure, kind of. Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
(1) 'Arab' in English is "deceptive"? That's ridiculous. The term has a well defined meaning quite clearly explained in the Arab article.
(2) Palestinians almost universally identify as Arabs. They consider "Palestinian" to be a sub-group of "Arab", if I'm not mistaken. That's certainly the impression one gets from reading the charters of their political groups, and again, I'm fairly certain you are aware of this. I suspect many Palestinians would actually be insulted if you told them they're not Arabs but "Arab speaking". In the past Egyptians weren't considered Arabs either. Yet lo and behold, now they are. You know, living in the Arab Republic of Egypt and all that.
(3) Do all major historical works from antiquity down to Mandate times you are familiar with speak of the inhabitants of Palestine as "Palestinian people"? I doubt that's the case. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
If you read the papers, they are brilliant at science and lose with their language when they use terms like Jews, Arabs and Christians. I like the science, but as an historian, can't help note the slipshod usage. It's there, it's misleading, and it is RS. I think commonsense should dictate how we phrase this, but my idea of commonsense may not be shared, even though it is obvious that the sentence, as phrased, misleads the reader, since it excludes the fact that Christian Palestinians now descend in large part from Christian/Jewish/Greek/Samaritan/Phoenician/Arab etc inhabitants of an earlier Palestine. I like complexity, and am profoundly uneasy with essentialism, especially in dealing with ethnical issues. Nishidani (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no objection whatsoever to including any information on Jews as 'Palestinians', genetically or otherwise. Whether it goes in the lead or not, I don't know. Nishidani (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's funny to see that wikipedia post in the history of the Palestinian people that they were only 340,0000 (which is right) in numbers at 1882 and today something like 8 million while they refer the Palestinians as people who lived in Palestine over the centuries (which is horribly wrong). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElizabethHaydon (talk • contribs) 16:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, Lizzie. What is a 'false fact'? What is a 'redicilus fact'? A little attention to capitalisation, when to use and not use, would help, and you should run deffinition through your spell-checker. Once you've figured out how to write English,drop the Joan Peters meme and go to a library. And I agree, it's funny in here, esp. to read 'funny' telegraphic nonsense from khyberspace like the above.Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

1517, 1660, and 1834 pogroms/massacres in Hebron, Safed, and Tiberias

Several editors are exhibiting a pro-"Palestinian" bias in favor of keeping this article clear of any mention of the 1517 Safed pogrom, 1517 Hebron pogrom, Safed Plunder, 1660 destruction of Safed, and the 1660 destruction of Tiberias. The original dispute with inclusion of these events especially the Safed Plunder was the source issues those articles had which have since been rectified. DionysosElysees (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC).

Ihis info should go in the yishuv or Palestinian_Jews articles, which I suggest should be merged. I dont see why it's more notable than any other violent event, and there are enough articles listing all the violence on both sides. Halon8 (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of these events would constitute a major bias by cherry-picking certain historical events according to a faction-centered criterion. I agree they don't belong in this article. Zerotalk 12:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So I suppose we shall have to have a huge series of articles created, like all of Chesdovi's cited above, consisting of a two or three sentence notice, a short paragraph, with the word 'pogrom' on the almost yearly attacks by Bedouin on Palestinian territory over the centuries. Marauding tribal-desert based razzias on farmers in Palestine were endemic (with excellent Biblical precedent, as with the invasions of Joshua and co,) in pre-modern Palestine. The ultimate irony is that this page is tightly controlled to disallow any mention of a Palestinian history predating the modern period, and yet editors who promote this restriction want to put in 4 links to new articles dealing exclusively with incidents of the suffering of Jewish communities in the pre-Palestinian people land of Palestine?!!! Make up your minds, but at least be coherent. If Palestinians didn't exist before the 1900s, you can hardly add material about pogroms of Jews dating to 1515 etc. to the page on their non-existent history. Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, the "Palestinians" can have their cake and eat it too. As in they cannot spread their lie about being indigenous and then keep the genocides carried out by the invading Arab settlers (who they claim descent from) upon the REAL indigenous Jewish population covered up and a secret. DionysosElysees (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your political opinions and lack of historical knowledge. You should start a blog somewhere instead of bothering us here. Zerotalk 00:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, pot and kettle? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This article has the wrong name.

