Talk:Palestinians/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26

Category:Ancient peoples????!!!!!!

What kind of BS is this, Palestinians were invented in the 1900s. How the heck can they be an ancient people?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobden 932j (talk • contribs) 02:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Removed. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Political violence

1967-present has this sentence, "Mainstream secular Palestinian nationalism was grouped together under the umbrella of the PLO whose constituent organizations include Fatah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, among other groups who at that time believed that political violence was the only way to liberate Palestine."

Now this is sourced and seems valid, but why is "political violence" a link to "Palestinian political violence"? I believe this is biased. The reader will click on "political violence", but be directed to "Palestinian political violence"?

This could lead the reader to think that Palestinian PV is the only kind of PV, which is wrong. This is why I propose removing the sneaky redirection, and making "political violence" link to "political violence". Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The piped link Palestinian political violence|political violence is used because it is consistent with WP:LINKCLARITY and WP:SPECIFICLINK. A person would need to be extraordinarily stupid and/or unfeasibly ignorant to be made to think that Palestinian political violence is the only kind of political violence on this planet by a link. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you really think the other people editing this page are morons? That is unequivocally not why [you] propose removing the [supposed] sneaky redirection, you would like to remove it for the sole purpose of claiming that now there is no link in the body so it should go in the see also. Please dont pretend that everybody else here is an idiot, it makes it soooo much harder to take you seriously. nableezy - 17:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Awful flippant remarks. You two are displaying aggressive behavior and should remember that your "us vs them" mentality doesn't help this page.
WP:LINKCLARITY makes it clear that "...the link must be as intuitive as possible." Hiding an adjective doesn't improve the link. Also, MOS:PIPE says to "[when using piped links]...make sure that it is still clear what the link refers to without having to follow the link." Also, "Per the Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link."
Simplicity should win out in this case. There is no need to pipe the link. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
It is very obvious what the context of those words is in that sentence, and the link is perfectly appropriate. There is no astonishment in clicking that link. Pretend the link is to Political violence (Palestinian) if that helps you. nableezy - 04:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Your views are noted. You are not going to be able to achieve your objectives here using either edit warring or by trying to get consensus for your proposal. What are you going to do now ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
This is hilarious. I agree with the above two users, stop this nonsense. Lazyfoxx (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Palestine or Palestinian territories?

This edit is too ambiguous. Region of Palestine also includes Israel, while "Palestinian State" doesn't govern all the West Bank nor Gaza. Palestinian territories is more specific. Besides, the thing is that Palestine doesn't exist, physically, as an independent State. Wikipedia should go by facts, not wishes.--Michael Zeev (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Palestine was an historic entity divided by a decision taken in the UN in Nov.1947 to be composed to two successor states, Israel and an Arab state. The successor Arab state is now called by all UN offices, the State of Palestine. It is under military occupation. You exist diplomatically if you are recognized, and that state is recognized, and 'independence', depending on the humour of the colonial power, has nothing to do with the issue. Nishidani (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed with Nishidani. I endorse his view. The edit ought to be restored now. Faizan 08:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
No, the UN decided to divide Mandatory Palestine (a political-juridical entity called "Mandate under British administration") in two independent states: an Arab state and a Jewish state. The Jewish state declared independence and exists physically, while the Arab state doesn't. I'm not discussing if the State of Palestine is recognized diplomatically by the UN, I'm just saying that the West Bank is not part of an independent state called "State of Palestine", it's an area administrated by Israel and the Palestinian Authority (it's a fact, not an opinion or a wish), so implying that the entire Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) are controlled or they are part of a sovereign country called "State of Palestine" is empirically false. By the way, a state is formed by consolidated institutions, a population, a government and a defined territory controlled by it (something that in the case of the Palestinians will be achieved after an agreement with Israel). International recognition is the last step. UN doesn't fix borders either; war and reality on the ground do.--Michael Zeev (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Sean.hoyland reverted explaining PCBS source says "State of Palestine" regarding populations of West Bank and Gaza, but the source says "Palestinian Territory" very clear.--Michael Zeev (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The stats are for the State of Palestine. That is what it is called and that is why it says PCBS State of Palestine Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. A link to the State of Palestine is accurate, precise, appropriate, and consistent with the source. I appreciate that some people have been taught to believe that the term 'State of Palestine' is invalid in various ways and that its use should be suppressed, but that is just not relevant here. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Source doesn't say the entire West Bank and Gaza belong to the State of Palestine (it would be false). Besides, the current wikilink in the infobox redirects here, not to "Palestine" or "State of Palestine".--Michael Zeev (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, why would it be false to assert that? (It hasn't been asserted, however).Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Because "State of Palestine" does not control most of the West Bank nor Gaza--Michael Zeev (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
So you personally think 'control' signifies ownership? ('belong to')Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Control means sovereignty, something the State of Palestine doesn't have in the West Bank (read "Area A, B and C"). By the way, there was never a Palestinian state to own anything in the first place. An encyclopedia must be based on facts. When a Palestinian independent state is established in the West Bank and Gaza, I will personally change the infobox accordingly. But meanwhile, so-called State of Palestine doesn't govern the Palestinian territories.--Michael Zeev (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Who it belongs to or who controls it isn't relevant. The information is produced by a thing called the 'State of Palestine' and it is about the thing called the 'State of Palestine'. Those are facts. You are right about the flag template redirecting. The link should be directly to the State of Palestine article via flag|State of Palestine. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
No, the source says "Palestinian Territory" as I showed you before. State of Palestine is not an independent country, although it has "non-member observer state status" in the UN (only the UN Security Council recognizes new states). If there is already a Palestinian state... why Erekat keeps talking about a "two-state solution"?--Michael Zeev (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
No ? Okay. I assume you are able to see that it says State of Palestine rather prominently at the top of the page in the source and that you are capable of understanding that this refers to the same thing as the State of Palestine article, but feel free to just point the link at the Land of Israel article and cite stats from Israel's MFA about Palestinians in the territories or point it anywhere you like. I really don't give a fuck. Trying to collaborate or discuss things with nationalist advocates is stupid and pointless, so I shall stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:Civility, WP:Get the point. However, I won't insist with this debate anymore.--Michael Zeev (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Yep. Anyone who thinks 'control means sovereignty' is saying Israel has sovereignty over much of the West Bank, which translates into a confession one is just a mouthpiece for nationalist blague of the crudest sort, wholly inappropiate to neutral encyclopedic editing. To cite the Security Council on state formation as authoritative, while ignoring that the same council asked Israel 'to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem', means we'll just end up here with a useless 'conversation' of prejudiced cherrypicking as opposed to RS-based article-editing. Utterly pointless. So, stop the nonsense, study a little, and, in particular, read WP:NPOV, which forbids editors from pushing a POV. Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Palestinian Land Loss

Hi, this edit right here, [[1]], I think it is very confusing as it uses the same colors for different descriptors. I think a map such as this, [[2]] would be much more informative and less confusing in regards to the section it is in "Struggle for self-determination". Lazyfoxx (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Projected Population for Palestinians and Jewish Population

This picture is not reliable nor sourced (unlike the other two images above). RabeaMalah, the graphic you drew is wrong. What source did you use to say how many Jews will be in 2019? Besides, it says Israeli Jews in 2013 are 5.9 million when, according to ICBS, there are more than 6 million Jews in Israel. While the number of Palestinian Arabs is exaggerated.--Michael Zeev (talk) 08:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

copyright issues

There are some major copyright problems with the "Palestinian population" section of this article.

Take the subsection Palestinians in Jordan, the text says:

According to the 2000 data about Palestinians living in Jordan, 41.7% of the Palestinian population in Jordan are under 15 years, and 4.2% of them are 65 years and over. The average household size of the Palestinian population living in Jordan is 6.2 persons, and about 87.0% of them are registered refugees at UNRWA and live in refugee camps. Infant mortality rate and under five years child mortality rate of Palestinians living in Jordan were 24.9 and 27.4 per 1,000 live births respectively. on the other hand, the total fertility rate of Palestinian population living in Jordan was 4.6 births per woman. In The light of all given data its probably expected doubling in number of Palestinian Population in Jordan after 24 years.

Here is the text of the section Palestinians in Jordan from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics' report Palestinians at the End of the Year 2006, page 19 [3]:

According to the 2000 data about Palestinians living in Jordan, 41.7% of the Palestinian

population in Jordan are under 15 years, and 4.2% of them are 65 years and over. The average household size of the Palestinian population living in Jordan is 6.2 persons, and about 87.0% of Camps residence are registered refugees at UNRWA. Infant mortality rate and under five years child mortality rate of Palestinians living in Jordan were 22.5 and 25.1 per 1,000 live births respectively. The total fertility rate of Palestinian

population living in Jordan was 4.6 births per woman, and the dependency rate was 85.4

Since there are some differences in the text, I suspect that the Wikipedia text was actually copied from a different report from the PCBS. However, this text is clearly plagiarized. This is just an example, other paragraphs in this section also contain major copyright violations. Given the controversial nature of this article I am not going to delete this section, but per Wikipedia's copyright rules, this section needs to be either completely rewritten or deleted. GabrielF (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The whole section looks like WP:COPYVIO. I recommend deleting it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the section. GabrielF (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Palestinian hip hop

The section Palestinian hip hop consists of the first three paragraphs of the article Palestinian hip hop copied verbatim. Given that all other music is covered in one paragraph, this seems disproportionate. I'd like to cut this down to a couple of sentences and include a hatnote link to the Palestinian hip hop article. GabrielF (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

1967-present

I took out these sentences as they were (IMHO) WP:SOAP : "The right of self-determination gives the Palestinians collectively an inalienable right to freely choose their political status, including the establishment of a sovereign and independent state. Israel, having recognized the Palestinians as a separate people, is obliged to promote and respect this right in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.". It was then reverted by ‎Faizan who felt it was problem with WP:NPOV rather than WP:SOAP and needed to be fixed--but didn't fix it, just reverted my change. So Faizan basically (re)inserted material while admitting that it had a problem with NPOV. This led to further re-reversions by Chicago Style (without pants) and Nableezy. I think the material is WP:SOAP and should just be deleted. How about if someone else feels it can be improved then just improve it? Do words like "inalienable" and "obliged" belong as descriptive terms (as opposed to quoting RS)? I don't think so. But then again, maybe that's just me. Drmikeh49 (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Rather than soapboxing, this seems to be exactly the kind of scholarly content Wikipedia is meant to contain. Nevertheless, I have rewritten it to precisely reflect Thomas Giegerich's statements with attribution to improve WP:NPOV compliance and updated the URL to make WP:V compliance checking easier for readers. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

‎Faizan who felt it was problem with WP:NPOV rather than WP:SOAP and needed to be fixed--but didn't fix it.

Pot calling the kettle back, Drmikeh49. You say Faisan didn't fix it, and you wouldn't either. The simple solution is, as now done, to examine the source, and rewrite. Removal is lazy, and as POV as SOAP-Boxing. Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The source from "Genomics and Health in the Developing World" should read Kumar not "Kuma"

A simple spelling correction, the editor of this work has the surname Kumar, not "Kuma". Here is a link to that source as well http://books.google.com/books?id=BLLmbgt8wNgC&pg=PA700&lpg=PA700&dq=Palestinians+are+an+indigenous+people+who+either+live+in,+or+originate+from,+historical+Palestine+Genomics+and+Health+Kuma&source=bl&ots=u0Q0Wz7KBU&sig=h2Khtm0vmbZsp6pQPKOmr7cMY7o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iRRBUeGPAZOo4AOvvYEY&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Palestinians%20are%20an%20indigenous%20people%20who%20either%20live%20in%2C%20or%20originate%20from%2C%20historical%20Palestine%20Genomics%20and%20Health%20Kuma&f=false

Someone who has the ability to edit this page should make this spelling correction (Kumar) and add the link I posted if possible.Vikingsfan8 (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Fix a typo please (very simple error)

Per the cited source (AJHG) and what this article had 1-2 years ago (which was correct), the degree of sub-Saharan DNA in Palestini & related people should read "10%" to 15% -- not "1%" to 15%. Someone dropped the zero in "10" which used to be there.

A tiny error that anyone can make, easily... yet 1% versus 10% is an enormous Factor of Error.

I agree, but understand the study does not state the "degree of Sub-saharan DNA," it states the percentage of Mitochondrial DNA within DNA. Mitochondrial DNA makes up less than 1% of DNA, so stating "the degree of sub-saharan DNA in the peoples is 10-15%" would be wrong. The study does state that up to 10-15% of Lineages tested carried a mtDNA with sub-Saharan markers, we can fix that easily. Lazyfoxx (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing

The image File:Ramallah-Family-1905.jpg says it is a family in Ramallah. It is wrong to assume that the family is one thing or another. They could be Druze (who generally do not identify as Palestinian) or Bedouin (ditto) or Old Yeshuv Jewish or any number of things. Let us label the picture by what the uploader labelled it, A Family in Ramallah. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The picture was taken in 1905 of a family from Ramallah, Palestine. Nishidani (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
You can't brainwash others by sensational titles like POV pushing, CS. As the picture was taken for and added to Palestinian people article, it is very natural that the family was a Palestine family; otherwise it would not have been included here. Your talk-page history shows who is actually noted for POV. -AsceticRosé 15:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Your assumptions about the source are noted. Since the file is labelled only as "a family from Ramallah, Palestine" as Nishidani also said, it is POV to suggest that they are one ethnicity or another. Looking at the man's clothing, he seems a bit Ottoman to me, but again that is an assumption. Let's stick to what the source says. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Your attempts to disassociate the Palestinian identity are noted once again CS, it looks like you're not the only one who thinks Palestinians didn't exist in the past, as I look over Yuvn's edit history he seems to share a lot in common with you, might I suggest you both start making useful contributions rather than changing wording in Palestinian articles to suit your agenda? Lazyfoxx (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I am not disassociating anything. The source says it is a family from a town in the then Ottoman empire. Putting "Palestinian" onto a family photo when we have no idea how they identified themselves is against policy. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Your edit history shows why you decided to make that edit, you're not fooling anyone. Lazyfoxx (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Enough nonsense Chicago Style, Ayoub's were Palestinian Christians in Ramallah. You're the only one that thinks they don't deserve to be labeled Palestinian, stop editing Wikipedia based on Technicality to support your view about Palestinians, your edit does not improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
What does Ayoubs have to do with this picture? The source (which is what we go by in Wikipedia) says they are a family from Ramallah. Do add any other flavor is to be POV. Let us just use the source given. That is my edit. I am following the source. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Have you even read the picture description? (which is what we read for more information in Wikipedia) I really wonder if your intent is just to troll this page...
The man who uploaded the picture is Charles Ayoub, the picture is a portrait of his family. "I, Charles Ayoub, own the image and release it to the Public Domain. It was also featured in the book 'Ramallah - Anicent and Modern' by Khalil Ayub Abu Rayya. The picture was taken in 1905 of a family from Ramallah, Palestine. From left to right - Abraham Ayoub, Michael Ayoub, Peter Ayoub, Tifaha Ayoub, Louis Ayoub." This picture was also placed in the category Palestinian history by Charles Ayoub. Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course I read the picture description. I exactly quoted it. Adding further adjectives that aren't listed in the description is POV, pure and simple. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Then why did you say "What do Ayoubs have to do with this picture?" That clearly shows you did NOT read the description. The Picture IS the Ayoubs, a Palestinian Christian family, Charles Ayoub added the picture on Wikipedia into the Palestinian history category. Lazyfoxx (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
You are lawyering. The fact that it was added to Palestinian history shows that it is related to Palestine. The picture was taken in Palestine. But the description doesn't call them Christians or say anything about their ethnicity. This is actually very simple. My edit is a direct quote of the file description, yours is a POV assumption. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The Ayoubs were one of the many Palestinian Christian families in Ramallah in the early 1900's, Ramallah was almost exclusively a Palstinian Christian town with a small minority of Muslims, up until 1948 when Palestine refugees of all faiths from around Palestine fled there. Have you read the book the picture is featured in titled Ramallah: Ancient and Modern? There does not seem to be a digital version online but they clearly state how Palestinian Christians were the early inhabitants of the town. Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
So you've shown that they probably were Christians. Great. Let's stick with the file's description. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
They weren't probably Christian, they were Palestinian Christians, the picture is cited in the section talking about Palestinian Christian history in Ramallah. Why do you so strongly believe in removing the word Palestinian/Palestine in articles like this? It seems to be your major contributions in your edit history to Palestinian related articles. Lazyfoxx (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm citing one of your other related "edits" Here In which you explicitly state that everyone in the early 1900s in Palestine was called Palestinian, by that logic, you then separately justified that the family in the picture in question deserves to be regarded as Palestinian regardless of if they were Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. Because regardless, they were called Palestinian. Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Palestinian is the word used for everyone living in Palestine at that time. But this article uses the word in its current sense. So it is POV to attach a misleading label on a picture. "the picture is cited in the section talking about Palestinian Christian history". That is circular logic. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Birth of the Palestinian identity

I read it fast but it seems that the article refers to Efraim Karsh to state the Palestinian identity would have birthed after the '67 war.

Karsh is not really the most reliable or less controversial source on this topic.

Most Israeli historians fixed it at the collapse of the Kingdom of Syria of Fayçal in 1920 when Palestinian Arabs realized Palestine would not join that Kingdom. Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, Cambridge University Press, 2000 goes farther and fixes this at the beginning of the XXth century.

Palestinian Arab identity grew during the Mandate period and some historians see the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt as a lost Independence War. Karsh is right that the identity suffered after '48 and re-emerged in '67 but his view it didn't exist before is WP:Fringe and should not be mentionned in the article.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth noting a couple of interesting early milestones:
Oncenawhile (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Palestinians?

I think you might have to consider the last names of palestinian families to detect where they came from (as they're not an ethnic group or a cnaanite people): Rifaat_Turk rifat turk for example , is a person of turkish origin classified under the name palestinian. he's a living example for that.

You might have to consider other last names such as : Kurd,Masrawa (Al masri) ,otman,etc

goodluck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorpwnz (talk • contribs) 10:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"The Palestinian people (Levantine Arabic|الشعب الفلسطيني, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī), also referred to as Palestinians (Levantine Arabic|الفلسطينيون, al-Filasṭīniyyūn), are the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab due to Arabization of the region.["

" and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab due to Arabization of the region"

any proof for this statement ? as you know ,the last names would easly tell where they came from.

maybe i will add it by myself --Dorpwnz (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi , i have just added some information to the article relating to the last names of large palestinian families and their country of origin . i know that there are some wording fixes that are need to be made but i hope to recieve your suggestions --Dorpwnz (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi ,i have also add https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firas_Mugrabi as an example for a palestinian of Moroccan origin. (magreb - morroco in arabic)

i also remember an israeli arab member of the knesset which was interviewed in "Hala Rafiq" telling about his typical palestinian family (gazan,lebanese,morrocan,syrian,egyptian) his name is afu agbaria. he talks about it in the interview . here is the link ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pESwbDnowSA

he talks about this subject in the start.

--Dorpwnz (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

So if someone goes to Israeli Jews and starts listing the hundreds of Jewish surnames that derive from place names in dozens of countries, you won't mind even a little, right? It is simply impossible that this type of stuff is going to be accepted, so you might as well spare yourself the effort. Zerotalk 00:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
A large number of Ashkenazi names, even of non-Israelis, reflect European place-names (Pontecorvo, Cracow, Mannheim, Napoli, Frankfurter, Pollack,etc.) and the same is true of Sephardis (Al-Fassi from Fez), Isfahani), but of course the same logic is not applied in that case, since a distant genetic ancestor is placed by the narrative of origins in Palestine. A family name represents one line of origin in our mixed, philoprogenitive, and promiscuous world, and al-Masri in Palestine suggests only that part of the line had an Egyptian forefather, just as Sydney Pollack's forefathers must have had a Pole amongst them, though the family came from the Ukraine, and identified as Russians. The name-game is just a POV gambit and has no place here.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

So here's the catch. the palestinains are not the original inhabitors of the land while the jews were migrating due to diaspora. thus if you look into talmudic villages before the palestinain villages of nowdays you can find synagogues and other jewish symbols for their earlier existence. what i am basically saying is that the communities were living in diaspora for thousand of years while the palestinians actually migrated from other countries ( like the mentioning in Hala Rafiq by afu agbaria,where he says most of his family are morrocan,lebanese,egyptian....)you might have to check the fact before responding. it's not a game since Sepradi Jews were not Converted arabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorpwnz (talk • contribs) 17:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like inventing a nation to me . i have to admit that looking in the small details makes a huge difference in that subject. --Dorpwnz (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dorpwnz, that's a good comment - it's good to see that you can see both sides of this debate after all. After what you said above I didn't expect you to identify that - were the small details you've been reading found in The Invention of the Jewish People? Funny, as i didn't imagine you to be a Shlo Sand fan. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
There are no 'original inhabitors' (sic ='inhabitants') of any country. History is migration and miscegeneration. 'Egyptians' were in Palestine before the 'ivri' coalesced into an Israelitic set of tribes, ergo? In your logic the Palestinian al-Masris descend from recent folks who returned to the land of some of their forefathers in the 15th-14 centuries BCE. Stop your tomfoolery.Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

first of all,we are all humans. we all came from africa possibly . second , if you want to measure the presence of someone you need to know which civilizition have been developed ,how widely and for how many time. the jews/israelis take the goblet in that section. and im not trying to turn a fire. you dont seem to care about my information by dismissing it . it should be added to the article. i gave sources , you didnt review them , so mine is a valid arguement for now . i will add it to the article if you want or not. im not here for fighting with someone. --Dorpwnz (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


Seems to me more like a personal conversation without caring alot about the article. i will have to add more relieble information which could debunk the possibility of a palestinian ethnicity/people. not in the way of editing war but to let people hear the other side and not take the article as 100%. because the genetic researchers are not very biased and archeological finding wont say alot about todays jews/chrisitians (a mixture of the israelite theory and the cnaanite theory ) "palestinians" to say that palestinians were arabized is like to say that the turks or ayuubis were arabized too... if you go by this way of thinking so todays palestinain would not even have a nationalist perspective and they would try to merge with christians and jews back in favor of their ancestral fathers... --Dorpwnz (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

So in essence, nobody has actually LIVED in today's Palestine the past 3000 years -- people have just moved in... without living there until year 700, but people have moved out -- including most of jews originally living there..? ...it has always been a fertile area -- so why haven't anyone actually lived there? I read the following sentence in the article, and I quote: "Genetic research studies suggests that some or perhaps most of the present-day Palestinians have roots that go back to before the 7th century, maybe even ancient inhabitants of the area.[96]" Wow. Is it just me or is that phrase seriously skewed into making it sound like most palestinians do NOT have roots back before the 7th century -- at BEST??

There's an island with 1000 inhabitants that date back 2500 years. 200 outsiders move in, and over the next 500 years -- the outsiders and islanders are fully integrated with eachother. Are the people on the island still the ancient inhabitants of the island of 3000 years? Let's increase the outsiders moving in to 1000. 1000 islanders who have lived on the island for 2500 years mingle and integrate with 1000 outsiders over the next 500 years.

They are still the same people in that they entitled the heritage of their ancestors: It was their parents and their parents and their parents again that plowed the earth, planted trees and herded animals continuously over 3000 years. Maintenance of land is important, lest the area becomes overgrown and wild. And that is the most important part of any inheritage: The building and maintenance of roads, villages, farms and farmland, herding of animals, maintencance of water supplies and safe sewage and waste disposal... Somebody did that in Palestine for thousands of years. I doubt, very much, that random people from outside continiously immigrated, built roads, and then emigrated -- leaving their homes and work behind. I have not seen any evidence suggesting that those people have been slaughtered. So. Tell me: What do you call the people that are the decendants of the people that for the past thousands of years maintained and worked on the land which Great Britain, France and Russia called the British Mandate of Palestine? 85.164.254.244 (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Palestinians, as per the page.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is disputed?

There is an ongoing edit war in this article about the NPOV dispute-tag. The rules are clear:

Please note: This label is meant to indicate that a discussion is still going on, and that the article's content is disputed, and volatile. If you add this template to an article in which there is no relevant discussion underway, you need at least to leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. As far I can see, no dispute is active except maybe the one in the section POV pushing. If so, then only that section should have that tag and there should be an active discussion to solve that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no ongoing dispute. There is a continuous disturbance of the page by a revert-specialist Chicago Style (without pants) who is long due for a report to WP:AE, since, please note the page histories here and at contiguous pages 1948 Arab-Israeli War etc., his functional role is removal of material, esp. regarding Palestinians. He appear to do little else.Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Chicago Style (without pants) must explain what actually is disputed, and why the dispute tag is justified. As a rule, if anything is disputed, you should raise this on talk-page, and discuss them so that the dispute can be solved. Currently, I do not see any part of the article being dispute, let alone the whole article.
Nishidani is correct in saying that CS's main role seems to remove materials regarding Palestinians or, to add more, to make them controversial. He has been warned several times, and was blocked once for disruptive editing. But still no remedy. Can anyone think of any other way?-AsceticRosé 17:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The justification I was given on another page by another user was that "Palestinian is not an ethnicity." From the trend of Chicago Style's edits it would appear that he shares the same views (constant removal of the term Palestine/Palestinian from articles). Not sure these editors should really be encouraged in the Palestinian-Israeli section of wikipedia.
Now I'm not accusing anyone specifically of this, but let's remember everyone that Israel has engaged in professional Zionist editing courses for Wikipedia. We should be vary wary of editors who attempt to disassociate the Palestinian identity and deny the existence of Palestinians. Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

<-The edit warring is caused by the presence of block evading sockpuppets of topic banned users. Stuck in SD with Yaming's behavior is consistent with that of a NoCal100 sock in my view. If Chicago Style (without pants) is becoming too much of a burden, and he does appear to be reverting to a characteristic behavior by deleting impeccable sources like this in this edit, I'd suggest looking through this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this for what I regard as relevant background. As a separate class of user with a disposable account who can disregard policies or guidelines (or game the rules to prolong the life of a sock), block evading editors obviously don't need to follow the community's norms, so there's little point quoting policies and guidelines about templates or anything else or even discussing anything at all with these editors in my opinion. If they made decisions on the basis of policy they couldn't be here operating these accounts, so policy is apparently not how they make decisions. Whether they are blocked or not seems to make little difference in practice because they are apparently not able to overcome the compulsion to return and repeat their mistakes. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

At least on three behavioral grounds, Stuck in SD with Yaming seems to be a sock of Chicago Style. It is chilling if Israel has engaged in professional Zionist editing courses for Wikipedia. The picture of sockpuppetery presented above is really horrifying. Thanks Sean.hoyland for informing us that. I have only lately joined Palestine-Israeli related articles, so do not know so much about the background. Nableezy seems to be less active in these articles. If he were present, probably he would find the present socks. -AsceticRosé 03:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I've already reported Stuck in SD with Yaming as a sock here. I expect the account will either be blocked or abandoned, but in practice it makes no real difference. Stuck in SD with Yaming's behavior is typical of NoCal and different from Lutrinae/Modinyr socks. The behavior of a Lutrinae/Modinyr sock is unlike any other user I have ever seen editing Wikipedia in the 6+ years I've been here. Chicago Style (without pants) behaves like that user, and increasingly so. Yes, it's unfortunate that Nableezy isn't around to help protect the charity from disruption, but he's aware of it (see here). The editing courses don't appear to have had much impact so far and it's likely that people would have been explicitly informed not to break the rules and especially not to do unethical things like using deception. I think their presence at this article would be obvious. NoCal and Lutrinae aren't the products of these courses and I think it would be wrong to assume that graduates of these courses, for want of a better word, would exhibit the same quite rare lack of basic ethics and common decency exhibited by the repeat offender sockpuppets active in the topic area. For one thing, behavior like this damages the reputation of Israel and its supporters within the Wikipedia community and elsewhere, which would presumably be the last thing a genuine supporter of Israel would want to do. NoCal and Lutrinae socks seem to keep coming back because they just don't have the ability to stop. Evidently they don't care about damaging reputations or breaking rules. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
People frequently come to this page making charges of POV content. Currently, there is an ongoing discussion about content. Therefore the header is deserved.
I have never denied Palestinian identity. This seems to be basically crying racist to discredit me, along with calling me a sock or a paid shill. Keep it classy. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
You leave no option but to be reverted on sight. There is no content to your objections, you ignore a general consensus and persistently hold to ransom the use of the word 'Palestinian' to describe the people who are the subject of this article. There is no sign you are even serious about this. The pattern is one of happy indulgence in annoyance, every other day. Nishidani (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The only person who called you a shill was yourself Chicago Style, I was simply stating we must be wary as editors due to Israel's practices in POV editing courses for Wikipedia. And that was three years ago, who knows the level it has escalated to by now. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189 Lazyfoxx (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
LazyFoxx consider yourself warned regarding the repeated personal attacks and bad faith accusations you level against anyone that disagrees with you. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Consider myself warned? You blatantly accused me of "highjacking articles when things don't go your away." on the Israelis article when I was seeking neutrality against an editor who justified his revert by saying "Palestinians aren't an ethnicity". Let he who is not guilty of sin cast the first stone Brewcrewer. The bad faith I have recently aknowledged on this article is obvious and I am not the only one who thinks so as evidenced by the rest of the editors on here acknowledging CS's bullshit. Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
This edit was a violation of Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use wmf:Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities "posting content that is false or inaccurate". You can't make an edit like that and then complain about people not following the rules. It won't make sense to people. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Brewcrewer, Hertz1888, and Chicago_Style, have all recently claimed to be victimized by me when presented with facts concerning Palestinians, that they didn't agree with. This may be a strategy on Wikipedia for some editors. But ignoring/denying facts about Palestinians should not be allowed on Wikipedia, whatever the degree. Lazyfoxx (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
In his latest comment, CS has not yet told us what exactly is disputed, and only made nonsense remarks. Meanwhile he again tagged the article (which was reverted soon) instead of talk-page discussion. All this again confirms his disruptive nature of editing. Don't he think he should stop his nonsense? -AsceticRosé 17:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
There are two ongoing POV disputes. You should at least be aware of one of them, since you've been involved in it. I am in no way supporting Dorpwnz blatant POV addition (not to mention editting it in thrice in a half-hour), but that kind of thing is not unusual on this page. Nor is more civilized and reasonable contests to this article's narrative. It deserves a banner because there are frequent disputes to the article's neutrality, including ongoing ones. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Nope. Nothing you have done in editing the page shows any knowledge of the topic. The revert pattern is one of dislike for the subject itself. If you can't commit yourself to improving an article like this by adding material relevant to it, on history, culture, customs, etc. you should keep away from it. Challenging as you do the use of a descriptor like Palestinian by wikilawyering suggests antipathy to the people, not a wikilaw based concern for a correct and neutral evaluation of the subject matter. Pasting tags without any real arguments other than an 'attitude' has no other function that to function as an 'alert' or scare sign for potential readers.Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I fear that CS's position is gradually becoming a burden. CS's argument of two POV disputes is false. The image caption dispute was generated by you unnecessarily. It is not POV in nature. And it is not any discussion relating article content. The thread is still alive because of your stubbornness. You yourself agree that Dorpwnz blatant POV addition is not acceptable. Now, if such disruptive additions are not unusual on this page, then why should the article pay the price for this? Why should the question of tagging come because of such disruptive editors? It is pathetic to see how much you have degraded yourself by your unconstructive position. You are really leaving no option but to be reverted on sight. -AsceticRosé 05:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
So basically, Ascetic Rose is saying that things he doesn't like be dismissed and Nishidani is calling me a racist.
I'm putting the banner back up because there are POV and balance issues on this page that haven't been resolved. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Antipathy: a deep-seated feeling of dislike; aversion. Some of your edits on the Palestinian page remove the word Palestinian/Palestine without proper justification, you justify some on basis of mere technicality while not representing consensus or sources regarding the material. ThisThisThisThisThisThisThisThis This shows a dislike to the use of the words and/or subject material. Calling Nishidani pointing out a trend to your edits an accusation of racism is a poor defense. Your constant removal of the term Palestinian/Palestine can be viewed as Morally_offensive_views. Lazyfoxx (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Your links show that my edits were supported by sources. For example, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edits show me obviously following the sources presented. The 4th and 5th are me changing POV material that manipulates the sources. The 6th and 7th show me representing the sources, directly. The 8th is me undoing obvious anachronistic, POV wording.
This is exactly why this page needs a banner saying there are neutrality issues. This page triumphs a Pro-Palestinian political viewpoint. If you look at the seven edits Lazyfox has pointed out, none of them deal with the post-Mandate of Palestine era. I am simply fighting anachronism, that is being used to try to introduce an historically-revisionist view of Levantine history. This page is a work in progress about a very controversial topic. It deserves a banner. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not the place where the history of edits of any editor should be examined, I do not take side in this dispute, but it is clear that the neutrality of some of the content of this article has been disputed by one or more editor. There is no justification for removing POV template, especially as this template does not reflect anything beside what I said namely that one or more editors are disputing the neutrality of this article (which is fact)Also, those whose edits are disputed should not remove templates directed to them. --Tritomex (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Please make a list of NPOV violations present in the article. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Generally, although I did not examined the article closely, it seems to me as a well written. However, it is not me who disputes the neutrality of this article, so I would ask User Chicago Style to present concrete reasons for NPOV template.--Tritomex (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
User Chicago Style has been asked several times to point out his alleged POVs which he has failed so far. His only comment There are two ongoing POV disputes is quite unexpected, and has been refuted above. It is pathetic to see an advocacy for POV tag without any knowledge of what the POvs are in the article. -AsceticRosé 15:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
As I said before, the page is built on a Palestinian viewpoint. There are numerous instances of historical revisionism. There is a lot of use of emotional language and images. Even in the very first sentence, sources are twisted to say what some want them to say. I'm not saying this is a bad article, I'm saying it is a work in progress. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
This page is built on many viewpoints as can be seen by the many sources and discussions that have taken place on this page over the years, claiming it is solely based on a Palestinian viewpoint is a very strong and inaccurate thing to say. Please make a list of the "emotional language and images" you speak of. Bringing up your concern with the lead sentence, you engaged a long discussion and edit war about that in the past in which consensus and sources did not justify your repeated revisions. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Lazyfoxx (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Compare the first sentence to the section Palestinian history and nationalism. That section includes people arguing for various timelines of when Palestinians developed a national consciousness. Most say that it was in the 18th or 19th century. Khalidi says that cultures stretching back to the Biblical era have come to "form part of the identity of the modern-day Palestinian people, as they have come to understand it over the last century." So he isn't saying there is a direct link, just that modern Palestinians believe it to be part of their identity. Why then does the first sentence of the article say that they are actual, physical descendants of every "peoples" that has lived in Palestine. Because the quote is lifted from a book (without sources) written by a political science professor.
So the consensus of sources on the article that Palestinian identity is a product of the Ottoman period is overruled by a single, non-academic source that has the quote that makes Palestinians look like the descendants of Canaanites.
There is a Biblical map drawn up with dubious scholarship in the 1800's. The cartographer himself used the Bible as a source, but that isn't a good enough source for Wikipedia.
There is emotionally-charged language, such as in Struggle of self-determination. It is straight up advocacy. I look forward to discussing this and other instances of NPOV content on this page. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The issues I've brought up haven't been addressed, besides the two ongoing POV disputes on this talk page. Neutrality banner is warranted. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The same is true of Jewish or French or any identity, and you are making exceptionally niggling casuistry to challenge the use of 'Palestinian'. If you dislike them, edit elsewhere. I think it obvious now that you find that word indigestible.
  • French identity was formed in the late 18th-early 19th centuries but it is endemic in scholarly works to find phrasing like 'Henry IV, 'the good king' associated in the minds of Frenchmen of Louis XIV's time with peace and prosperity.' (Geoffrey Treasure,The Making of Modern Europe, 1648 1780, 3rd.ed. Routledge, ‎2003 p.209).
  • When David Mungello, writes: 'Although Chinese merchants of the Ming dynasty traded abroad, they were impeded by the Ming government.'(The Great Encounter of China and the West, 1500-1800, Rowman & Littlefield, 2005 p.5), he really should have written in your view, Ming dynasty merchants, since at that time a Chinese national consciousness didn't exist.
  • When Dinesh Lal writes:'At times the Tibetans also used armed resistance against Ming forays.'(Indo-Tibet-China Conflict, Gyan Publishing House, 2008 p.44), according to you he must be, like hundreds of scholars who write of that period, uncitable because there was no such thing as 'Tibetans' and in each case where conflict arose we must identify if we are dealing with Khams or Khalkhas, or Lhoba tribesmen, etc.etc.etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
A tag on the whole article is far from warranted, and certainly not from April 2013, and there is not "two other ongoing POV disputes". One statement is disputed and the other clearly have an agenda, which is not based on facts and all other known users don't agree with.
Regarding your point, I don't see any problem. Khalidi's statement is not used in the first sentence of the article so there is no contradiction. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Nishidani, you need to stop accusing me of racism. You have submitted a strawman attempt to make me out as a historical revisionist. Please address my concerns, and use the edit summary when you revert. Iriszoom, the tag has existed for quite a while because there are multiple issues that get habitually addressed on this article. NPOV is the majority of them. Both above and below this thread, there are POV disputes. The banner must remain, as per the WP, until the issues are adequately addressed. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your comment time stamped 03:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC) you are conflating two separate issues and as a result drawing illogical conclusions. The first sentence of our article is addressing the ancestral origins of the Palestinian People. The later section is talking about the development of a Palestinian nationalism and national identity. That the Palestinian people are indigenous to Palestine, "descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries", does not contradict later discussion of the development of Palestinian nationalism and the nature of Palestinian identity (which Khalidi explains encompasses the cultures of peoples living in Palestine going back to biblical times). Dlv999 (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Generally speaking, and now I am repeating myself, this article is well written. However I must point out to two problematic cases with sourcing which may involve original research. " Herodotus also employs the term as an ethnonym, as when he speaks of the 'Syrians of Palestine' or 'Palestinian-Syrians'," this sentence seems to be sourced with Herodotus itself while such claim certainly needs secondary sources as Herodotus himself surely did not qualified his description as an "ethnonym," the continuation of this sentence is also problematic "an ethnically amorphous group he distinguishes from the Phoenicians" This has been sourced with Kasher, 1990, p. 15. I am not sure which of Prof. Asa Kasher books is cited here, but I am convinced that Kasher named this "ethnically amorphous group" without just using this abstract description. As links per WP:V are not provided (or I did not find them), I can only guess that Kasher speaks about Philistines.Tritomex (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The specs of the book are in the bibliography and the sentence (all of it) is a close paraphrase of what is there. Zerotalk 13:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I've provided the original Greek, and two separate commentaries on some of the passages cited from Herodotus. There is not a shadow of doubt that Herodotus makes the distinction. Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes I see it now. Maybe an explanation about the meaning of 'Palestinian-Syrians', as per source would be beneficial.--Tritomex (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
There are all sorts of hypotheses about the meaning of the term, but there is no scholarly consensus other than the fact that Herodotus does use it to refer to the inhabitants as a collective designation for several tribes in (coastal) Palestine. One could write a whole page on the scholarly controversies, - Herodotus deals with periods when Palestine was under Egyptian and then Persian rule, where classifications are fluid and not quite clear - but several secondary sources concur on this basic formulation.Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Noone has responded to my claims of POV advocacy and emotional language in the article. The banner needs to remain. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Your issues, one or two, have been comprehensively answered. Is the use of the word 'Palestinian' emotive language? Really? I repeat: unless you can point to specific wording in the narrative that requires revision for NPOV, there is no justification for challenging the article because of its use of the word 'Palestinian'. That is what the article is about. The banner's function as promoted here is to warn readers off the whole page, self-evidently.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
How has Chicago_Style not been perma-banned from the Israeli-Palestinian area yet? If a user did this sort of editing on any other ethnicity there would be action, especially since he trails onto other Palestinian/Israeli related articles and does the same thing. Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I see two ad hominem attacks, but nothing addressing the topics I raised. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Nothing can address your topic, because your topic is actually no-topic. You're simply wasting others' time. -AsceticRosé 04:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Addressing the issues