Since the real meaning of the word Palestinian is just a synonym for Jewish people, this article should be renamed to a more accurate name such as "Arab inhabitants of the Land of Israel" or "Arab settlers of Palestine." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.56.138.72 (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of stopping the editwar, I will respond. "Palestinian" did used to be a synonym for Jew in the English language, especially before the creation of Mandate Palestine. But it transitioned into a term for Jews and Arabs in Eretz Israel, and later into a term for only the Arabs, since the Jews started calling themselves Israelis. So, since the '70s, the word "Palestinian" means Yassir Arifat and any other Arab that wants to claim it. That is what this article is about. We are using society's contemporary definition. But, please note that this article is full of misnomers and we'd sure love your help. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
In the Bible, "Philistine" is a name for the deadliest enemies of the Israelites in ancient times... AnonMoos (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bali ultimate trying to own this page

I filed a report at AN/I about the user Bali ultimate who tries to own this page. I think his actions are totally inappropriate as he consistently reverts edits without any explanation or policy-based reasoning. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Even worse, his latest revert deleted sourced information and he marked my edit as vandalism. This is unacceptable so I have taken it to the AN/I page, and I hope other editors will take a look and put back the sourced information. Also I am posting this here because I am not able to notify him on his talk page so maybe he will see it here. Thank you! 74.198.87.22 (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I believe your actions, in taking this matter to ANI before any attempt to resolve the dispute on this talk page or on Bali's talk page, to be the ones which are inappropriate. I also note that each and every one of Bali's edits here over the last month comes with an edit summary, and wonder how you failed to notice them. That you might not agree with the edit summaries is one thing, but that doesn't mean explanations were not given. Ravenswing 02:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I will respond the same way I responded to this claim at AN/I. "rv ip vandalism" is not a legitimate reason to delete sourced content. Me being an IP doesn't make my edits any less legitimate and I question why you are so quick to defend him when according to WP:VANDALISM my edit, complete with a WP:RS, was by no stretch of the imagination vandalism. I started off my AN/I report by apologizing if it's the wrong place to report, because I am new and don't know all the ins and outs yet, so maybe you can cut me a bit of slack? And my report there had nothing to do with disagreeing with a content dispute, it is about him reverting a sourced edit and calling it vandalism. And finally I will repeat for a 3rd time!!! (are people purposely ignoring what I write, or am I dreaming that I said this stuff already?) I cannot discuss it with him on his talk page. It does not allow me to make any edits on his talk page. So please stop holding that against me. It's not my fault.74.198.87.22 (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by deleting Safed Plunder references

The Safed Plunder source issue has been resolved. The history section of this article starts by explaining the situation in the 1830s. The section goes on to claim that the so-called "Palestinians" are descendant from both Arab settlers and indigenous Hebrews/Canaanites. So this articles claims that the so-called "Palestinians" are descendant from the indigenous people meanwhile editors are intentionally leaving out that the Arabs who settled the area after the Islamic conquest exterminating that indigenous population in such incidents as the 1517 Safed pogrom, 1517 Hebron pogrom, Safed Plunder, 1660 destruction of Safed, and the 1660 destruction of Tiberias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DionysosElysees (talk • contribs) 15:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.162.68.159 (talk)

Probably the majority of ancestors living in 600 A.D. of current-day Palestinian Arabs were neither Arabs nor Jews, but rather Aramaic-speaking superficially-Hellenized Monophysite Christian "Syrian" peasants... AnonMoos (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Each incident raised by the original poster: 1517 Safed pogrom this occurred in the context of the Ottomans defeating the Mamlukes and taking control of Palestine (and the rest of Greater Syria) the article only mentions some being killed in violence and unrest after the Ottoman's took over the former Mamluk holdings that page in fact ends with: "The community was soon rehabilitated with the help of Egyptian Jewry."

Then Safed Plunder the "1834 Safed pogrom" (putting aside the term pogrom is most often associated with Europe, and many scholars don't use it in reference to this or any other of the isolated events in this context). As for scale one simple quote from the opening tells us; "Hundreds fled the town seeking refuge in the open countryside or in neighbouring villages."