One of the reasons provided for the repeated tagging of the article appears to be that "There is emotionally-charged language, such as in Struggle of self-determination. (sic) It is straight up advocacy." The phrase "struggle for self-determination" is used by countless reliable sources in this context, many of them impeccable scholarly sources that are not engaged in "straight up advocacy". This is easy to verify using google books by searching for "struggle for self-determination" palestine. If a person finds this phrase emotive, a phrase used by numerous high quality sources, and they have an emotional response to it that they find uncomfortable, and they then conclude that it is "emotionally-charged language" in anything more than the limited sense of their subjective experience, it has nothing to do with this article and everything to do with the person. This article and Wikipedia in general are not responsible for a person's emotional response to the words and phrases used by reliable sources. If someone, for example, experiences displeasure when they see or think about the word "Palestinian" because, for them, it's emotionally-charged in the real sense that something actually happens in their brain that makes them want to erase this word or replace it with an alternative that produces a more tolerable emotional response for them, like Pally for example, it's not the fault of the article, it has nothing to do with the article or policy, and the article can't legitimately be tagged on that basis. Rather than the article, it is the person who is, in effect, tagged when they are topic banned/blocked for inappropriate responses to reliably sourced information that result in behavior inconsistent with Wikipedia's rules. Editors tagged in this way are not allowed to be here and so they should not be here. This rule is simple enough for anyone to understand. It is especially unethical for these topic banned/blocked editors to violate sockpuppetry policy to complain about what they regard as policy violations, regardless of the merit of their view. Tagging topic banned/blocked editors is necessary and allows other editors to identify them and take appropriate action. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the issues I raised was politicized language. The response here seems to be "shut up, you are a racist". While accusing someone of racism is an effective tactic in certain arenas, it isn't a good response on a Wikipedia talk page. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
There isn't a "good" response on a Wikipedia talk page to a person who is not allowed to edit that Wikipedia talk page other than reminding them that block evasion and sockpuppetry are prohibited. Everything that happens to a block evading editor here happens because they have evaded their block. It would not have happened otherwise and it can be prevented from happening again by complying with policy regarding block evasion and sockpuppetry. It's unclear what an editor means unless they say so, but it is probably reasonable to assume that most editors definition is close to that of the ICERD. The United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 1.1[4],
  • "In this convention the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life".
If a set of reasonable editors each make an assessment of your edits based on either your current sockpuppet, or more properly, in order to negate the effects of deception that conceals a lengthy and pertinent editing history, if they went right back to when you were using University of Hawaii IPs and a misappropriating United States Army Information Systems Command server in Fort Shafter, Honolulu, and all of the sockpuppets/IPs in between, it's not surprising that one or more would find instances of behavior on matters related to Palestinians that they regard as being consistent with the ICERD definition or something similar. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Should we remove the infobox in the section Demographics?

The infobox at Palestinian people#Demographics is old and there is a similar but better infobox at the top of the article. I think we should remove it and instead insert something other, like the number of registered Palestinian refugees per region and country. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Genetic Studies

The lead misrepresents the "Genetic Studies" section. The results of earliest genetic study (2000) are presented as a fact, while the results of later (2001, 2010) - thus, more updated and complete - genetic studies are ignored in the lead, even though they resulted in contradictory findings.

The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people (2010): "Bedouins, Jordanians, Palestinians and Saudi Arabians are located in close proximity to each other, which is consistent with a common origin in the Arabian Peninsula25, whereas the Egyptian, Moroccan, Mozabite Berber, and Yemenite samples are located closer to sub- Saharan populations (Fig. 1a and Supplementary Fig. 2a). " Ben tetuan (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is misrepresented. It's unclear which second study you are talking about but the one by Behar et al. from 2010 doesn't say that Palestinians are of Arabian origin. It's just that they have some influx from there, just as it doesn't mean that Egyptians, Moroccans etc. are Sub-Saharan Africans. In fact, they are referred to as Levantines in that study. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust The Homunculus 16:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Palestinian people → Palestinians – WP:COMMONNAME Relisted Armbrust The Homunculus 14:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Երևանցի talk 05:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Google Ngram clearly shows the advantage of "Palestinians" over "Palestinian people". --Երևանցի talk 05:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  • oppose as people of the Palestinian state/Authority are "Palestinians" by jurisdiction instead of by ethnicity; All ethnic groups that share names with jurisdictions should have "people" appended. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose. I don't feel strongly about this. The Ngram method is not going to tell us much. Welsh people, Basque people, Spanish people, Dutch people, Swiss people, Portuguese people, Brazilian people Irish people, Kurdish people, Turkish people, Moroccan people, Libyan people, Scottish people, Syrian people, Maltese people etc.etc., if subject to the same test would probably yield a similar result. One important reason for rejecting it is that to deprive the article's subject of the 'people' as a marker of collective national identity is perhaps to risk endorsing against NPOV a particular denialist viewpoint associated with their historic adversary, as illustrated by Golda Meir's assertion that there is no such thing as a Palestinian people, . .they didn't exist' (Colin Schindler, A History of Modern Israel, Cambridge University Press, (2008) 2013 p.153). One has to tiptoe through a connotative minefield in this area, and that suggests to me that even a small change like this, unless there are overriding reasons for it, is best ignored. Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose. No case has been made. The Ngram counts don't mean a thing without filtering according to the context in which the words are used. Zerotalk 00:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with the reasons explained by the first one and Nishidani. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bedouins

Without a source for "The local Bedouins of Palestine are said to be ancestrally descended from Arabians" there is no place for this comment in this or any Wiki article. To say "Their dialects and pronunciation of qaaf as gaaf group them with other Bedouin across the Arab world" is only to link the groups linguistically yet the sentence before states "and not just culturally and linguistically Arabized peoples". Until a source is provided this comment should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michardav (talk • contribs) 23:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

palestinians arabized

it is written that the palestinians are now culturally and linguistically arab why is their immigration not mentioned in this page ? the immigration to palestine,in the late 1800's. i would like to get some documentary facts about the issue aswell

and please dont accuse me of zionism ,i want information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorpwnz (talk • contribs) 08:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You are probably looking for Demographics of Palestine. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Now i found it . anyway ,the article lacks equality or balance while it mentions only Israeli leftist academics or anti zionists. i have seen the word "israeli propaganda" once in the article . it is unbalanced because the common sense says there was no reason for a large arab community to stay before the 19th century . i will have to look for sources about the migrations from Syria,Lebanon,Yemen,maghreb states etc in order to balance the article. thanks for noticing you might want to read about the ancient jewish settlement named Sakhnin , or Joshua Desakhnin/Shimon desakhnin for example if you want to get a better perspective thanks again --Dorpwnz (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dorpwnz, it is probably worth remembering that Wikipedia is a global resource and not an Israeli one. How scholars may may or may not be viewed (e.g. "leftist")in one small Middle Eastern county is not necessarily a primary concern in our source selection and analysis. I looked at the use of "propagandists" in the demographics article: it is actually appropriate,attributed to a sourced scholar published under academic imprint. The problem is actually that the Twain material that the academic says is utilised as propaganda is quoted extensively and only supported by primary source citations of the Twain book. The Twain material should only be included to the extent it can be supported by published academic expert sources. Dlv999 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

hi .. it's not just twain , the other perspective should be accepted too , for example ,population growth in egypt during the late 1800's - 20 century was very slow compared to palestine and many other intresesting points , i will publish my information (academic based ,worlwide) later --Dorpwnz (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If there are defects in the Demographics of Palestine, A land without a people for a people without a land, or Joan Peters or Time Immemorial etc., fix them. It's a complex argument, like those over the proportion of Ashkenazi Jews in modern Jewry, or the 'demographic miracle' that is required to explain how medieval Ashkenazi, apparently in the standard model without conversion, rose from 15-30,000 to several million in four or so centuries. The general articles don't get bogged down in such 'stuff', (unless of course the subtext is:'well yes, we immigrated under Zionism, but Palestinians weren't local either. The place was empty and two recent immigrant populations competed and are competing still for this territory,' which is the chronic subtext of a large number of SPA or IP trolls:)Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
You have posted opinion rather than fact. Please see WP:Propaganda and do not post Arab nationalist propaganda. 112.124.38.227 (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just so that I understand Palestinian people == Palestinian Arabs? If so when was their national identity formed?--PLNR (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:TALK, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It's amazing how Wikipedia performs this acrobatics to invent a new people. This whole Palestinian identity and people thing is ridiculous. If a people exists then you know about it for centuries. You know that it has a distinct name, language (not always), culture, history. SOMETING. Who in the 19th century and before that ever thought, wrote, spoke about the relatively few Arabs who lived in Ottoman Palestine (a quarter of a million people in the begining of the 19t centure) as a distinct Canaanite or Philistine or Mameluke or whatever people? Who called them anything else other than Arabs? If it walks and talks like a duck then it's a duck. A people cannot be Arab - identify itself all the years as Arab, speak arabic, have an Arab culture, mentality, sees itself as part of the big Arab nation and then claims when it's more convenient that it's not Arab. If these people were Canaanite or Philistine or whatever then why didn't they call themselves that? why didn't they have a separate Canaanite or Philistine identity, culture, history, anything that would have made them into one Philistine or Canaanite or whatever people who stood out for centuries as distinct and different from Arabs in what is now Lebanon, Syria etc.? who among these Arabs themselves identify themselves all those years as these ancient people? They and everyone else called and recognized them as ARABS. They were proud of their Arab identity. The only reason the Arabs in Palestine invented to themselves a new ancient identity is to compete with the thousands years long historic connection that the JEWS had to Palestine, oer the holy land. Some say that there's no connection between the Zionists and the ancient Israelites, but the Zionists at least were JEWS as only the Israelites were. They kept a constant distinct national, religious, cultural identity for THOUSANDS of years. Everybody in the world knew that the Jews were not like the other nations and made sure the Jews knew that for dthousands of years of persecutions and discrimination. Everybody associated the Jews with the holy land. The holy land was recognized by everyone as the ancient homeland of the Jews, of where the Jews came from. It is more than ridiculous how the Palestinian Arabs invented a whole new ancient identity for themselves in the last few decades and how Wikipedia takes it seriously! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.189.129 (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you want your paper graded? I'm sure we can find an elementary school teacher to mark it up for faithfully reproducing what some kiddies are taught to think.Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The IP obviously doesn't understand any of the words he is using. 84.111, if you would like to be less ignorant on this topic, try reading about the history of nationalism and the history of ethnic identities. You will quickly learn that the Palestinian identity is no different from any other major modern identity, insofaras they were all invented in the last couple of centuries. All of them. And for the avoidance of doubt, that includes the Arab ethnic identity, the Jewish ethnic identity, the chinese ethnic identity, the indian ethnic identity, the german ethnic identity etc etc etc. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Palestine as a name of the geographical location is relatively new, although it has roots in names like Philistine that covered a similar area. What is important is that the people who live there are generally indigenous of the region, and whatever the name is today, those people feel they are part of that land. I think Zionist Jews that came in the earlier part of the 20th century are more attached to the idea of Eretz Yisrael, rather than that land itself, and this can be demonstrated by JNF's continuous planting of deciduous and coniferous trees that are not native to that region-in what can only be described as an attempt to change the landscape. Israeli Jews also do not partake in occupations like growing olives-something that has been a major resource of that land for centuries. I really don't like engaging in this kind of tit for tat conversation in the Talks, but I think your comment warrants it. I wish that my comment will be deleted along with yours... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patwinkle (talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this article should contain a bit more information about how the entire region became known as Palestine.

To some readers, it might be confusing as to why there are other terms to describe the region such as Canaan, Land of Israel, Southern Levant, etc. Some of the sources I have are for the reasons as to why the region is also known as Palestine is:

"The empire of the Philistines was widely spread over the country. As is well known, the name Palestine is merely a corruption of Philistia; and when Zephaniah or one of his editors calls Canaan 'the land of the Philistines' (ii. 4) he is expressing little more than what was at one time a fact. Their domination over the Hebrews is insisted on in both Judges and Samuel: the early kings of the Hebrews are elected with the specific purpose of freeing the people frown the foreign yoke: a governor is established in a town close to Jerusalem: even at Beth-Shan, at the inner end of the plain Esdraelon, which once swarmed with the chariots of Sisera, the Philistines were able to fix Saul's body as a trophy: and the course of the history shows that they were there established in sufficient strength and with sufficient permanence to make the recovery of the trophy difficult." - http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/phc/phc07.htm

"Philistine, one of a people of Aegean origin who settled on the southern coast of Palestine in the 12th century bc, about the time of the arrival of the Israelites. According to biblical tradition (Deuteronomy 2:23; Jeremiah 47:4), the Philistines came from Caphtor (possibly Crete). They are mentioned in Egyptian records as prst, one of the Sea Peoples that invaded Egypt in about 1190 bc after ravaging Anatolia, Cyprus, and Syria. After being repulsed by the Egyptians, they occupied the coastal plain of Palestine from Joppa (modern Tel Aviv–Yafo) southward to the Gaza Strip. The area contained the five cities (the Pentapolis) of the Philistine confederacy (Gaza, Ashkelon [Ascalon], Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron) and was known as Philistia, or the Land of the Philistines. It was from this designation that the whole of the country was later called Palestine by the Greeks. The Philistines expanded into neighbouring areas and soon came into conflict with the Israelites, a struggle represented by the Samson saga (Judges 13–16) in the Old Testament. With their superior arms and military organization the Philistines were able (c. 1050) to occupy part of the Judaean hill country. By the early part of the 7th century, Gaza, Ashkelon, Ekron, Ashdod, and probably Gath were vassals of the Assyrian rulers; but during the second half of that century the cities became Egyptian vassals. With the conquests of the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar II (605–562) in Syria and Palestine, the Philistine cities became part of the Neo-Babylonian empire. In later times they came under the control of Persia, Greece, and Rome." - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456536/Philistine

In this documentary about the Philistines, it also talks a bit about the origins of why the region is known as Palestine. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0IwGjO5S1A

Feel free to add any other sources or edit all this into a shortened version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightmare72589 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

We've got a whole article on the subject, Timeline of the name "Palestine". Why should this article repeat it? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Because the Palestinians get their name from this. If the Palestinians get their name from the Philistines, yet historically, the Philistines only occupied the area roughly the size of Gaza, then why would anyone outside the area of Gaza be called Palestinians? Is this site not meant to give information? Only giving half the explanation is not a good thing to do. Even article of the Timeline of the name "Palestine" doesn't explain how Palestine became a name to refer to the entire region after Herodotus. You don't find it a bit lacking how all of a sudden it goes from the coastal area of the region in 1150 BCE to the entire region in 450 BCE? That is a gap of 700+ years of Palestine being a specific area of the region to an entire region. It would be like how an article about the United States goes from the 13 colonies, and then skipping the entire part about Manifest Destiny, and then saying United States was from coast to coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightmare72589 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Your point is good. Your sources are not. The primary sources in the ancient period of the article Timeline of the name "Palestine" are the ONLY references to the region known to ancient history studies. Your sources simply create a nice story to fill the gap. None of it is provable. I suggest you read the historical sources section of the article Philistines. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Well of course we don't have primary sources explaining how the region went from the coastal are to the entire region, but we know for a fact that it did. The sources I gave however, are credible. They are not simply stories, they are deductive reasoning from archaeologists, historians, scholars, authors, etc that all agree with each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightmare72589 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Right, but we don't even have primary historical sources showing the word referring to only the southern coastal plain. That is only in the bible, and then only in a couple of books during specific time periods. Scholarship in this area is often overly reliant on the bible given the sparsity of actual historical data. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes there are extra-biblical sources showing it's the coastal plain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines
1175 BC: Ramses III defeats the Sea Peoples including Philistines and settles captives in fortresses in southern Canaan (alternatively, Philistines invade and settle the coastal plain for themselves). (Ehrlich, Carl S. (1996). The Philistines in Transition: A History from ca. 1000-730 BC. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill. ISBN 90-04-10426-7.)
Most scholars therefore believe that the settlement of the Philistines took place in two stages. In the first, dated to the reign of Ramses III, they were limited to the coastal plain, the region of the Five Cities; in the second, dated to the collapse of Egyptian hegemony in southern Canaan, their influence spread inland beyond the coast. (Grabbe, Lester L. (2008). Israel in Transition: From Late Bronze II to Iron IIa (c. 1250–850 B.C.E.). Volume I. The Archaeology. New York and London: T & T Clark International. ISBN 0-567-02726-0.)
The Rhetorical Stela are less discussed, but are noteworthy in that they mention the Peleset together with a people called the Teresh, who sailed "in the midst of the sea". The Teresh are thought to have originated from the Anatolian coast and their association with the Peleset in this inscription is seen as providing some information on the possible origin and identity of the Philistines. The Harris Papyrus which was found in a tomb at Medinet Habu also recalls Ramses III's battles with the Sea Peoples, declaring that the Peleset were "reduced to ashes." Egyptian strongholds in Canaan are also mentioned, including a temple dedicated to Amun, which some scholars place in Gaza; however, the lack of detail indicating the precise location of these strongholds means that it is unknown what impact these had, if any, on Philistine settlement along the coast. (Killebrew, Ann E. (2005). Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300-1100 B.C.E.. Atlanta, Georgia: Society of Biblical Literature. ISBN 1-58983-097-0.)
The scholarly consensus is that the Philistines were primarily settled along the coast. Not only that, there is overwhelming evidence that the Philistines were not Semitic in the first place. They originated from the Aegean Sea, the pottery discovered at the Philistine sites proves this, which by the way, was found by using the bible. Just because something is in the bible, does not mean it is inherently wrong. Much, if not most of biblical archaeology (along with non-Philistine/Israel places) is discovered by using the bible. That is not to say the bible cannot be wrong, or exaggerated, but it is often used as a reference to help with archaeology. So it's logically impossible for the entire region to be called Palestine since the very beginning of the existence of the Philistines when they had to settle on the coast to begin with. As well as the fact that there is extra-biblical evidence showing Israel/Judah existed, as well as other Canaanite nations, so for it to be called Palestine or as it meant in Greek, Land of the Philistines in 1150 BCE makes no sense whatsoever since the Philistines did control most, or the entire land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.107.131 (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Your first sentence ("Yes there are extra-biblical sources showing it's the coastal plain") is wrong and you have no sources which substantiate it, because there aren't any.
However your second ("The scholarly consensus is that the Philistines were primarily settled along the coast") sentence is right, but it is important to understand that this consensus is reached solely from reading the bible.
As Philistines mentions, the connection to the Aegeans is "etymological and has been disputed" - i.e. it is based on the name Philistines sounding similar to the name Pelasgians. The pottery (e.g. Philistine Bichrome ware) proves only that the inhabitants of the coast traded / interacted with the inhabitants of the Aegean region; it proves nothing about decent or ethnicity. The question of whether they were "semitic" or not is based on a reading of the Table of nations in Genesis, but this ignores the fact that both Rabbinical and Greek sources (including the LXX) suggest that the Philistines in Genesis were not the same as those described later in the Bible who lived in the southern coastal plain.
I am not saying you are wrong, as many biblical scholars hold the same view, just that there is actually no evidence outside the bible, and even that is debated.
Oncenawhile (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

To answer the main question, the reason why people outside of the coastal region would be referred to as "Palestinians" has to due with the roman renaming. In the british re-implementing the name to describe their mandate. Palestinian refers mainly to anyone living in the region of Palestine. Be they jew,christian or muslim. Once is going far off base to make a wrong point and further ignores or does not know why the pottery is so important to the historical philistine people. Using Neutron analysis it was discovered the pottery was made locally in the land of canaan. If it was just something they had traded it would not be so important but due to the fact it was made locally shows mycenean/cyprut influences it reaffirms the statement they were a greek people. Furthermore the idea them being connected to the greek sea people's does not come from the name sounding familiar, the philistines were named by the hebrews, philistine is taken from the Hebrew root word "peleshet" or invaders. Nobody knows what these people call themselves. But going by egyptian records, the destruction of ashkelon in other philistine cities by the Babylonians which correlates to biblical accounts, shows that they lived along the coastal region.

http://www.academia.edu/1571434/Why_Did_Nebuchadnezzar_II_Destroy_Ashkelon_in_604_BCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:9580:E47:14A7:7DB6:9BCB:DA55 (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Palestinian arabs have no connection to the cnaanites.

You can see here what a palestinian arab says about a "typical palestinian family" (only for people who know arabic) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pESwbDnowSA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorpwnz (talk • contribs) 13:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Which statements in this Wikipedia article are you proposing to change and which sources that qualify as RS are you proposing that support those changes ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


"like egyptians,maghrabic,etc palestinians are arabized" it's not a good example. because it will make people think palestinians are originally from palestine,for thousands of years or more. it's not true in reality ,because the arab immigration started when the zionists claimed palestine to be theirs. some sort of competetion. anyway ,the video link is just above your comment - he says his typical palestinian family is egyptian,mugrabi clearly,as in the early start of the video,as i said above. it seems like you ignored my comment basically,and i need to know if there's something to do about it. it does not have to reffere to a written source as it is a real,living evidence.you might have to do your own search after listening to his claims. --Dorpwnz (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Dorpwnz-Have you read The Invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sand??!!!
I.e. you haven't yet read the article, and haven't checked the numerous sources it is based on. Joan Peters' claptrap, which your remarks echo, is not RS except in the common colloquial reading of R-S.Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you respond to the subject and not to the person telling about the subject? You drastically ignore afo agbariyah 's saying. why? what? and again,how do i contact a person in a higher level of administartion on wikipedia to talk about this issue? my sources are being ignored right now.i have not seen an attitude to afo agbrayah's sayings. tell it now or just tell me about your real intentions.--Dorpwnz (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC) --Dorpwnz (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Joan Peters is one of the few writers who tell the truth about the Islamic settlers. She is much more reliable than the Muslim authors cited in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

'one of the few writers' i.e. WP:Fringe. We don't source according to the concocted counterfactual fantasies of people who, for that matter, have no acceptable credentials in history. And we do not choose our sources by looking at the ethnicity (Jewish/Arab) or religion (Jewish/atheist/Muslim) of the writer. I would also commend you studying the function of adverbs, and the semantics of some weird phrases like 'drastically ignore', which, like much else in this chat, is meaningless unless there for comic effect.Nishidani (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


While the w.e op who brought this up may have went about this wrong he is correct. The Palestinians outside of a certain percentage of the arabized people have no connection to the Canaanites. Palestinian simply refers to the people who lived in the mandate of palestine including Bedouin,druze,Arabs,Muslims,Christians and jews. Unless someone has a valid author pre-67 references a connection keep the modern revisionism to the minimum. 2601:D:9580:E47:14A7:7DB6:9BCB:DA55 (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MR. random string of numbers and letters. The articles promotes a revisionist theory of Palestinians as being Jewish Christians who were Arabized, when most believe that Palestinians in their current form came to the region due to the Islamic Conquests. We should use this default objective perspective, that Palestinians are Arabs who lived in the post-Ottoman British Mandate of Palestine, and address other perspectives later. Namely, the revisionist perspective that this article seems to favor (contending that all of the documented history of the region including its rich Jewish history is consolidated in the Modern Arab Muslim Palestinians as its successors), as well as the critical perspective that Palestinians are not significantly different from other Arabs and were "invented" per political reasons. I expect some (the heavily biased) editors will object to adding BOTH opinions but you can't say its not well-sourced.

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism.

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

(PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.)

" Palestine is part of the Arab World, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab Nation, and their struggle is part of its struggle. " —Fatah Charter

Hell even this [[5]] Hamas guy believes Palestinians don't exist.


Cue anti-Israel shill outrage.

But yeah the opinion of the article is unbalanced and makes conclusions about history without saying the actual history, that is Syria Palestina was a Hellenized Christian country before it was invaded. --monochrome_monitor 10:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Jordan is also part of historic Palestine

from MBFARB "The British Mandate for Palestine, also known as the Palestine Mandate and the British Mandate of Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923.[1] The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.[1] The mandate formalised British rule in the Southern part of Ottoman Syria from 1923–1948. With the League of Nations' consent on 16 September 1922, the UK divided the Mandate territory into two administrative areas, Palestine, under direct British rule, and autonomous Transjordan, under the rule of the Hashemite family from Hijaz Saudi Arabia, in accordance with the McMahon Pledge of 1915.[1] Transjordan was exempt from the Mandate provisions concerning the Jewish National Home." (http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/British_Mandate_of_Palestine.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBFARB (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This source is (a) based on a very old wikipedia article (see the text at the bottom), and (b) incorrect. Please review Talk:Mandatory Palestine/FAQ: Transjordan. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
That's a copy of the Wikipedia article made at some point. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The piece omits that Jordan is part of historic Palestine. "… reside in historic Palestine, the area encompassing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel."

It is indirectly stated by using "West Bank" instead of Judea and Samaria, but should be included. Stermerkermer (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The source, which is an academic one, defines "historic Palestine" as Israel and the Palestinian Territories (Gaza and the West Bank). The problem here is not with the article, but is probably that your own personal views are at odds with the kind of sources that we base Wikipedia articles on. Dlv999 (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, your Jewish history-denying sources are incorrect. The western half of Jordan is part of Judea. Jews know the history of the land better than some old British fart sitting at a desk in London. This article is pure bullshit and Pally propaganda. It should be deleted for its anti-Jewish hate speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, there's only one version of history, whatever the textbooks say. Yawn.Nishidani (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is it whenever i get to any talk page nishidani is always promoting a non factual viewpoint? anyway Jordan was apart of the original Palestine mandate. "historical" palestine is a misnomer, but if you were to factually cite such a concept you would need to include Syria since for centuries either under the roman,byzantines or ottomans it was historically grouped together. The past leader of the hashemite kingdom post and pre-67 stated as much. Lets stop the NPOV inputs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:9580:E47:14A7:7DB6:9BCB:DA55 (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani seems to have a history of extreme anti-israel and borderline anti-semitic rhetoric. I tried to make edits literally devoid of bias trying to state objective history of the region (WWI, Sykes Picot, Green Line) along with post-1967 "Palestinians are everyone who has ever lived there ever" and he deleted them. Anyway, you are correct that Jordan was part of the original mandate. The change in giving Transjordan to the Hashemites in 1920 should definitely be noted. But I'm not really sure if any progress is possible on this page considering the POV. Also, there is no historic Palestine. --monochrome_monitor 10:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox change

I am opening this discussion with a desire to change the infobox mosaic, which I find to be missing some important Palestinian individuals. I made a new one to feature other important Palestinians such as Emile Habibi, Ahmed Yassin, Michel Sabbah and Raed Salah.

Here is the new mosaic I created:
File:20palestinianppl.jpg

PacificWarrior101 (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Please review Wikipedia's fair use rules. We're not allowed to use fair use images in galleries such as these, so you have to remove Ahmed Yassin. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I'll change it soon.PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
Hi PacificWarrior, nice work but there is no need to remove Riah Hanna Abu El-Assal, Riyad al-Maliki, and Rashid Khalidi, these are notable palestinians with great images available for use. Also the photo already in use for Juliano Khamis is a far better color photo with higher resolution than the one you replaced it with. Lazyfoxx (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I can put these individuals in the new collage I'll make, that'll likely consist of 25 people. I replaced Riah Hanna Abu El-Assal with Michel Sabbah because Sabbah is a far-more significant Palestinian Christian clergyman, the first native Palestinian to become part of his clergy. The reason why I used another picture for Julian Mer-Khamis because the current one in use is a half-face portrait, and besides - it's only part of a gallery. Rashid Khalili would be far-more fitting for an article like Arab Americans or Palestinian Americans - same goes for Nathalie Handal. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
Yes I think it would be best if you kept the all the people in the current box and also added the ones you would like to as they are all good examples of Palestinians. Lazyfoxx (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Israelite origins?

Israelites now asserts that Palestinians are of Israelite origin. See also Talk:Israelites. Dougweller (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Most of the "palestinians" are from Arab origin. They acknowledge it and so is the rest of the world. Even the Hamas officials stated that most of the "palestinians" are of Saudi and Egyptian Arab descent.--DXRD (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
And if you can't trust Hamas, who can you trust? ;-) Editor2020 01:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It logically follows that Zionist ideology calls for erasing the non-Jewish inhabitants of the area from history, because the idea of Zionism is that European and other Jews have "more of a right" to be there than whatever non-Jewish people happened to live there before Israel was established. Zionist ideology doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The inclusion of all the sources proving their genetic continuity with ancient inhabitants is specifically to dispel this popular misconception deliberately spread by Zionist agitators.68.191.148.45 (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Origin of Palestinians

I feel that the section on Palestinian origins in this article cites specific sources that prove its own politicized, psuedohistorical agenda. Though it notes, albeit briefly, that Palestinians originate from Muslim conquerors in the previously Greek Syria Palestina, it later attempts to prove that Palestinians are related to biblical entities and thus "were there already". I think that these quotes should be taken off. Palestinian history in the region goes back to 700 AD at most, and genetics does not mean history. --monochrome_monitor 23:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what IS history? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Genetics prove that Palestinian history consists of acculturation to foreign invaders, not genocide followed by mass immigration from the Arabian peninsula. There is no evidence for that happening ever, meaning that yes, the Palestinians' ancestors were in fact there already. That's history.68.191.148.45 (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

ID editor it's true that many Palestinians belong to the Cohen lineage. I suppose that many Palestinians descend from Jews who were there, who eventually converted to Christianity and most later on converted to Islam, with some Arabian admixture. Guy355 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The section on history is severely truncated. Even though a great deal of the history of the Palestinian people is a result of the wars with Israel beginning in 1967, that information is virtually not even referred to, and that leaves the history section stopping in 1967, except for a few bare remarks about the Palestinian political organizations. Without referring to the conflicts, I don't see how this can give a proper representation of the history of this area and its people after that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.173.78 (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Palestinian people wasn't the name of the group currently called by this name. Prior 1964 the Arabs living in what was "Mandetory Palestine" reffered to themselves as "ARABS" - eventhough they come from many tribes and different migrants' backgrounds, as their surnames suggest, the vast majority of them are Arabs who came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt - "Al Masri" (Arabic for: "The Egyptian") is the most common surname for "palestinians" living in the Land of Israel.--DXRD (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The article could be improved by mentioning the very significant level of immigration to the area during the British mandate of Arabs from Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Transjordan, who walked in across unpoliced land borders. Indeed, it needs to be mentioned that while the British were extremely zealous in attempting to stop Jewish immigration by sea, which we know could have prevented millions of Jews from dying in gas chambers, they scarcely paid any attention to Arab immigration by land. (The Arabs were attracted by the work opportunities the Jews were creating.) avi1500 00:25 15 October 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avi1500 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish. pre-Mandate Palestine, 94% were Arabs. 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews Under the Mandate the percentage rose to 33% Jewish. (2) Transhumance was a characteristic of the area, and that is not definable in terms of immigration.Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Avi that's also true, I heard that Hanin Zoabi's ancestors came from modern day Iraq. Guy355 (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani perhaps many of them immigrated during the Ottoman era? Guy355 (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a matter of percentages. A large part of the late Ottoman Jewish population immigrated after 1850/1882. From the time of Moses Maimonides (and earlier) the Jewish presence in Palestine was a few thousand. It was a Christian Arab country for 700 years, and then an Arab country with a vast Muslim majority till modern times. Joan Peters is not an RS.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see... However I doubt Palestine/Judah would have been a predominantly Christian province from the time of Jesus or even from the time of the 2nd Jewish rebellion, while Jews were forbidden from living in Jerusalem after the second revolt in 135 was crushed, they still lived and were a majority in other parts of the west bank, including the Galilee, as far as late antiquity, one of the Talmuds, called the Palestinian or Jerusalemite Talmud was written during that time. With the advent of Christianity, I wouldn't be surprised if many Jews and Pagans gradually converted to Christianity, and with the Islamic conquest to Islam, as I've said many Palestinians today belong to the Cohen lineage. P.S I had no idea who was Joan Peters until you mentioned her. Guy355 (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Jews, I was asking if it's possible that there was Arab immigration to Palestine in the Ottoman period? The Ottomans considered most of what later became mandate Palestine part of the province of Syria. Guy355 (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Read Gideon Avni, The Byzantine-Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeological Approach, just out from Oxford University Press. Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


Interesting. My mistake, I misunderstood you, I thought you meant that Christianity was dominant from the 1st century C.E to the rise of Islam, but in fact twas dominant from late antiquity as far as the crusades period. So it seems like the population has remained largely unchanged, with the only thing that changed was religion, gradually changing from the Islamic conquest. I'm not surprised by this, I wouldn't be surprised if modern Palestinians are predominantly of pre exile Jewish ancestry, hopefully archaeologists will be able to find pre exile Jewish remains fit to be fully analysed and compared with modern populations. Guy355 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

'Jews' for antiquity is a very fluid notion, as are 'Greeks', 'Romans' etc.The Jews themselves were a vast meld of local Semitic and non-Semitic peoples (Israelites/Canaanits/Phonicians/Aramaens, Kenits, Hovites, Hittites etc.), as the Bible itself attests. Around the 5th cent. rules of blood descent began to fix ideological boundaries, just as a religious orthodoxy imposed new criteria (the Elephantine Jews had cults unrecognizable to our modern idea of Judaism etc.) Jews were broken into bitterly opposed sectarian groups, the Samaritans were not considered Jews, and their population was massive. All this is lost in retrospectiv classifications of 'Jews' = Judaism/blood lineag which is a late rabbinical consequence the failure of Jewish nationalism. Modern Palestinians are a mix like th ancint Jews, and both had priods of convrsions, Jews to Christianity (which was a Jewish sect), Jews and Christians to Islam. Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose that's true. This map shows which populations are closest to Ashkenazi Jews according to IBD segments, the relations with Greeks and Basques are due to kinship while the relations with Ukrainians and Belarussians are due to a long period of cohabitation: https://verenich.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/ashkenaziibd1.png Guy355 (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Genetics cancls history. I know of 'Ashkenazi' for whom in 8 known generations there is only one Jewish presence in the genealogy (the second last). What does that mean about the resultant heirs' putative 'Middle Eastern origins'? Nothing. It's just a rhetorical game of excluding what an ethnic classification regards as trivial if substantial, in favour of the one minor element the politics of identity whimsically decides to prioritize. This whole area of definition is wracked by loose thinking and conceptual puerility. Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing is that genetics is science, and in many cases, especially these days, it and archaeology go hand in hand. Unfortunately it can also be hijacked by maniacs like members of Stormfront or ultra nationalists trying to prove bloody purity of the group that they belong to, such a thing though, is impossible, genetics has proved it, look at this study: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf Guy355 (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Demographic Statement

"...roughly one half of the world's Palestinian population continues to reside in historic Palestine, the area encompassing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel.[24]" The article states Total Population c 11m - However, the list adds to 13m, which is it 11m or 13m? The list should state what the overlap of East Jerusalem residents are and attribute the number to a verifiable statistical source ? Further, Yasser Arafat, Fouad Twal, Samīħ al-Qāsim, Queen Rania, Rami George Khouri in the list of Palestinian People, but were born outside boundaries stated in the article. Why are they classified "Palestinian", by what attribution? Even though one or both parents may have been born in Palestine during the period of British rule, if the article is referring to "...the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries" - its basis is unreasonably broad because it could confer status to anyone who claims a distant relative regardless of a non-existent national status from the national entity "historical Palestine" prior to at least 1964? In other words, land on which people live does not infer national status. The nation to which people belong can infer status, but the Palestinian claim of nationhood did not exist until circa 1964, but not much earlier. The basis for aggregating this population seems to be arbitrary based on the definition of "people who have lived...". The article uses Wikipedia to infer nationhood to "people who have lived in Palestine", which is an incorrect attribution to the geographic term and is nationalistically and politically inspired.

Copytopic1 (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's nationalistically inspired. Palestinian nationality was a creation, as are all nationalities. Many considered themselves Arab, and before 1948 many actually considered themselves Syrian (as part of the Syrian nationalism that was developed in the period). It was only after the 1967 conquests that it became necessary to create a nationalism for themselves. This does not somehow deny legitimacy to the nationalism.108.131.85.155 (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


Sophronius

Hi,

Somewhat surprisingly, I couldn't find an existing discussion about this, so I'll bring this up: Why is there an image of Sophronius of Jerusalem at the top of the article? As far as I can see, he lived over a thousand years ago, and has little to do with modern Palestinians, except living in the same land.

If it tries to imply that ancient Christians are ethnically Palestinian, it's OK, but why not take somebody more notable, like Saint George, or, well, Jesus? Sorry if seems like ad absurdum, but I honestly don't understand what does this particular person have to do with the article.