Next; 1660 destruction of Safed; the supposed "massacre" there (and far from any supposed "extermination") is dealt with by real scholarship that notes its relatively modern Zionist propaganda (hasbara); "Gershom Scholem writes that the reports of the 'utter destruction' of the Jewish community in Safed in this time period 'seem greatly exaggerated, and the conclusions based on them are false.' He points out that Sabbatai Sevi's mystical movement was active in Safed in 1665."

On the 1660 destruction of Tiberias far from a supposed "extermination" the intro itself to this Wikipedia article on Tiberias notes that the minority Jewish community that had been in Tiberias returned; after the city was "rebuilt by Daher el-Omar in early eighteenth century." after the conclusion of the Druze power struggle that had occurred in the Galilee.

All this only deals with Jewish minority communities that existed in two cities of Palestine (Safed and Tiberias) and even in these cases they were in fact later immigrants who came from Europe and were allowed to settle in the land either by the Mamlukes or the Ottomans. This has no effect on the completely verified fact that most Palestinians descend from the indigenous people of Canaan/Palestine [1]. This wikipedia article for example [2] discusses how again the Mamluk and Ottoman rulers allowed Jews from Europe to immigrate to Palestine again from Europe after the Crusaders were defeated (as the Crusaders killed some Jews themselves who had been living in for example Fatimid Caliphate ruled Palestine and also Saladin allowed to set up communities in Palestine after his defeating of the Crusaders in the late 12th century CE and his Ayyubid dynasty taking control of Palestine.

And then just a quick note; "AnonMoos" the Palestinians were of course culturally and linguistically Arabized after the 7th century CE so they definitely did speak Aramaic earlier on.Historylover4 (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Population Statistics

The correct "Palestinian" population of the "West Bank" is at about 1.5 million, not 2.3 million as this article claims. I've got more than enough sources, but not sure if I'll find the time to update this page. In the meantime, feel free to express any comments. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The statistics cited are correct and sourced.Historylover4 (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Dodgy sources

How did we get to have citation to a book by a "PGA professional golfer & Bible teacher"? Zerotalk 04:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There was no notice of his PGA background (though as a golfer I'd think that does qualify him as RS on this) originally. My responsibility. I added it, though disliking the source, as a hold for the source in 1920 he apparently used. If the British Foreign Office in an analysis in 1920 concluded that "the people west of the Jordan [River] are not Arabs, but only Arabic-speaking. In the Gaza district they are mostly of Egyptian origin; elsewhere they are of the most mixed race,' then, I thought and still do, this is well worth tracing, after which one could delete the secondary reference we have. I haven't found it in any other secondary ref. But it's been there long enough, and hasn't elicited the corroboration needed, so I've removed it.Nishidani (talk) 08:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Something like this appears in the Palin Report, but I don't think those British officers, nor the British Foreign Office either, were particularly anthropologically expert. It would perhaps be relevant to a survey of historical perceptions about the Palestinians, but not as a source regarding their actual nature. Reminds me that Chaim Weizmann wrote to his wife after meeting the Emir Feisal that Feisal "is contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs whom he doesn't even regard as Arabs!" Zerotalk 14:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, because of the, admittedly very complex, use of the word 'Arab' as an ethnic designator, or as a term for Arabic-speaking peoples. A notable number of pre Balfour sources distinguish the Beduin from the other inhabitants of Palestine, the former being ethnically 'Arab', the latter Arab-speaking, often dismissed as Turks or fellahin bundled together. The Zionist preference, often evidenced here, for 'Arab' has demonstrable uses in the 'land without a people, for a people without a land' tradition, in that 'Arab' connotes anyone from outside historic Palestine from Morocco to Arabia, and Yemen to northern Iraq. I would not underestimate early explorers: they were not qualified anthropologists, but they knew the traditions of the tribes from intimate experience unlike the imperialists with their ideological broadbrushes. They knew that Palestine had Kurdish, Circassian, Bosnian, Egyptian, Gypsy, Armenian, Greek, 'Frankish', Georgian, elements in its makeup, that Biblical tradition itself saw the land as a melting-pot, and that the fellahin stock was decidedly different from the bedu. Indeed outside of the urban centres, many of its traditions had none of the metropolitan rigour of Islam, but commingled elements of many faiths and archaic traditions. Mehemet Ali's attempt to recruit locals in a national army always ran up against this rock: any number of bedouin could be mustered, but the 'fellahin' of countries like Palestine resisted to the point of revolt. That moment is a hallmark for the emergence of a primordial, if pre-national local identity. They has as much variegation as Jewry itself, but, as the genetic studies suggest for both, were basically of indigenous stock, one for tenacity of religious traditions governing marriage the other for tenacity of attachment to the land.Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Dont they both have marriage laws and attachment to the land? Or maybe you're just using a broad brush.Society of Rules (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Nish, I'm not sure of your point but it is of course true that 'Arab' as an ethnic designator is a complex issue. I know that even today there are bedouin who object to anyone except themselves being called Arab. Zerotalk 01:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead and infobox re: Jews