I don't even care that much about these image collages on top of ethnic group articles - the inclusion criteria for them are never clear and they frequently tend to be contentious. It's just that this seems like a real exaggeration to me. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is about the Palestinian people, who have a heritage, like all people, and there is not such thing as a pure ethnos, in any case. We are not concerned with racial profiling here, but with people with a millennial culture and traditions associated with Palestine. This is done all over wiki articles on peoples. If one wants to be nitpicky, Sophronius might be challenged as being born in Damascus (Syro-Palestinian in one classification) not in the restricted area of Palestine proper. Of course Jesus could go in there, as could St George and many other early figures. But one group of editors strenuously object (go berserk) if contemporary terrorists (i.e. Palestinians) are associated with historical figures in the deep past. That is why we don't have Jesus, nor St George, though Christian tradition, which is underrepresented here due to nothing more than editorial animus, regards both as 'Palestinians' as over 100 academic sources testify.Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
And... Sophronius is... not a historical figure in the deep past?
To alleviate any doubt - this is not animus, just honest wondering. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Sophronius didn't self-identify as of the Palestinian people and therefore shouldn't be included in the infobox. CSWP1 (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Not only that, but Palestinian people can no way refer to people before the age of Mandatory Palestine (before the emergence of Palestinian nationalism). Further more, self-identification of a Palestinian is not enough to be a Palestinian, because the most common definition of Palestinian is citizen of Palestine (Palestinian Authority or State of Palestine) or at least someone with a Palestinian refugee status. People like Raed Sallah and Juliano Mer Hamis, whether identifying as Palestinians or not, do not have Palestinian citizenship or refugee status, so can't be included.GreyShark (dibra) 12:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems like you are being sarcastic, but I'll respond anyway. The page for Macedonian people does not include Alexander the Great. Modern Macedonians certainly identify with him, but there isn't a link between them strong enough to cite on Wikipedia. Similarly, Palestinian people often associate with Jesus and other figures born around the area of Palestine, but the link isn't strong enough to cite on Wikipedia. Sophronius was born in Damascus a millenia and a half ago. He lived and traveled throughout the Med and rose to the churchly rank of Patriach of Jerusalem, where he died. It is conjecture formed mostly on geography to call him a Palestinian person. CSWP1 (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
This article is about ethnic Palestinians, if someone wants to make another page for Citizens of Palestine, be my guest. Regarding ethnic Palestinians, Sophronius doesn't really qualify as he was an ethnic Syrian Arab. Saint George however does qualify as an ethnic Palestinian, his father was a Roman Cappadocian and his mother was ethnically Palestinian. Lazyfoxx (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
"Ethnic Palestinians"? it was just one of the names Europeans called the region, it wasn't a name for a specific people before the early, maybe mid-20th century. Just as there was no "Mesopotamian nation" or "Pennsylvanian people" etc. Yuvn86 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
"An ethnic group or ethnicity is a socially-defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language and/or dialect and sometimes ideology, manifests itself through symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc."
Now tell me again how ancestral people of Palestine such as St. George do not qualify for being part of the Palestinian ethnic group? Lazyfoxx (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Because the modern Palestinian identity is heavily if not entirely based on a shared Arab identity, usually strongly associated with Islam too. St. George was a Palestinian in the sense that he came from Palestina, but he was far from Arabic, and he probably didn't share the ancestral, social, cultural, national, religious, mythological identity that most if not all modern Palestinians identify with. Same goes for ritual, cuisine and dressing style. As for physical appearance... No one really knows, though he was probably Mediterranean olive, the same can be said of anyone from Hebron to Granada. Guy355 (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Ancestral: Genetic analysis suggests that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, are descendants of Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times.
2. Religious: St. George's mother was a Palestinian Christian, the same Palestinian Christianity is still alive and flourishing today in Palestinians.
3. Social: St. George is venerated as a Palestinian hero and icon socially, Why St. George is a Palestinian hero.
4. Physical Apppearence: This is more inclusive than guessing someone's skin tone as you did, St. George was no doubt similar looking to other Palestinians, and the Palestinian phenotype (physical appearence) did not drastically change in the last 1800 years. Reconstruction of a Palestinian face in the time of Jesus. Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that you mix things here. Palestine was a name for a land, and that's not necessarily the same as a people/ethnicity/nation. Take my Mesopotamia example above, were the ancestors of current Iraqis belong to a "Mesopotamian nation"? And things get more complicated if you take into consideration that before Israel's independence, it was actually Jewish Zionists who were often called "Palestinians" (for example, Mandatory Palestine national football team was all Jewish, not Arab). Yuvn86 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you mix up things here, you are talking about modern Nationalism, I am talking about ethnicity. Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
That's what I meant. Not nation-states, but group identities. And someone like St. George didn't speak Arabic, wasn't Arab, and wasn't culturally Arabized either. So what exactly is the ethnic connection between him and someone like Arafat or Amin Al-Husseini? he doesn't really belong here, just like he doesn't belong in the Israelis article either. Yuvn86 (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The fact that he didn't speak Arabic, wasn't "Arab", and wasn't culturally Arabized is irrelevant to him being ethnically Palestinian, as Arabization of Palestine happened after the Islamic conquest in the 7th century.
As I said before, he is ethnically Palestinian on these grounds,
1. Ancestral: Genetic analysis suggests that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, are descendants of Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times.
2. Religious: St. George's mother was a Palestinian Christian, the same Palestinian Christianity is still alive and flourishing today in Palestinians.
3. Social: St. George is venerated as a Palestinian hero and icon socially, Why St. George is a Palestinian hero.
4. Physical Apppearence: This is more inclusive than guessing someone's skin tone, St. George was no doubt similar looking to other Palestinians, and the Palestinian phenotype (physical appearence) did not drastically change in the last 1800 years.Reconstruction of a Palestinian face in the time of Jesus.
5. Linguistics: St. George spoke Greek and Aramaic, the latter being a heavy influence for the Palestinian dialect of Arabic today. The Greek and Aramaic languages are also preserved by modern Palestinian Christians.Lazyfoxx (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It is nothing but an ideological hostility to deny Palestinians, and especially Christian Palestinians, who have a tradition of living continuously in that land longer than most of the present Israeli Jewish population, images of their cultural forebears. I think Sophonius can go out, but two or three Palestinians of antiquity should be added to stop this racist denialism and keep the article in harmony with the facts Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
^ I agree wholeheartedly. Sophronius may be removed as per the reason I explained above, but denying the use of antiquated ethnic Palestinians is absurd in all regards.Lazyfoxx (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not about denying anything, it's just the simple fact that there wasn't a Palestinian ethnic or group identity before sometime in the 20th century, so it's false to describe ancient figures as Palestinians. Have you ever heard of "ethnic Saharans"? wouldn't you laugh if someone will tell you that? And if we take someone like Jesus for example, he was a Jew born in Judea, not Palestinian-Arab born in the West Bank. This article is about the modern group and their identity, that's why he's not here and not in the Israelis article either. Yuvn86 (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Wrong again, stop trying to equate the Palestinian ethnic group to only the Arab Nationalism that arose in the 20th century. Lazyfoxx (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

So are we OK with taking out Sophronius? If the infobox is restricted to only people who self-identified as Palestinian, that would make our working definition (for the infobox, NOT the whole page) much easier. CSWP1 (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The Sophronius image should be removed only if a compensating figure identified as 'Palestinian' in reliable sources replaces it. There are many of these, as I think, archives show. What is intolerable is the removal of Palestinian figures from the past to deny them traditional roots. Any one in the Christian history of Palestine, revered by that local tradition, can replace him, like Eusebius or Sozomen, or a saint. That is the sine qua non of any removal.Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, self-identification is not the requirement for one to be part of an ethnic group as I explained above. Rashid Khalidi, a well known historian, explained that the modern Palestinian people now understand their identity as encompassing the heritage of all ages from biblical times up to the Ottoman period. As I said previously and I will continue to say, antiquated figures such as St. George fit the criteria for being part of the Palestinian ethnicity and I stated the criteria in my previous replies. Sophronius may be removed as he was ethnically Syrian from Damascus, and I haven't seen a source referencing him as Palestinian, if one is presented, we may discuss further. But any objection to known historical Palestinians such as St. George being included is absurd. Lazyfoxx (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Lazyfoxx, first of all, I think you should be commended and appreciated for putting the montage together, it is well done and adds beautifully to the article. I also think that changes should not be motivated by animus to either Palestinians or to the Palestinian sense of connection to the past. At the same time, the article itself defines Palestinians as "modern descendants of the peoples….," hence no pre-modern figure belongs to the "Palestinian people" (i.e., article title). Accordingly, if at some point, not necessarily now if you are feeling uncomfortable with this conversation per se, you decide to replace Sophronius with a modern person, that would be consistent with the article. Take care, HG | Talk 13:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
That Palestinians are 'modern descendants of the peoples' is true of Jews, Iraqis, English, Welsh, all ethnicities and nations, who descent from forebears obviously. Why are we making an exception when, as the archives show, massive numbers of scholarly RS have no difficulty is describing earlier figures as 'Palestinian'. In patristic literature Eusebius was known as "Eusebius the Palestinian” (Marcellus of Ancyra, Basil of Caesarea etc). Wikipedia's objection to this is politically and ethnically motivated as often the case. It denies, uniquely, to Palestinians a link to any premodern past, and this is done in defiance of scholarly sources that are not hung up on politics. It is quite improper to see endless insistence throughout articles on Jewish attachment to the land of Israel, the ethnic roots of all Jews in Palestine/Land of Israel, and at the same time see many editors denying any natural continuity for Palestinians with the land of their forebears. To sustain this imparity is a violation of NPOV surely. Most modern Palestinians have far longer genealogical ties to continued occupation of that land than the majority of Israelis. I say this not polemically. Families like the Khalidis, Husseinis, and Nusseibeh possess genealogical records going back to the 7th century, and intermarried with local (converted Jews, pagan Greeks et al. and Christians) from earlier times. It's to me unbelievable that an attachment to a territory by an ethnicity that has one and a half thousand years of continuity at a minimum in the Islamic case, and 2,000 years in the Christian Palestinian case, is not allowed to be translated into an identity with historic roots like the Welsh, the Armenians, the Jews, the Italians or anyone else, simply because a political expression for it in state terms is lacking. All state national identities were created from the 16-17th century onwards, and in every case, congeries of territorially united people were then retroactively given an historic identity by their national literature. The Palestinians are no anomaly (except on Wikipedia) for this process. Like everyone else, Israelis included, Palestinians are an imagined community, but are denied it by, well, mostly editors who have a similar, very strong emotional and ethnic identification for the same land, and cannot, for lack of imagination, see that the logic applies to their 'other' in that territory. Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Yitzhak Rabin was born in Jerusalem, and is, obviously, not considered to be part of the "Palestinian people". Arafat, however, was born in Egypt, and is considered one of the most famous Palestinians. So why is that? because Rabin wasn't Arab, and Arafat was. So it's further proof that Lazyfoxx's "ancient ethnic Palestinians who were of many ancestries" argument doesn't hold water. Yuvn86 (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for effectively stating that an ethnic Ukrainian Ashkenazi Jew is not a part of the Palestinian ethnic group, but I think that is common knowledge. The reason Arafat is Palestinian is because he fits the criteria for being part of the Palestinian ethnic group. Regardless if he was "Arab" or not. A person's nationality (where they were born) is not always an indicator of ethnic origin. And again I will say, I think you're confused in this matter. Make sure to read adhere to Wp:NPOV. I suggest actually reading Nishidani's last post and not glossing over it to only respond to me, he explains the situation on this page accurately. Lazyfoxx (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Lazyfoxx, I did read Nishidani's last post. But the comparison with, say, Welsh does not work. The Welsh are not defined in terms of the modern period, as in this article. Nishidani is also incorrect about Iraqis, who are defined as modern citizens and their photo montage does not include ancient Babylonians. My only concern is that the photo montage match the article definition. You could propose to change the definition instead of this image, but presumably the article text reflects a consensus or compromise, which should be respected until modified. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I was adressing Yuvn88 above, is that you? But anyways, regarding Nishidani's post, his statement about the other ethnicities is just an example of ethnic group identities, all of those ethnic groups are obviously today Modern descendants of their respective populations. Wikipedia is full of editors that will seek to change the way certain ethnic groups are defined on basis of animus. The Palestinian article, like any other ethnic group, is not a place for that, as scholarly sources confirm the Palestinian identify and ethnic group encompassing the historical figures. An example, as I said previously, Rashid Khalidi, a well known historian has stated that the modern Palestinian people now understand their identity as encompassing the heritage of all ages from biblical times up to the Ottoman period. Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Yitzhak Rabin was ethnically Jewish, not Ukrainian. Calling him ethnically Ukrainian is a lie and extremely anti-Semitic if you are not ignorant on the subject. Just because someone's ancestors lived in an area now called Ukraine doesn't mean they were Ukrainian. There is such a thing as a minority group. I suggest you learn what that is. On a note more relevant to the topic of this talk page section, the Wikipedia article on Sophronius of Jerusalem claims in its second paragraph that Sophronius was of Arab descent. That would seem to make him a part of this so-called "Palestinian people." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.109.93 (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Notice I did not say he was not ethnically Jewish, I called him ancestrally an Ukrainian Ashkenazi Jew, that is sourced information. As is his Belarusian Jewish ancestry on his mother's side. I suggest you take heed to what Oncenawhile said below. Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Your comment betrays your double standards. You scold another editor for using the word Ukrainian to describe a person with Jewish identity, yet you then use the term "so called" when referring to the identity of another group of people. Ethnic identity is a complex and sensitive subject, and so editors who cannot control their own bigotry are advised to stay away from these discussions. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

East Jerusalem

Why does the Israel figure, in the infobox, include Palestinian East Jerusalamites? Under international law, East Jerusalem is Occupied Palestinian Territory. This is a case of WP:VALID. False balance. It is Palestine, not Israel. Presenting the other view, that it is somehow "disputed" and to be "unbiased" we must present "both sides"—by categorizing Palestinians living in East Jerusalem as residents of Israel and the state of Palestine—is clearly undue, as virtually every international institution regards East Jerusalem as Palestine. JDiala (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Most government recognize Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea, it's still thought of as disputed because there's a clear difference between de facto and de jure control.108.131.85.155 (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Like the Lebanese, Syrians, Egyptians, Maghrebis, and most other people today commonly called Arabs, the Palestinians are an Arab people in linguistic and cultural affiliation

This is utter crap,mostly because the arabs (Umiyya and Abbas) came from the arab peninsula and flourished in the aspect of population growth in where they came to. Most arab speaking countries (especially the levant) are made from those who came from what is now saudi arabia,while the non muslim communities still have some roots to the ancient population. the Coptic christians are a great example. Maybe palestinian christians have something similiar too. Most researches say there are roots which go backward to an ancient population but theres a catch : Since some of the palestinains are egyptian ,moroccan and even lebanese (the terrorist praised in the palestinian authority Ibrahim al akari is from akar,lebanon,and i dont think akar is a refugee camp or that the name has changed due to the naqba) it is possible that it was a genetic mixture which RESEMBLES an ancient origin. I think you should redo your own thinking. --109.64.48.134 (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you have an edit you would like to make? Please remember that the talk pages are not for us to voice our own feelings on a topic, but rather discuss improvements to the article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10 Adar 5775 14:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Belizean people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of Sophronius of Jerusalem in the infobox

Of all the claims made in this article, this is perhaps the most dubious. There is no evidence whatsoever that Sophronius bears any relation to today's Palestinians beyond his Arab descent. This is historical revisionism. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed earlier this year. Anyone may change Sophronius with a pic of any other figure born in Palestine for that early period. This has nothing to do with 'Arabs', but with the representation of people who figure prominently in Palestinian (Arab, Arab Christian or otherwise) accounts of their ethnic or national history. Unless one espouses the extreme fringe lunatic idea that Palestinians, uniquely of all ethnic groups, appeared out of nowhere in the 1900s, and before that were just immigrant foreigners from Arabia, this view is not odd. It is normative for all ethnic articles. I think Saint George is the one who best fits the proposal to swap Sophronius for a more familiar impeccably indigenous figure that was, has been, and remains central to the historic culture of Palestinians, Christian or otherwise. If you can upload a pic of him, by all means put it in while taking out Sophronius.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I normally would not post on a Israel-Palestine conflict page but I am going to do so anyway.
This article does not claim that Palestinians are an ethnic group. Judith Drick Toland says that Palestinians are a nationalist group and not an ethnic group as they are lacking aspects of an ethnic group such as a distinctly different language, religion or social origin.
At least some Palestinians consider themselves to be ethnically Arab.
https://books.google.com/books?id=IRtOOqEJwBcC&pg=PA179&dq=palestinians+ethnic+group&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Wc05VZu1NMnmsATSs4CADQ&ved=0CEwQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=palestinians%20ethnic%20group&f=false 179
Nationalist groups normally pick military figures from the past not religious figures. I have a hard time seeing all Palestinians viewing Sophronius as an inspirational leader. I would suggest such a military figure Saladin.
https://books.google.com/books?id=bL9dfjYK2eMC&pg=PA31&dq=saladin+palestinians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UPQ5Va7lJMjjsATQ-oGgAQ&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=saladin%20palestinians&f=false page 31
Rashid Khalidi say Saladin is viewed very favorably by Palestinians.Jonney2000 (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Saladin was a Kurd. Palestinians are now considered an ethnic group, and St George is honoured, according to Tewfik Canaan, by all constituent parts of the Palestinian people.(Ethel Sara Wolper, 'Khidr and the Changing Frontiers of the Medieval World,' in Jill Caskey,Adam S. Cohen,Linda Safran, Confronting the Borders of Medieval Art, BRILL, 2011 pp.120-146, p.125 n.11) Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I am in favor of the swapping of St. George for Sophronius on these grounds,
1. Ancestral: Genetic analysis suggests that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, are descendants of Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times.
2. Religious: St. George's mother was a Palestinian Christian, the same Palestinian Christianity is still alive and flourishing today in Palestinians.
3. Social: St. George is venerated as a Palestinian hero and icon socially, Why St. George is a Palestinian hero.
4. Physical Apppearence: St. George was no doubt similar looking to other Palestinians, and the Palestinian phenotype (physical appearence) did not drastically change in the last 1800 years.Reconstruction of a Palestinian face in the time of Jesus.
5. Linguistics: St. George spoke Greek and Aramaic, the latter being a heavy influence for the Palestinian dialect of Arabic today. The Greek and Aramaic languages are also preserved by modern Palestinian Christians. Lazyfoxx (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that the two Palestinian saints from the 1800s would be a pretty good substitute. They were just canonized. http://www.timesofisrael.com/pope-francis-to-canonize-first-palestinian-saints/ --Monochrome_Monitor 19:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, Saladin wasn't Palestinian, he was a Kurd. :) --Monochrome_Monitor 19:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC) And Jesus wasn't a Palestinian, he was a Judean. See now we are just getting into psuedohistory. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

But yeah, I recommend Mariam Baouardy --Monochrome_Monitor 19:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
And St George wasn't Palestinian either. He was a Greek born in Syria Palaestina, which bears no connection to the modern day State of Palestine other than location. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC) That's why the two Christian Saints I just mentioned would be a good fit.
I have provided five common ethnic criteria showing St. George as part of the Palestinian people. His father was a Cappadocian Greek. Lazyfoxx (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
By that logic all the Jews in the land can be called "Palestinian" and therefore Jesus is a Palestinian. The argument that Palestinians are descended from Jews and Christians is BS Palestinian nationalist crap anyway. They are Arabs. They come from Arabia. Genetic studies show that they cluster tightly with other Muslims, including Lebanese, Syrians, and Saudis, while Jews, Druze, Cypriots, and Assyrians are a separate though related cluster. The modern genetic analysis doesn't show Palestinians are descended from anyone, it just shows that Arabs are genetically related to Jews. Of course they are. The only people who take this to mean that Palestinians descend from Jews are revisionists. Therefore, your first criteria is out. The second criteria is meaningless too, it doesn't matter that there are Palestinian Christians. Lots of people are Christians, its the biggest religion in the world. As for the third criteria, the fact that St. George is important to Palestinians means nothing. If anything, that's just evidence of cultural appropriation. Physical appearance is also meaningless. Firstly, St. George looked like a Greek, we know that from contemporary images. He didn't look like an Arab, Christian or Muslim. As for what people think Jesus looked like, that's highly speculative and unrelated. And your last criteria is also preposterous. A shared language means nothing, at the time Aramaic was the predominant language of the Middle East so most people there spoke it. Again, Jesus spoke Aramaic, are you claiming he was Palestinian? Your argument is completely baseless and obviously motivated by nationalism. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Please keep your unsourced bias off of Wikipedia, thanks. Lazyfoxx (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
This entire page is biased! What in particular do I need to source? That palestinians cluster closer with fellow Arabs and Muslims than Jews and Christians? Sure. http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003316 I just hate the perversion of history. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Your source actually tends to contradict the argument you're trying to make.     ←   ZScarpia   12:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, the issue won't get addressed, so I'll just leave it. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If you like make an edit request to delete this page, seems to be your goal. Lazyfoxx (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you kidding? I don't want this page to be deleted, its an important article. I just want it to be based on facts rather than political theory. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Then please keep Zionist political theory statements such as "The argument that Palestinians are descended from Jews and Christians is BS Palestinian nationalist crap anyway. They are Arabs. They come from Arabia." off of this article. Thanks. Lazyfoxx (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Such statements are no different from claiming Ashkenazi Jews "are Slavs" or "come from Khazaria". The surest sign of an anti-Palestinian racist is when the person claims that Palestinians and "Arabs" are exactly the same thing. The modern nationalist concept of Arabness is extremely complex, just like (albeit in different ways to) the complexity of Jewishness. Monochrome, if you can't hold back your bigotry, I suggest you do some more research before continuing here. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, they are quite different. I'm definitely over simplifying but its different from endorsing fringe theories. I'm not denying a unique Palestinian national identity but there isn't really a standalone ethnicity to the point where you can actually distinguish them from Lebanese or Syrians through genetic analysis. Palestinians are a subset of Arabs, they view themselves as part of the Arab Umma. The exception to this of coarse is Christian Palestinians who very likely have some Aramean/Assyrian ancestry. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, if anything saying that Arabs come from Arabia is analogous to saying Jews come from Judea. Both are more or less correct. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that Palestinians are the same as Arabs, just as Lebanese aren't the same as Arabs and Egyptians aren't the same as Arabs, even though they are all Arabs. My concern is that Palestinians are treated differently, instead of as a population group defined by national lines they are defined in vague, mystical terms. Compare "Palestinians are the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab due to Arabization of the region" with "The Iraqi people (Arabic: العراقيون ʿIrāqīyūn, Kurdish: گه‌لی عیراق Îraqîyan, Aramaic: ܥܡܐ ܥܝܪܩܝܐ‎ ʿIrāqāyā, Turkish: Iraklılar) are the citizens of the modern country of Iraq." On the article Iraqis it is explained that Iraq wasn't fully Arab until the Sassanid Empire. It makes no claims that these Arabs were native Mesopotamians who had been "Arabized". This designation only applies to Palestinians for some reason. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Also it's completely unfounded and frankly offensive for you to accuse me of anti-Arab racism. I'm actually somewhat of a arabophile. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
If you personally believe the Palestinian ethnicity doesn't exist that is fine, but please keep such political theories off Wikipedia. Whether your views are Arabophile or Zionist, Wikipedia is for neutrality. And you directly contradict scholarly sources with your statements. Lazyfoxx (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Monochrome, your comments above show no understanding of the term "Arab"
You may be Arabophile (despite not understanding the term), but your comments above are Islamophobic. The idea that Copts, Maronites and Palestinian Christians are the only regional inhabitants who can claim descent from pre-Islamic inhabitants is bigoted and frankly shows no understanding of Islam's proselytizing history.
Arab / Arabia is not comparable to Jew / Judea when the word Arab is being used linguistically. The linguistic aspect to the term "Arab" is one which you appear to misunderstand or ignore.
The idea that Palestinians are ethnically from the Arabian peninsula is a fringe theory, which has been propagated by Zionism. Scholars have shown that there is no evidence for a mass migration from Arabia to Palestine.
Please stop wasting our time and go and fix your inherant biases.
Oncenawhile (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The arguments have been made endlessly, and if you want responses MM, read the archives. Don't engage people with useless polemics. I think St George is best fitted for the infobox, in any case.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, your claim that I am "Islamophobic" is completely groundless. I have great respect for all monotheistic religions. It's also not fringe to say that the Palestinians are ethnically primarily Arab. It's heavily suggested by genetics. You fail to refute the fact that Palestinians are genetically far closer if not indistinguishable from Syrians, Egyptians, and Muslim Lebanese than to Jews, Copts, Druze, Samaritans, and other pre-Islamic peoples of the region. Regardless, I'm not trying to get the article changed. I'm trying to show that's it's absurd to call St. George a Palestinian just because he lived in Syria Palaestina. Such a claim is no different than calling Jesus a Palestinian. Both are cultural appropriation. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Your inability to acknowledge Palestinians as an ethnic group and as an pre-islamic people is incredibly biased, please refrain from making such politically motivated statements. Your analysis of Genetic research is not only ignorant and inaccurate but also says that you only define an ethnic group on Genetic basis. Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't deny that Palestinians are an ethnic group at all. However they are not a particularly distinct one by most standards of ethnic groups:linguistics, genetics, culture, etc. Palestinian cuisine is largely Middle Eastern cuisine, Palestinian culture is largely Arab culture, and Palestinian language is largely Arabic language. I don't make these facts, I just interpret them. If Palestinians were a pre-Islamic people they would be significantly more similar gentically similar to pre-Islamic peoples than, say, Saudis, but they simply aren't. Find me one study showing otherwise. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, I'm not trying to change anything on the page. My objection was to people with zero relation (other than sheer geographical coincidence) to Palestinians being put in the infobox as Palestinian. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Nishidani is right. You are just wasting everyone's time. So much of what you write is wrong, and I don't see why I should bother. If you genuinely want to remove the inherant racism and propaganda that has infected your knowledge base, I suggest you go do some research of your own. Perhaps the sources at Genetic_studies_of_Jewish_origins#Palestinians and Palestinian Arabic would be a good place to start. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The study you cite shows that Jews are closely related to many Levantines, including Palestinians. "a recent survey of 18 binary Y-specific polymorphisms showed that Y chromosome haplotypes of Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations are almost indistinguishable from those of Jews" That's the fallacy I mentioned earlier—that because Palestinians are related to Jews (of course they are, both are Semitic peoples) they must be descended from Jews. I asked for a study showing that Palestinians are closer to Jews and Christians than other Arab peoples. You did not cite one, so I'm guessing it doesn't exist. I also advise you against accusing people of racism on a whim, others could do the same for you. Also, thanks for directing me to that article because I found that it's falsely cited. The study never claims that "part, or perhaps the majority" of Muslim Palestinians descend from "local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD". It says that the majority of Jews converted to Christianity in the 5th century, that Arabs arrived in the first millennium, and that the population became Islamized after the 7th century Islamic conquests. It doesn't speculate about the origins of Palestinians at all. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
You're wasting your time, and I suggest you employ it more fruitfully studying the subject rather than pontificating on what you known little of, except the standard school memes. 99% of human races (Andaman Islanders are the exception) are miscegenated. Nishidani (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that finding a huge citation error is "wasting my time", but I'll leave. Nice ad hominem though. "School memes", very funny. Also I agree that the vast majority of ethnic groups are "non-pure", for example a recent study showed that Native Americans aren't really that close to East Asians as had been thought and are surprisingly close to Europeans. It was in the Wall Street Journal, unfortunately it's probably behind a paywall now. Anyway, the fact that human populations mix frequently doesn't mean genetics as a whole aren't a valid means of ascertaining descent. I was wrong to imply that all Palestinians are descended from Arab conquerors who arrived in the 7th century, that's a gross oversimplification. I However it's also a gross exaggeration that Palestinians are not descended from Arabs who arrived in the first millennium at all and are 100% Christians and Jews who converted, which is sort of implied by this article. The truth somewhere in between. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
To repeat, study the subject. Your first error was corrected. 'Arab' in a historical world of shifting populations is as obscure as 'Jew'. 'Arabs' have been attested in that area since the early Ist millennium B.C.E., and to simply identify 'Arabs' with those who came in the wake of Omar's army is silly. History discomforts as it enlightens: it discomforts because nothing turns out to be simple. It enlightens because its complexities confirm that we are, individual by individual living mosaical residues of immense civilizations and obscure forgotten tribal worlds, something that should leave any sane person with a Grecian sense of joyous wonder. Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Deep. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps too abstract. Consider that some rumours in rabbinical corridors make out Shemaiah and Avtalyon might be descendants of Sennacherib, or that Rabbi Meir’s father hailed from a descendent of Nero who converted, and he in turn was taught by the noblest of them all Akiva ben Joseph a humble country bumpkin whose own rustic dad might have been a convert. When you see an ethnonym attached to someone, hold your breath, perk up your ears, and forage for details. The stories that emerge are almost always more interesting than the tedium of belonging to an abstract noun serving as nomenclature for an undifferentiated 'monoethnic' identity.p.s. By the whey, I commend your readiness to admit to error. That is very rare round here, and a sign of strong potential to become a fine Wikipedian.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've heard that Abraham was a Kurd. The reason for this was because he's from the Iraqi city of Ur, which was dominated around Abraham's time by the Gutians, a tribe of the Zagros mountains which many believe are the forefathers of modern Kurds. The other reason was that Jews are scary closely related to the Kurds, particularly Ashkenazi Jews, even moreso than they are to some Semitic populations. It's an interesting theory. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks. I'm certainly still learning. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
My five ethnic criteria for St. George's inclusion into the infobox in place of Sophronius still stand. Lazyfoxx (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Same religion as some palestinians
2. Similar language since arabic came from aramaic
3. may have looked similar to them
4. may be genetically related
5. is revered by palestinians
These criteria aren't nearly substantive enough to justify an infobox inclusion. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What is your definition of an ethnic group then, Monochrome Monitor? Lazyfoxx (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster's definition of ethnicity "of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background." Lazyfoxx (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Your criteria make a lot of assumptions and are almost entirely speculative. For one, there's no evidence that St. George self-indentified as anything but Greek. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
You seem eager to identify him as a Greek rather than a Palestinian, when in reality he was both. Do you have a source stating that St. George referred to himself as a Greek? I have an encyclopedia of Saints that states he was half Palestinian and half Greek by ancestry. Lazyfoxx (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Both of his parents were Greek, however one of them was a Greek born in Syria Palaestina. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Please source your statement. Here is my source. Lazyfoxx (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, little is known about him. We don't even know if he was born in Syria Palaestina or if he moved there after his father died. He's more myth than man at this point. But as for his mom being Greek? Here's a few. "his mother, Polychronia, was a Greek from the city Lyda." Also [6] and [7] Remember that at this point the region of Palestine was heavily hellenized, and it had a Greek rather than an Arab majority. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
And if we are basing his "Palestinianess" on the fact he was born in Lyda, Lyda is the city of Lod in modern Israel. Does that make him an Israeli? --Monochrome_Monitor 02:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you denying that modern Palestinians descend in part from the hellenized population of ancient Palestine? Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
What? There's no significant Greek genetic component in Palestinians. In fact, Ashkenazi Jews have a far larger Greek component (accounting for most of their non-Levantine maternal admixture along with Italians) in them than Palestinians. Does that mean St. George was Jewish? --Monochrome_Monitor 02:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you genetically sequenced St. George and other hellenized Palestinians from the 3rd century or are you saying there is no modern Greek component in Palestinians? Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying there's little modern Greek component, yes. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
So would a hellenized Palestinian from the 3rd century be identical to a Greek from Greece today? Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It's also wrong for you to call him a "hellenized Palestinian". He wasn't "Hellenized", he was Greek. And he wasn't Palestinian in any modern sense of the word. He was from Syria Palaestina, but Syria Palaestina was originally Judea and Lydda is in modern Israel. You are drawing a bullseye around an arrow here. You're the one who is calling him a hellenized Palestinian, not me. Both of his parents were Greek, as I just showed you. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm really sorry if it causes you personal distress but, "According to Rashid Khalidi, the modern Palestinian people now understand their identity as encompassing the heritage of all ages from biblical times up to the Ottoman period." These two sources state Polychronia as a Palestinian Christian, [1]2 Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Let me also remind you, you are only addressing one of my ethnic criteria out of the five above that support St. George in place of Sophronius. Lazyfoxx (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Right... Rashid Khalidi is a Palestinian Nationalist more than he is a scholar. As for Polychronia being a Palestinian christian, she was. A Palestinian Greek Christian. Palestine being the region, Greek being the ethnicity. Ask any catholic/church scholar to if Polychronia is Greek and they will say yes. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC) You're going off the deep end here. You need to convince yourself that St. George was a Palestinian despite all the evidence. This is my problem with this article. Instead of offering facts it offers the opinions of someone named Rashid Khalidi, apparently the representative of all Palestinians. Apparently "Palestinians view themselves as going back to biblical times" but they can't show any evidence of this. There are millions of artifacts testifying to ancient Jewish history, yet not a single one testifying to ancient Palestinian history, unless you consider Jewish history to be Palestinian history, which many do (more cultural appropriation). --Monochrome_Monitor 03:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Rashid Khalidi is an eminent scholar, a full professor at Columbia University. This present thread in which you are arguing that one group of people has greater racial purity than another is not your finest moment. Zerotalk 03:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Greater racial purity? Is that a joke? I didn't say anything in the like. As for Rashid Khalidi being an "eminent scholar", he was a PLO spokesman. MAJOR conflict of interest. Also he has been caught lying at times.--Monochrome_Monitor 11:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
So what? See WP:BIASED. Do you dismiss Michael Oren too? Secondly, nearly all scholars have misquoted or been wrong on some things. You have to work a lot harder to show why Rashid Khalidi is not a good source. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I already addressed your other criteria. We don't know what Jesus or St. George looked like. The possibility of them looking like Palestinians when Jesus was a Judean and St. George was a Greek is very slim. As for language, the vast majority of Palestinians speak Arabic, not Aramaic. As for religion, the vast majority of Palestinians are Muslim, not Christian. And lastly, just because some Palestinians revere George doesn't make him a Palestinian. You know who else likes George? British. The love him. He inspired their flag. Does that mean he was a Brit? Of coarse not, that's absurd. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Ugh, sorry. I'm getting a bit hot-tempered. I just can't stand historical revisionism. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
1. The reconstruction of a Palestinian in the time of Jesus does not look drastically different than Palestinians today, it takes only a glance to see that.
2. Palestinians speak Palestinian Arabic, look it up. Palestinian Christians retain the Aramaic language as well.
3. Religion, many Palestinians converted to Islam, that is true (This does not erase their Christian history before Islam by the way), but Palestinian Christians still remain today, and have since the time of St. George, it is a continuity of the same religion by the same people, I do not see how you do not understand this.
4. You do not understand the social/cultural criteria of an ethnic group, he is revered by Palestinians as a Palestinian hero, the British do not revere St. George as a British hero, because he is not British. Lazyfoxx (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
1. One reconstruction of Jesus based on pure speculation looks somewhat like Palestinians. Though it actually looks most like a Mizrahi Jew, but regardless its one artists reconstruction. The majority of actual contemporary sources draw the indigenous non-Arab peoples of the Levant as looking like Jews, like the one on the right from Seti's Tomb showing a Semite (specifically a Phoenecian), 3rd from the left

−

drawing of a Book of Gates fresco of the tomb of Seti I, depicting (from left) four groups of people: Libyans, Nubians, Semitics, Egyptians.

−

2. Yes they do speak Palestinian Arabic. And the Egyptians speak Egyptian Arabic. Also your contention that Palestinian Christians retain Aramaic is simply not true. The majority do not speak Aramaic.

−

3. Show me one genetic study showing that Palestinian Christians are descended from Greek Christians.

−

4. It doesn't matter if Palestinians think St. George is a Palestinian. They can think that the earth is flat and that Israel flattened it and it wouldn't matter because it's not true. Wikipedia:How many legs does a horse have? --Monochrome_Monitor 04:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Like I said towards the beginning of this conversation, please keep Zionist political theory off of Wikipedia, thanks. Lazyfoxx (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
What's Zionist political theory? The "earth is flat and israel flattened it" is from some UN Guy, I think Kofi Annan. It referred to UN's unequal standards against Israel. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm obviously not convincing you since apparently everything I say is "Zionist political theory". Feel free to put it in the infobox, but it will likely be reverted. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Your belief that Palestinians are Arabs that come from Arabia and that Muslims do not descend from Jews and Christians that lived there in the past. That Zionist political theory, which is not only blatantly racist against the Palestinian ethnicity, it is not substantiated by scholarly sources.
And no you are not convincing me, your line of thinking seems incredibly biased and we should strive for neutrality on Wikipedia. Lazyfoxx (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Oncenawhile, you are correct in that the "idea that Copts, Maronites and Palestinian Christians are the only regional inhabitants who can claim descent from pre-Islamic inhabitants is bigoted...". Many Islamophobic websites etc. present Muslims in many parts of the Levant and Egypt as immigrants and that spreads to Wikipedia articles too. In the case of Palestine and Israel, it has a special meaning as it is a myth told often by the Israeli state and Zionists. --IRISZOOM (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
"Pre-Islamic inhabitants" is a misleading word. The Arab people obviously come from long before Islam, and some Palestinians are Arab immigrants who arrived in the early first millennium AD. Most of the theories out there that contend that Arabs outside of the Hijaz and surrounding regions (the location of the bulk of Arabian tribes) are indigenous are manifestations Arab nationalism—ie Phoenicianism and Pharaonism, both dubious. The belief that Palestinians are not "pure Arabs" but rather wholly descended from Christians/Jews/Canaanites/Phillistines/etc. is a component of Palestinian nationalism. Also, I don't read "Islamophobic Sites". --Monochrome_Monitor 11:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome, this debate is going in circles primarily because you appear to have a very poor understanding of what nationalism is. Please take a break and go and research nationalism as a broader topic. Your idea of "Greeks" is another concept of which you show almost total ignorance, in addition to your poor understanding of the term "Arab". To understand this properly you need to understand how these concepts developed during the 19th century. Just remember one thing - all nationalisms are as flawed as each other. Please spare us any more of your views on this until you have educated yourself on this properly. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't speak specifically about you, MM. That view is common by Islamophobes and Zionists. Sure there have been Arab immigrants to Palestine just like there have been emigrants from there (to for example South America and Jordan) and I haven't seen anyone say that all of them have been there for ever. However, the claim that most Palestinians or other people in the Levant or Egypt are from Arabia is false. It has nothing to do with Phoenicianism, Palestinian nationalism etc. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome Monitor, from reading your comments I would suggest that you dump any ideas stemming from the race theories of the 19th and 20th centuries: being 'Arab' is a cultural, not 'racial', identity and the concept of a "Pure Arab" is a nonsense; there are people who speak Semitic languages, but the concept of a 'Semitic race' is another nonsense.     ←   ZScarpia   12:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry if I missed something, but as far as I know Sophronius was born in Damascus and Damascus was never part of Palestine. Beside there are WP:RS which precisely define Sophronius, so we should use them without personal interpretations. --Tritomex (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Being Arab is more than cultural. It's panethnic. Ie, Arabs are more or less genetically related loosely even though they don't form a monolithic genetic group. Also, when applied to Arabian tribes, ie Hashemites and Beduin, it's a distinct ethnic group. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
You're right. He was from Syria, he moved to Palestine. I'm not sure this would disqualify him as not being Palestinian (moreso than other reasons at least), since a lot of people considered Palestinian don't come from Palestine. Yasser Arafat is a good example, he was an Egyptian. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I think Arafat father originated from Gaza. However the case of Sophronius is very much clear. He was a Syrian saint born in Damascus --Tritomex (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
So, again, why should Sophronius be on this article? Look at the Italians or Germans articles. Do they incluye Romans or other Germanic tribes? No. They just included people that existed after those kingdoms were born. 201.230.248.3 (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
As Rashid Khalidi stated: the Palestinian nationalism developed a historiography that "anachronistically read back into the history of Palestine over the past few centuries, and even millennia, a nationalist consciousness and identity that are in fact relatively modern.".
The inclusion of Sophronius of Jerusalem in the infobox propogats this POV, which anachronistically read back into the history of Palestine an identity which is relatively modern. His picture should be removed from the infobox. Ben tetuan (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The process that Khalidi describes took place during the creation of every ethnic nationalism on earth. See Historiography and nationalism. All national identities are relatively modern.
Look at Indian people for example. The concept of being "Indian" did not exist until a few decades after the British turned up. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The use of Khalidi to claim Palestinian identity now is a kind of recent fabrication, as implied here, is to misread him. As Oncenawhile noted, the process of retroactive identification with the deep past is characteristics of all national communities: many people are discovering their Jewishness because of a 500-centuries buried link, via some ancestor or name, with the Jews of the Iberian peninsula, though in the meantime they were thoroughly assimilated, as Spanish Catholics etc.Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Nobody claimed that to anachronistically read back a modern identity into history is a uniquely Palestinian issue. All we say is that we should refrain from doing it in Wikipedia's voice. Ben tetuan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sea peoples