The lead was not accurately summarizing the body of the article with the incomplete statement that Palestinian people are "descendants of the peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries". I know that this statement is sourced, but it is incomplete because there are some peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries as well as today (ie: Jews) who are descendants of the peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries and yet are not part of the Palestinian people. So I added another source that specifies that we are talking about Arab descendants specifically. Also, I added a sentence that summarizes the point found later in the article that Palestinian people used to include Jews living in Mandate Palestine but no longer does today. And finally, I removed Judaism from the list of religions of Palestinian people because it is unsourced, is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and makes as much sense as listing any other religion that some Palestinians may happen to practice such as Buddhism for example. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The user Bali ultimate reverted my edit entirely without joining the discussion here, but just to note: he only provided an explanation in his edit summary for one of my changes. he claims that my addition was unsourced. In fact, I included a WP:RS for the change to the lead. the sentence about "palestinian people" referring to Jews before 1948 but no longer including Jews comes from this very article (the etymology section), and he is the one who has inserted unsourced content into the infobox about Judaism being a religion of Palestinians. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The changes you're making are unsourced (except for one word, which is sourced to an online dictionary). They constitute impermissible original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
You reinserted Judaism to the infobox, which is unsourced and incorrect. How is Judaism a minority religion notable for Palestinian people? The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the article. The sentences I inserted are not WP:OR, they are a summary of the information discussed in the etymology section. And as for the online dictionary source, is there a policy stating that online dictionaries (of Princeton, mind you) are not WP:RS? 99.237.236.218 (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
According to WP:LEAD, sources are not required in the lead section. But if you insist that the sentences are contentious enough, then I will be happy to insert the very same sources used within the etymology section into the lead. There is one source discussing the fact that during the Mandate, the term Palestinian referred to all inhabitants including Jews. Then there is another source discussing the fact that after the establishment of Israel, the term fell out of use for Jews. Will that satisfy you? 99.237.236.218 (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
A dictionary—even one from Princeton!—is not the best source and, in this instance, not a very good source. It contradicts the two sources already at the end of the sentence. Please see WP:IRS for information about reliable sources. Also, see WP:PSTS for information about tertiary sources such as dictionaries.
Thank you for pointing me to the Etymology section. I didn't realize that the material you were writing was cited there.
Is the historical meaning of the word "Palestinian" so important it belongs in the second sentence of the article?
The statement you would add to the second (third) sentence, "the term no longer includes Jews", does not convey the same meaning as the Etymology section, which says "largely dropped from use". And again, is this bit of history so important it merits mention at the very beginning of the article? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it's very important. How can it not be? The way the lead currently stands, an uninformed reader would leave the article thinking that all Israelis are considered Palestinians. If my edits aren't satisfactory, that's fine. But something has to change to clear up that confusion. Also what do you think about the Judaism in the infobox? 99.237.236.218 (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. The opening is very broad, and it could be read to suggest that every descendant of any of the peoples who have lived in Palestine is a Palestinian. Still, I think there must be a more elegant way of addressing it. Maybe we can work together on something. Hopefully other editors will chime in as well.
As far as Judaism in the infobox, that's a non-issue. I've removed it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for listening to my explanations now. I hope you can understand how frustrating it is to be treated like I have no right to edit or make an opinion by others just because I am an IP, and that was mainly done by Bali ultimate who for example called my edits vandalism. So then when you an administrator joined him, it was hard to imagine how I can accomplish anything on Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm glad we can move forward. Do you have any ideas about what can be added/changed to clear up the ambiguity? 99.237.236.218 (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you that the opening sentence is a bit unclear. I'm not sure how to resolve it though? Perhaps by listing the exact groups that self-identify as Palestinians? There might also be an issue with listing Druze in the infobox - since at least the religious leadership of the Druze community in Israel don't self-identify as Palestinians. And I believe that the Druze in the Golan Heights generally identify themselves as Syrian. Avaya1 (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Good point. For now I will add a tag to hopefully attract more editors to join the conversation here with ideas. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

An editor who has not made an appearance on this talk page decided to remove the dubious tag that I had placed because of the issue explained in this thread. I have reinserted the tag because this issue has still not been solved. I believe that based on the wording used from those chosen articles, this article is ambiguous/dubious. An uninformed reader can interpret the sentence to mean that Israeli Jews are considered today as part of the Palestinian people. I have proposed multiple ways of dealing with this, such as adding a source that specifies "Arab peoples", adding a sentence that discusses what is covered in the etymology section of this article (ie: that Palestinian used to be used to refer to all people in the Mandate including Jews, but today it no longer includes Jews)... all of these efforts were reverted by other editors (some were labelled falsely as vandalism, others were called "good faith" but reverted with no explanation, most were reverted simply with no explanation and no effort to join the discussion on the talk page. I can see that some other editor was making some edits to this article in the past few days and all of his edits were reverted. One of the edits was to reinsert the text that I had initially proposed summarizing the etymology section. Again, he was reverted by multiple editors with no explanation of why that text is inappropriate. Anyway, in hopes that the dubious tag will attract some editors to join this conversation and solve the problematic wording, I have put it back and request that other editors do not unilaterally remove it without contributing to this conversation. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the tag without having seen this discussion. I don't find the opening sentence problematic. I would consider adding "and self-identify as part of this population." But I think that's stating the obvious. All identities are self-defined after all. Tiamuttalk 16:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The next time you mess up you can feel free to self revert. That way you won't risk somebody using your edit against you in future AE cases. I agree that your suggestion is stating the obvious, and it is also WP:OR without the source. If you have a comment about my suggestion above, go ahead and share your thoughts. To reiterate, my suggestion was to add a summary of the etymology section which explains that "Palestinian" is no longer used to refer to Jews living in Israel. This is sourced, naturally. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I messed up and if you think my edit warrants an AE case, by all means, go ahead and file one. I don't think your addition of the dubious tag is warranted and your proposal to mention the minority of Palestinian Jews who became Israelis in the first sentence of this article is one I reject. Its undue and unnecessary as the majority of people who identified as Palestinian pre-1948 continued to do so thereafter. The fact you want to mention is already mentioned elsewhere in the article, more than once. It should not be in the first sentence which should focus on defining thie subject of this article. I suggest that you stop restoring the dubious tag since its inappropriate. The information may be incomplete when considering the term Palestinian in historical terms, but its wholly accurate when dealing with the use of Palestinian today, which is the focus of this article. Tiamuttalk 05:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
No, the definition is not wholly accurate when dealing with the use of Palestinian today. And other editors have agreed with me in this very thread that the current wording is ambiguous. Rather than repeat myself, I will just advise you to look up a few lines and read my explanations. I made it very clear. The dubious tag should not be removed until the ambiguity is cleared up. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I've merged e second sentence ith the first here. This is almost the way the text read before it was changed ithout discussion. This makes it clear that we are discussing the descendants of the peoples of Palestine who are today largely culturally and linguistically Arab, i.e. those who identify as part of the Palestinian people, the subject of this article. Accordingly, I have removed the dubious tag. Tiamuttalk 06:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
And I put the tag back again. Are you really going to continue edit warring instead of discussing here and trying to reach consensus? I disagree that the edit you made cleared up the ambiguity. It is still dubious. The wording used can still be understood to mean that Israeli Jews are part of the Palestinian people. Multiple editors have agreed that the sentences are ambiguous, and you combining the 2 sentences doesn't change that. By saying that Palestinian people are descendants of the people who inhabited Palestine, you are including Israeli Jews. The appropriate thing to do is to add a mention explaining, like we do in the etymology section, that Jews are no longer included as Palestinians. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, the subject of this article is the Palestinian people. As they do not include Jews, I see no reason to mention that in the first sentence of the article. Reliable sources do not define Palestinians by who they do not include, and neither should we place uundue emphasis on something most don't bother to cover. Tiamuttalk 04:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the first paragraph needs neither mention of Jews, nor of history. Just define what is Palestinian people today. The Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the diaspora, including the refugee camps of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon. To say "they are from the centuries untold" is to make a political point. Tiamut knows this. Society of Rules (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do I know you? Should I begin making assumptions about who you are or your motivations for editing? Or should we perhaps stick. to the point at hand alone? Reliable sources indicate that the Palestinian people have a centuries ling history in Palestine. The source calls them indigenous. We don't use that word to avoid getting into who was their first discussions. Instead, we mention their centuries old connections. This is useful background info to the reader. Is included in the body of the article, is relevant to the subject at hand and is an appropriate opening for the article. Tiamuttalk 04:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