I find the addition of the Sea Peoples under related groups problematic.
1. They are a conjectured people.
2. They are an ancient/now non-existent people, and therefore no actual (genetic, cultural) links will be possible to prove between them and Palestinians.
3. No sources. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't deal in 'proof' here, but we transcribe what reliable sources state
  • They are not a 'conjectured people', they are a confederated tribal movement, probably of predominantly Aegaean-Anatolian extraction, to judge from the ethnonymic evidence in Egyptian. Many might have been speakers of paleo-Greek or Hittite dialects like Luwian, but there is no certainty. I think Sea Peoples is not necessary there, not however for the reasons you give. I don't mind its removal, but I'd wait for further input from others.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
From the article Sea Peoples: "Sea Peoples were conjectured groups of seafaring raiders". Is that wrong? I'm confused. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
MM, you are right. If you read some of the quoted sources in the Sea Peoples article (e.g. Drews), it is arguably worse than "conjectured" - it is arguably not much more than a romantic story made up by the early Egyptologists from some sparse evidence and large assumptions that happened to catch the imagination of the late 19th century public. The "Peleset" are not connected to the sea in any known Egyptian record. And the Aegean migration hypothesis is still no more than a hypothesis, with no known proof, despite 100 years of attempted etymological connections between Egyptian inscriptions and modern place names.
Nish, if you ever have time, can I encourage you to look into a little Egyptology. I believe that science of Egyptology would greatly benefit from Egyptologists who understand Chinese / Kanji. The etymological jumps that have been made over the last two centuries of research would have been done with much more caution if people had understood how Chinese characters represent different sounds in different regions of China and wider region. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually I was reading the late lamented Dominic Montserrat just the other day. No, those folks don't need a dabbler like me, and in any case Japan has plenty with a total mastery of both, folks like Kondō Jirō (近藤 二郎) and Yoshimura Sakuji (吉村作治). My father wanted to be an Egyptologist, poverty and the great depression stopped him. He was delighted at the outbreak of WW2 to have the opportunity to pretend to be a soldier, get shipped off to North Africa at government expense, and spend his time touring the pyramids and museums. He changed the dates on his birth certificate because he was overage, and managed to take it all in.Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Monochrome Why did you remove Phillistines entirely from the list instead of just moving it out of the Semitic category? Probably should discuss before changes like that are made. Lazyfoxx (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not quite fair to call those poor blighters philistines. They have enough abuse on the plate without that :)Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
No doubt the Phillistines settled a region of Palestine the same era the Canaanites did.
http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/large-map-land-of-canaan-during-book-of-joshua.jpg Lazyfoxx (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Lol on the Philistines. Living in the same place doesn't make you related. No one says that the Turks are descended from the Anatolians. I also think Syrians and Lebanese should be re-added since they are the ethnic groups closest to the Palestinians. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually researchers do say that about the Turkish people. And Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians are already on the list under the first term, Levantines. Lazyfoxx (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
No, they don't. You should do more research. They say Turks are descended from Chinese and Siberian ethnic groups. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
And why not just say "Jews"? Instead of listing all the major Jewish ethnic groups? --Monochrome_Monitor 16:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
'Living in the same place doesn't make you related. No one says that the Turks are descended from the Anatolians.'
Actually, nearly everyone says precisely that. Genetically, the Turks of Turkey are largely of Anatolian descent, as the Hungarians are of Indo-European descent (see the refs at Genetic history of the Turkish people ). Language is no marker of origins.Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but that's actually part of the point; culture is not genetics, and that the Sea Peoples are genetic ancestors of the modern Palestinians means little if there is no reasonable cultural connection. Really, every Eurasian human alive today is likely descended from the Sea Peoples. The most recent common ancestor of all humans on Earth lived between 2000-5000 years ago (excluding genetically isolated populations) and it's much closer for people from populations which have had more recent chances to intermingle. It is meaningless to say the Palestinians are genetically descended from the Sea Peoples, since essentially so haven't the French and the Swedes and the Russians and the Moroccans and the Afghans and etc.... When we're looking at a culturally-defined people group, the only thing that matters is social connections, language, and culture. I know of no scholarship that indicates the modern Palestinian people are culturally related to the Sea Peoples/Philistines/etc. --Jayron32 19:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I deleted it so yeah. Also, there's no genetic evidence either since we have no genetic samples of Sea Peoples or Canaanites for that matter. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The point being that there is agreement that Sea Peoples should be removed as not a specific ethnonym but a vague term for a congeries of tribal groups. If you check the thread, MM, I and Lazyfoxx have already concurred on this. Philistines is a biblical ethnonym, like Amorites, etc., and since the Philistines qua Sea Peoples settled in Palestine is another question, autonomously or via Egyptian fiat, or both, they no doubt constituted one of the ethnoi that went to make up the resident population, and, just as the Israelitic groups, they mixed heavily with other populations already present in the area. The number of groups who ended up there is extremely numerous. There is a lot of 'spin' in the history of the scholarship (it took decades to establish the obvious fact that there is a profound overlap between Semitic and Greek mythic cores. History is promiscuous. There is even a 'Slavic' constituent in certain Palestinian areas, like Yanun, dating back to the 1870s.Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The archaeological record is overflowing with evidence for the existence of "ancient central hill peoples" and "ancient coastal peoples". But in 150 years of research, there is absolutely no evidence connecting the "ancient central hill peoples" to the name "Israelites" and the "ancient coastal peoples" to the name "Philistines". These are just Biblical designations that have been applied by modern scholars for ease of use based on an assumption (and perhaps some cognitive bias). Oncenawhile (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The cognitive bias is not a 'perhaps'. Most neutral scholars accept that the Bible is a partisan document, rewriting heavily tribal legends with significant 'romantic' elaboration, and thus what is said of both ingroup and outgroup is not to be taken as 'historical fact', but rather evidence to be scoured to ascertain possible facts, as they are framed by a variety of internally cogent hypotheses that sit better with what archaeology actually tells us. Much of the tale of David and Goliath recurs in the Iliad, and it was quite possible a bilingual Greek-speaking coastal bard who passed the story on in a way that enabled the biblical rewriters to patch it in to the David cycle. Who said 'Philistines' were culturally illiterate!Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a great reluctance to do DNA tests on the ample ossuary remains (it's technically difficult) from the Biblical period, as well, some of it stemming from religious quarters. If it were possible to extract DNA from the massive Tel Lachish gravesites you'd have a very precise index of the genetic makeup of that region at the time of Sennacherib. The stuff's all sitting in the museum storerooms. No one seems interested.Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It goes against sentiments regarding the treatment of the dead. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
No. That's not quite correct. If the skeleton is early neolithic it's analysed.Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, Canaanites probably shouldn't be in related groups either, unless there are genetic sources. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Nope. Genetics and history are two different disciplines, in a relationship of evidentiary complementarity, meaning their independent results or hypotheses have to be harmonized. To make genetics the hermeneutic dominus, particularly when genetic papers make historical comments that are often stupid to any historian's eye, is to exclude the harder field and textual evidence which is highly specific on dates and cultures, to favour 'race', always a dubious concept, even if masqueraded under words like ethnos etc.Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Right, but the vast majority of ethnic groups pages only list extant peoples. Ie, you could put Canaanites under related groups for Jews (they are far closer to Canaanites than Palestinians because Israelites were an offshoot of Canaanite), but we don't. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, no one said anything about earlier neolithic. Canaanites are largely Bronze Age. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Israelis and Jordanians

Since when are the 1.6 million Arab Israelis and 3.2 million Jordanians classed as "Palestinians"? This is nothing but propaganda. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

See [8] for self-identification as Palestinians for the Palestinians in Israel. As far as Jordan, I wasnt even aware thats in dispute. nableezy - 15:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

An article can't just assert that citizens of other states are "Palestinians." Arab Israelis are citizens of Israel. In Jordan, apart from the Palestinians living in the UNRWA camps, Jordanians are Jordanian citizens. The assertion (often made) that they are "really" Palestinians is nonsense, since both Palestine and (Trans)Jordan were artificial entities created by the British at the same time. Before that the Arab inhabitants of region had no national identity other than as Ottoman subjects. In the Arab world nationality is determined by state frontiers, arbitrary those these may be. If you live in Jordan you're a Jordanian. This is just a propagandist exercise designed to inflate the number of Palestinians in the world. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is a surprise or not, being a citizen of Israel or Jordan does not magically change their ethnicity and ancestry. Lazyfoxx (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no "Palestinian ethnicity" (Palestinians are Arabs), and no "Palestinian ancestry" beyond 1918, when the British drew lines on a map of Ottoman Syria and said "let's call this bit Palestine." The Palestinians are a nationality, like Israelis and Jordanians. The Palestinian nation consists of the (Arab) residents of the Palestinian Territories, plus the residents of the UNRWA camps in the neighbouring states. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on the prejudices of visiting Toads, intelligent or not. If you want to present a rule-based argument for a change to the article, go ahead. If you just want to sound off as you have been so far, go away. Zerotalk 09:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2015

The beginning part of the page should state that they are ethnically Arab. 79.181.174.49 (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The second paragraph of the lede goes into quite some detail on the genetic background of Palestinians Cannolis (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Not enough words about the denial of the existance of the Palestinian People

  • Zuheir Mohsen, leader the the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979 said: The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
  • Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist said: "Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?"
  • Joseph Farah, an Arab journalist said: "There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass. But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today... No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough".
  • Awni Abd al-Hadi, a Palestinian political figure said: "There is no such country [as Palestine].... Palestine is a term the Zionists invented.... Our country was for centuries part of Syria." Crum, Bartley C. Behind The Silken Curtain. Page 25. Victor Gollancz Ltd., London. 1947.
  • The delegate of Saudi Arabia United Nations Security Council, Ahmad al-Shukeiri, the first Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization said in 1956: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."
  • Hafez al-Assad said to Yasser Arafat: "You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people" Bolter21
Thanks for illustrating exactly what rubbish we must keep out of the article. Zerotalk 00:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep. It's an interesting point though. These type of quotes are known amongst a right-wing community of conspiracy theorists, who believe that they somehow lift the lid on a grand political scheme. It could be worth adding a deconstruction of this as a paragraph in the article. It would in effect be "an introduction to nationalism 101". As an illustration, perhaps we could compare it to the Jewish national identity debate in the 19th and early 20th centuries, where many Jews believed that the concept of a "Jewish people" was bunk. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Genetics

Monochrome Monitor, "Palestinian Christians" are not mentioning in the link you provided. Please provide a new link. Your edit will shortly be reverted - please get consensus here first before proceeding. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There is already a paragraph devoted to discussing some haplotype differences found between Christians and Muslim Palestinians, I think adding another paragraph about it is redundant, as was adding the word Jewish before Rabbi. Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
It's mentioned in the article. The source listed as "Ana Teresa Fernandes; Rita Gonçalves; Sara Gomes; Dvora Filon; Almut Nebel; Marina Faerman; António Brehm (November 2011). "Y-chromosomal STRs in two populations from Israel and the Palestinian Authority Area: Christian and Muslim Arabs". National Center for Biotechnology Information." The very distinct haplotype distributions of Muslim and Christian Palestinians is certainly significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Upon further review, I think mentioning the haplotype differences between Palestinian Christians and Muslims would be fine. But Perhaps it would be better to say it has an effect on their haplotype, a specific part of their genetics. So instead it would read, "Genetic studies have found religion has a large effect on the YDNA of Palestinians — with Palestinian Christians and Muslims showing distinct distributions of many different haplotypes." Lazyfoxx (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to add that, I can't stand confrontation. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"Ethnic Group"

Consensus was gained for the statement that Palestinians are an ethnic group long ago. See for example /Archive 22. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

: No, there was no consensus, but the discussion was about, how to define the most efficiently the Palestinians And also, if the Palestinans could be define as a People....

::::There is a problem, since last year, in this area regarding articles on history, of trying to overcome our natural state of uncertainty, or provisory knowledge, or temporary consensus on complex historical questions, by leaping on the genetics bandwagon. Genetics is being used to back one of several theories of the origin of Yiddish, of the territorial origins of modern people, to define indeed, modern peoples, and to support one side in a multi-faced, theoretically intricate series of hypotheses. This is extremely dangerous because the incremental growth of knowledge is due to the sophistication of research awareness of how political, social and other factors tend to impinge on our conceptualizations, something that affects particularly an area as ideologically overheated as the I/P area. There is a substantial literature on the political uses by Palestinians of Canaanite roots, as there is on the sociology of theories of Jewish (or any other) identity. There are assumed facts, and meta-analysis of the way historiography produces those facts, and in all ethnic-invested areas of wiki, these two levels of discourse are confused by partisans who fail to disentangle the two.

I'm personally unhappy with all restrictive definitions of identity, which is, I believe how we reconstruct selectively our various, respective pasts in terms of a group affiliation. I like the Palestinian definition we have because it is very generic. As soon as you get into the nitty gritty, however, by trying to add to its vagueness, points that highlight one or other part of it, you get into trouble, as you do with all such definitions. I've been accused of double-standards in adducing the genetic paper here. In fact I do not think genetics papers are satisfactory sources for history (NMMGG rightly notes this). I do however think that when biblical scholars, historians, area specialists, and public intellectuals can be shown to concur on a definition, then adducing also a genetic paper as a supplementary source, (as Dlv argues) is reasonable, if only to show that the simple sentence has support from several interrelated disciplines. What one should not do, as was done on the Ashkenazi Jews page, is invent a definition that is itself definitionally flawed and historically false, and then, since no historical source supports it, propose an ostensible RS from genetics as unique confirmation of its veracity. Anne Hart there was patently wrong (distinguished geneticists do not publish self-publish and a glance at the text will show the writer is not a geneticist). Nor can you, as Tritomex now says, replace it with a better source in genetics.
One of the complications here, which I haven't mentioned, is that if you consult the literature on the definition of Palestinian Christians, then you will google up dozens of very good sources which clearly affirm their historic roots in ancient Israel/Palestine. If you do this for Palestinian Muslims, then all of a sudden the issue gets tetchy, difficult, controversial, and an extremely high bar of evidence is demanded before any statement that implies, suggests or states that they have historic roots in the area is passed, and even then grudgingly. I see that as a systemic bias in our eurocentric sources and in our general failure to step out of our natural frameworks of perception to try and get a balanced perspective. The sentence we have is vague, generic and well-sourced, though not perfect. In the meta-context it is a fair navigation between the pressures, official and otherwise, of denial of Palestinian roots, and the flimsy rhetoric of Palestinian Canaanitism.Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


Khazen48 (probably a sockpuppet of Silvertrail) propose by POV pushing whitout even one reference to change the proper definition to this incorrect statement : "The Palestinian people are an ethnic group .

--Point by point (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)--Point by point (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)(edited)

Agree with Oncenawhile, last time I checked Palestinians were an ethnic group, the only people who deny this seem to be extreme Zionists, not the consensus of scholarly sources. Lazyfoxx (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
No, there is no scholary consensus. If you are supportive of the Khazen48 proposition, cite sources. The issue is not about me nor Zionism. --... Point by point ... (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2015 (UT
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/3/khattab.html Lazyfoxx (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Could you provide sources of the exact subject or of a scholarly consensus? Nabil Khattab and Sami Miaari describe the Arab israelis as Palestinians, to back up their thesis of an hypothetical inequality between ethnic groups in the Israeli Labor Market. While other studies prove the opposite. I think, adding this sentence would suffice:

The PLO molded and developed the construction and creation of the palestinian ethnicity symbolized by Islam and the Arabic language.[2][3][4]

... Point by point ... (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry you seem to not believe the Palestinian ethnic group exists, when in plain site a scholarly source says it does. I wonder why you are not giving other ethnic group pages the scrutiny of this one? Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the fact that it is not consensual, is not serious to write it in the opening sentence, whatsoever. And it is not like if, the Palestinian were stricly an ethnic group. Why don't you consider all other groups as ethnic groups then? (e.g. the syrians, the lebaneese or the jordanians)--... Point by point ... (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
They are all respective ethnic groups, just as Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, and Sephardi Jews are ethnic groups. Lazyfoxx (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
No, these are not ethnic groups but divisions, part of the Jewish ethnicity. Same as Palestinians are part the Arab ethnicity. Where are those "scholarly sources"? BTW, This article regards Jews as well and that creates a contradiction. Infantom (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Wrong, Palestinians are a part of the Arab pan-ethnicity, which includes many different ethnic groups. In modern usage Arabic-speaking populations are a highly heterogeneous collection of peoples, with diverse ancestral origins and identities. Lazyfoxx (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Could I suggest everyone here reads Imagined Communities. Ethnicity is not a scientific fact, but a political construct. European Jews debated their identity throughout the Haskalah; only with the advent of Zionism did the concept of a modern "Jewish ethnicity" become widely held. Palestinian ethnicity is no different. Jews and Palestinians are both ethnic groups, because their nationalisms define them as such. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It is by no means easy to determine this. There are plenty of strong sources that underline the idea that Palestinians are an ethnic group, at least according to Max Weber's definition, 'subjective awareness of common descent', and, as Oncenawhile correctly notes in Benedict Anderson's noted classic. Dowty says that on p.8 of the book we cite; also Baruch Kimmerling p.74 (I think), etc.etc. This certainly qualifies the Jews to be an ethnic group, for example. In the Palestinian case, there are significant divisions between Bedouin, Druze, Christian and Muslim Arabs, divisions Israel has always encouraged and tried to exacerbate (ask any Christian Palestinian what games are played at checkpoints when they drive with Muslim friends out for a picnic; the Christians can get waved through, the Muslims delayed, leaving the designed impression among the latter that the Christians are collaborators etc) , but which exist. Just as Jewish identity was formed by outside pressure (anti-Semitism) and internal doctrine (the centrality of rabbinical education) so too Palestinian identity is being forged by Israel's politics of colonial oppression, but the internal processes of a collective self-awareness of a shared identity is still strongly conditioned by the external element, while the internal process of ethnocultural unity lags. It is something the intellectual elite and the diaspora has, and is undoubtedly well-grounded throughout the territories, but those who are opposed to the use of the term here (even if, apart from Jeppiz, who has always been studiously independent in his calls, they are visibly motivated by a political antagonism) have some technical reasons for challenging it.Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Arab nationalism and the Palestinians, 1850-1939, ʻAbd al-ʻAzīz ʻAyyād". Passia.org. Retrieved 2011-12-11.
  2. ^ Toland, Judith Drick (1993). The final factor in the developpement of the palestinian ethnicity was the explicit effort of the OLP to mold and develop it. Transaction Publishers. p. 178.
  3. ^ González, Nancie L. Solien (1989). Conflict, Migration, and the Expression of Ethnicity. Perseus Books. p. 121.
  4. ^ Schulz, Helena Lindholm. The Reconstruction of Palestinian Nationalism: Between Revolution and Statehood. Manchester University Press.