All these concerns could easily be fixed by renaming the article Palestinian Arab and tweaking the lead a little. It could even be noted that in the last 60 or so years the words "Palestinian people" has been used to refer exclusively to the Palestinian Arabs. An article on "Palestinian people" should include the history of ALL the Palestinian people including the various religions. It does not have to be as long as this one. This article is misleading as it stands, referring almost exclusively to the Palestinian Arab, with the exception of the lead, which consequently does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. Opportunidaddy (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Where are the sources referring to the "Palestinian people" as anything other than Palestinians who are today largely Arab? Every source discussing the Palestinian people or Palestinians in this article is clear about who the subject is. I don't see any source evidence that justifies the name change you are proposing, Palestinians define themselves as the Palestinian people in official documents. Most Jews and Israelis don't. There is no confusion in the sources. Tiamuttalk 15:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well-poisoning?

Alan Dowty is not a historian, but a political science professor. Not a geneticist or an anthropologist. He is a partisan, like Zero who doesn't want a clarification.

It is only proper to attribute a quote to the person being quoted. Especially since it contradicts Likhovski's quote, which is attributed to him.

Also, Zero, well-poisoning sounds a lot like a common libel used against the Jews of Palestine. Was that your intention? Society of Rules (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

When you add "according to ..." to the first sentence of Jew, I'll take you seriously. Zerotalk 01:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
So tit for tat is your game. No thanks. Society of Rules (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This is silly. Several times throughout the page, evidence is noted that genetic analyses suggests that much of the Palestinian population has a DNA profile overlapping with Jews (whose claim to descend from the ancient people of Israel is not contested). What Dowty rights is perfectly compatible with that evidence in the article, and therefore is not his own personal view, but a summation of existing scholarship. No two measures please.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Your understanding of science is laughable. Why do you think a genetic study proves anything? And yes, the leadership of the PLO contests the Jewish claim to Israel. They claim mobern day Jews aren't Israelis, while claiming Palestinians are. It is historical revisionism you are supporting, for political reasons. What a farse. Society of Rules (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
'the leadership of the PLO contests the Jewish claim to Israel'.
  • Israel is not a synonym for the West Bank. The PLO recognized Israel in 1993.
  • 'mobern' is spelt 'modern': ' farse' is spelt 'farce.'
'They claim mobern day Jews aren't Israelis, while claiming Palestinians are.'
  • Actually,(a) roughly half of modern day Jews aren't Israelis, though they may exercise a right to assume that status.(b) Nowhere does the PLO leadership claim, as you write, that 'Palestinians are Israelis'.
These elementary errors are patently silly. Your contribs show no interest in wikipedia other than pettifogging militancy, so please leave the page until you have familiarized yourself with the rules, and the relevant scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yall can stop here, obvious sock of Lutrinae (Modinyr, Luck 19 Verse 27), blocked for disruption. nableezy - 16:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinians/Archive_19&oldid=1079498449"