JSTOR article

Does anyone have access to:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/israelstudies.18.2.11

Oncenawhile (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Check your email. Zerotalk 13:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggested extension of WP:ARBPIA to this article

For your information, I've posted a request that WP:ARBPIA be extended to this article [9]. Jeppiz (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I think all you need do is post the Arbpia 2008 decision (copy it from any relevant IP page) at the top of this talk page. I don't think you need anyone's permission to do this. Your suggestion fixes an obvious oversight, or editorial failure and is commonsensical.Nishidani (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Nishidani, but I want to let arbcom rule on it. Thank you also for your support, you're of course welcome (as is anyone else) to state your view at site of the suggestion Jeppiz (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the article on Jews comes under ARBPIA, and shouldn't either, in my view. The article on Palestinians does, certainly, because their identity is inextricably intertwined with that of Zionist nation making. Jewish identity has not been inextricably associated with Zionism, or even Palestine: it is a far-larger, far more variegated and historically complex set of realities that lie outside the problems of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic group again

I actually read though

“Palestinians in Diaspora: An Ethnographic Study of Ethnic Identity Among Palestinian Families in Maryland” a few months ago.

page 3 in the introduction does indeed call Palestinians an ethnic group. However

page 41 says “Despite the fact that many Palestinians acknowledge an Arab ethnic identity, they carry on with strong commitment of their own culture and their homeland". Throughout the work it stresses that Palestinians do indeed consider themselves Arab. Not only that it’s about Palestinians in Maryland and thus quite limited in scope.

The other source The Penguin Book of Facts I do not believe is a reliable source. Jonney2000 (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jonney, glad you read, I hope you will not remove the ethnic group label from this page again. Regarding your reference to Arab identity, the lead sentence refers to the Arabization of Palestinians already if you didn't notice. Please read through and respond in the other discussion, I believe Nishidani made without doubt a case for Palestinians having this label on their page. Lazyfoxx (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
You are abusing these sources. Your own source says many Palestinians have an Arab ethnic identity!! Jonney2000 (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Even if many Palestinians decided to have an Arab ethnic identity, that does not make the Palestinian ethnicity cease to exist, you have a poor understanding of what an Arab by definition, or someone that identifies as an Arab is.Lazyfoxx (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Well if you want to be NPOV you need to mention that many Palestinians have an Arab ethnic identity not just Arabization whatever that vague term mean. Arabization can mean adoption of Arabic language or Arab culture and or Arab identity. You can have varying degrees where Arabized people many not identity as Arab. Jonney2000 (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry you're incorrect in your assumption, Palestinians are an ethnic group that has been heavily arabized, and that is noted in the lead sentence and supported through many sources. Lazyfoxx (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I do not agree that is your nationalist POV. Jonney2000 (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
It is hard to take this seriously. Just search for "Palestinian ethnicity" at Google Books and you'll find tons of sources. Search at Scholar for academic journal articles. And that doesn't catch the many sources which discuss Palestinian ethnicity without using that exact phrase. Noting that most Palestinians identify as Arabs is irrelevant; such multiple identities are normal in the world. Zerotalk 07:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Page title should be singular, Palestinian

Notwithstanding any _________ sensitivity, the title of this page should be Palestinian. This is the appropriate demonym of a person of Palestine ethnicity, whether or not political.

Demonym (/ˈdɛmənɪm/; δῆμος dẽmos 'people, tribe', ὄνομα ónoma 'name') is a word to identify residents or natives of a particular place, which is derived from the name of that particular place.

The first (sometimes only) definition of Palestinian as an adjective is "a native or inhabitant of Palestine" in most if not all dictionaries, including Wiktionary. [See http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Palestinian] [See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Palestinian]

When used in any phrase on Wikipedia, e.g., Palestinian people, Palestinian leader, Palestinian protester, Palestinian representative, Palestinian shooter, ad infinitum, the user doesn't get redirected to Palestinians, he/she will get the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page Palestinian.

Too many clicks for the normal user to get to this page, one if s/he chooses correctly.

Every time I write one of the above phrases, the wiki-link has to be written [ [Palestinians|Palestinian] ] (improper coding for display only) to appear as Palestinian. I know that from experience. One learns this by clicking, improperly coded Palestinian.

Simplify. Palestinian with remark, "for other uses see _____________"

Thanks. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2015

Please remove "... are an ethnic group". I avoid taking political sides here, but claiming that Palestinian are ethnic group is false.

Rejeting the fact that they are an ethnic group has nothing to do with their national identity (that appeared in the 60s) or their need for a state.

The sources that claim they are ethnic group are not strong enough for such claim and in no way can compete with other wikipedia articles that has any kind of relation to the subject - that means it creates a "domino effect" where you have to modify many wikipedia articles. The complexity of this matter is mentioned in the provided sources themselfs, referring to them as Arabs in certain parts, which adds an other good reason why to remove that line.


Therefore this little edition means that now many wikipedia articles need to be edited, as they in no way help to identity Palestinians as an ethnic group.

In short, Please remove this small line that has quite an impact on article accuracy.

176.12.150.145 (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Done, see below. Jeppiz (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic group, fails WP:OR

I removed the claim about 'ethnic group' as per WP:OR. Please note that this does not mean I say Palestinians aren't an ethnic group, I'm just saying it must be sourced. Three "sources" were given. The first, from ProQuest did not satisfy RS, and even if it did, it only dealt with Palestinians in Maryland, so no support for the claim there. The third source was by David Crystal, an amazing academic! But an academic in linguistics, whatever his views on ethnicity, they are not RS. That left the second source, which is fully RS (a peer-reviewed academic publication) but it says the opposite!. It claims Palestinians are three different ethnic groups, so in direct contrast to saying they are one ethnic group. So please find proper sources before readding the claim. Jeppiz (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Jeppiz here. Doesn't the traditional understanding hold that the Palestinians are a national group i.e. people from historic Palestine (and their descendants) who generally identify as Palestinian? A number of ethnic groups make up the composition of the Palestinian people, who are socially and linguistically part of the broader Arab people. I would think taking the big step of calling the Palestinians a separate ethnic group rather than a national group would require something close to a consensus of RS. So far such a consensus has not been demonstrated. --Al Ameer (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't like the word 'ethnic(ity)' which, once the concept of race was cleansed, rightly, from the language in 1946, took over the same functions. It cannot be adequately defined so as to apply indifferently to a humongous number of groups, despite internal differentiations, but (that is the logical premise) nonetheless it is. This is all complicated here by editorial fights: only Palestinians seem to be challenged everywhere on wiki for the claim of having an 'ethnic' identity, and by editors who, in the same breath, insist that the Jews are an 'ethno-religious' people (in Israel itself though 137 'nationalities' are recognized, all the manifold differences among Israeli Jews are cancelled out in one 'national' definition, while the classification of Arabs is insistent on making political rather than descriptive distinctions). Between the lines, these editors are not willing to look at the merits of the evidence, but rather translate the Israel/Palestine conflict into one of a people with ethnic origins in Palestine qua Israel, and another people who are, it is insisted, not an ethnos, and, as 'Arabs' have no local historical roots, the implication being that they have no historic claim, even if their continuous permanence in the land is longer than most. The Christian Palestinian community has documented descent over two millennia, they survived mostly by infra-sectarian marriages, they have a defined and shared religious and cultural identity, and would clearly fit all definitions as an 'ethnic group'. This is ignored, as they are bundled up with Palestinian 'Arabs' where 'Arab' though a cultural definition, is made to bear an 'ethnic-racial' connotation. In editing the topic, these presuppositions should be born in mind, with the reminder of Edward Said's remark that few national groups have been deprived of their humanity in the eyes of the world more comprehensively than Palestinians,. They should not have to 'pass' stringent tests which are of a technical severity customarily ignored by any other group that claims an ethnic identity. Nishidani (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
To illustrate the paradox above, examine the evidence below:
The nakba is uncontroversially called ‘ethnic cleansing’ and no one in his right mind would doubt the appropriateness of the epithet there.
‘Palestinianhood is defined not only by the land (‘those who lived in the land until 1947’) but also by ethnic descent (‘anyone born to a Palestinian father after that, within Palestine and outside of it’. Raphael Israeli,Palestinians between nationalism and Islam, Vallentine Mitchell, 2008 p.151
Whereas, because of the discursive prejudices I named above, defining ‘Palestinian ethnicity’ within Palestine/Israel is discursively challenged, once you step out of that troubled imbroglio of nitpickety argufying by all sides, it is everywhere stated in books on Jordan that there is a rift between native Jordanians and ‘ethnic Palestinians’.
The struggle for the land, in conflict studies, is very frequently called an ‘ethnic conflict’, and that would be meaningless if only one party was deemed to constitute an ethnicity.
See also here on Israeli Palestinians as a subordinate ethnic minority.
We are in 2015, and there is no reason to treat Palestinian claims to ethnicity as unique among the 5,000 peoples who are normatively given the status of an 'ethnic group', since the literature now does so, from right (Israeli, Glick>) to left.Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
It could very well be that I have a different understanding of what constitutes an ethnic group, but as a proud Palestinian myself, I always viewed my fellow Palestinians as a people/nation with a shared national identity along the lines of the Lebanese people or Syrian people rather than an ethnic group, which I always thought relied more on shared ancestral roots, real or perceived, i.e. Arabs, Berbers, Assyrians, Kurds, Turkmens, Armenians. The Palestinians are a tapestry of different ethnic groups (the indigenous inhabitants who have since been Arabized, Arab tribes, and smaller immigrant communities who have since assimilated into Palestinian society such as the Greeks, Egyptians, Maghrebis, Kurds, Turkmens and Balkan peoples). And it is not strange on Wikipedia to require decent sources, (in this case anthropologists, ethnographers, historians) that describe the Palestinians as an "ethnicity" or "ethnic group". That's not to pick on Palestinians by any means, it's something that should be required for all such articles to avoid the rampant nationalism that has permeated throughout this encyclopedia. "Ethnic clashes" when referring to Jordanians and Palestinians fighting doesn't satisfy that requirement (are the Jordanians an ethnic group too or aren't they a people of largely Bedouin descent who have inhabited Transjordan?) And for the record, the Palestinians being a nation instead of an ethnic group doesn't shrink their claim to Palestine by one iota. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Al Ameer son, thanks for your interesting points. A few points from me in response to some of your implied questions:
  • Recognising this is circular sourcing, it it worth noting that the first paragraph of the ethnic group article applies to Palestinians in every sense.
  • I think the root of the perceived distinction you are raising is the historical pan-Arabism which has been a part of the identity of many Palestinians. Firstly, I understand this sentiment is dying out among Palestinians, although this may be less about science than about the fact that the Arab world has proved time and time again to be utterly disunited, and hopeless in its support of Palestine. However, from a more scientific point of view, it is now clear that there is no such thing as an Arab ethnic group, at least not in the sense it is commonly used. In its broad usage (i.e. not narrowly defined as a Bedouin), "Arab" is either a linguistic group or a panethnic group, or both, but not an ethnic group. The same is true of the concept of Semitic people, an historical ethnic idea which is now obsolete.
  • All ethnic groups are genetic tapestries, because all borders have been porous throughout history. You might consider where Palestine is on that global spectrum by considering relative natural borders vs. other ethnic groups. The region of Palestine is bounded by desert and sea on three of its four sides. That is better than most countries, consider France for example, and even island countries like Britain and Japan have hundreds of years of history of sea based immigration in their histories.
  • Of course, like every other country, some parts of the Palestinian nation may not view themselves as ethnically Palestinian, particularly recent immigrants with their own ethnic identity such as Kurds, Armenians etc. However, if by Greeks you meant Greek Orthodox or similar, then I am not aware of a separate ethnic identity and it would make little sense given the perceived ancient heritage of that community in the region.
I hope that was in some way interesting, and helped to answer your question. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your response Oncenawhile. To be clear, when referring to "Arabs" I was referring specifically to Arab tribes (settled or nomadic) not the linguistic/cultural definition which is far more inclusive. Of course, the earlier non-Arab populations were Arabized in the linguistic/cultural sense over time anyway. Like I said I could be wrong, but I thought ethnic groups were more or less homogeneous while nations could be more ethnically diverse. I still believe Palestinians are a nation like the Lebanese or the Syrians rather than an ethnic group, but in any case, if the Palestinians indeed constitute an ethnicity, shouldn't there be specialized sources (historians, anthropologists, geneticists, ethnographers, etc.) that say so? --Al Ameer (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I wasn't even aware that Palestinians saw themselves as an ethnicity instead of a nation. --Al Ameer (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with much of what you say. The problem is, many sources will say Palestinians are a nation, and many say they are an ethnic group and that is not necessarily (Latin. natio) a contradiction. The contradiction lies in the sloppiness of these terms, even in scholarly sources, since both are inflected by transformations in how the two words were used over the last centuries. My father once astonished two American soldiers whom he befriended on the beach at Waikiki because he realized that their melancholy silence might have reflected anxieties about going to Vietnam (very early in that war). He understood their feelings, as a WW2 vet. Offered them beers, and when one said:' Actually, we are native Americans', he asked with delighted curiosity:'Oh, really! What nation do you hail from?' (followed by a rote list of a dozen major tribes whose histories he had memorized): they beamed: it was the first time in their lives that someone, and someone who wasn't even American, thought of them as they thought of themselves, as belonging to a 'nation' that wasn't just a political reality, but a distinct cultural/historical reality within the state. 'Sir! We've had to come all this way to learn that a foreigner understands who we really are, when our own neighbours have never honoured us by the recognition that we're something more than Americans, we're one of the nations within the nation'.
The same problem exists with definitions of Jews. I beg to differ re 'ethnic' ('an ethnic group, which I always thought relied more on shared ancestral roots, real or perceived,'). Historically, in pre-modern history, continental tribes/nations were subject to the promiscuous tides of ethnic fluxes, and this is particularly true of a notorious crossroad of cultures like Palestine. The Israelite tribes were, to judge from the Bible traditions, once they are threshed out, were a complex medley of groups from Egypt (many in the Exodus narrative have typical Egyptian names) Edom, Arabia, Syria, Phoenicia, Canaan. Since 1948, and it's pretty bizarre for my eyes, huge efforts have been made to redefine the Jewish past in terms of a guarded conservation of the same gene stock, as rabbinical theory hijacks historical facts, so conversion, interbreeding etc., is down played. The 'Arabs' themselves are attested in the area, not, as the cliché has it, from the 7th. century C.E, with the conquest, but a millennium before, in the First Temple Period, and these constant influxes of generic 'Arabs' inflected the constitution of the peoples of ancient Palestine. The southern Hebron hills Palestinians are particularly rich in this aspect, having attested flows from 'Arabs' from the 5-4th century, B.C., the 7th century conquest, and the 17th. century influx of Bedouins settling the town, and intermingling. You can see this in the 'tribal' definitions that still persist for quarters and hamula. A pathology of modernity was to recast the notion of a unified polity in racial terms, defining the heterogeneous populations as one nation and ethnicity, and our troubled usage reflects this. In my ideal world, I would chuck away a word like 'ethnic': I hate it, and I think it a cover term for 'race', with all of the toxic implications that bears. But here, we have to go by sources, and, sources keep telling me Palestinians are also defined as an 'ethnic group'. Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Lazyfoxx attempts to start an "edit war"?

I am not sure why, but he re-added the "ethnic group" part once again without trying to continue discussion over the matter. Could perhaps anyone step forward and remove that small line again, please?

In another matter, Sophronius of Jerusalem should be removed from the picture in my opinion, as he was born in Byzantine Empire and was most likely an Arab. I am quite confused why he is even mentioned in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.171.88 (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you seem to have an aversion to the "small line", it is your right to have your own personal opinions about the Palestinians, but Wikipedia is based on sources, which I provided. Are you disagreeing with the new reliable sources I provided after Jeppiz requested I do? Lazyfoxx (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see Lazyfoxx edit warring. I removed the claim some days ago, and explained on the talk page why the sources were not good. Lazyfoxx found other, better sources and then put the claim back with these sources in. I saw it as a good example of how Wikipedia should work, and the article was improved. So as the user who was "reverted", I say there was no edit warring, only good editing. Jeppiz (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


Where does it provide evidence that they are an ethnic group? From my understanding, the source on cgpublisher is based on collection of data and interviews. I'd like to know where it has done solid research that concludes that they are indeed with ethnic group and why this particular research is seen more highly than any other research that is mentioned in the article.

I don't see where it provides proof or source of why they are an ethnic group, but mentions them as one because that is how the type of people he collected the data from identify themselfs. This in no way can count as a solid proof to why they are an ethnic group, which continues to make this matter disputed. It is a good source, yes, but it does not deal with the ethnicity issue from what I am seeing so far. (If you could provide quotes, that would be useful but I doubt it would effect much the outcome)

That could be added to any other academic research you might look for, where when it will need to refer to certain ethnic group among the Palestinians, it will refer to them as "Palestinian ____" where the blank can be replace with ethnicity.

Examples: Ethnic groups and the meaning of urban place: The German Colony and Palestinians and Jews in Haifa Chapter 6 – Barriers Impeding Access to Higher Education: The Effects of Government Education Policy for Disadvantaged Palestinian Arab and Jewish Citizens Y-chromosomal STRs in two populations from Israel and the Palestinian Authority Area: Christian and Muslim Arabs Epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in Arabs in Jordan: a comparative study between Jordanians and Palestinians

Additionally: " That left the second source, which is fully RS (a peer-reviewed academic publication) but it says the opposite!", you said it yourself. A source that was shared by Lazyfoxx himself. Doesn't that adds to the fact on how disputed this subject it? I might be wrong with Lazyfoxx starting an edit war, but you see that this is a disputed matter. Wait before you modify something, see if anybody can respond to that. Otherwise that page would end up getting modified on that line on a daily basis.

In fact, if you continue reading this wiki article you'll see the following (obviously with the already included sources:) The history of a distinct Palestinian national identity is a disputed issue amongst scholars.[33] Legal historian Assaf Likhovski states that the prevailing view is that Palestinian identity originated in the early decades of the 20th century.[33] "Palestinian" was used to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine in a limited way until World War I.[22][23] The first demand for national independence of the Levant was issued by the Syrian–Palestinian Congress on 21 September 1921.[34] After the creation of the State of Israel, the exodus of 1948, and more so after the exodus of 1967, the term came to signify not only a place of origin, but also the sense of a shared past and future in the form of a Palestinian state.[22] According to Rashid Khalidi, the Palestinian nationalism developed a historiography that "anachronistically read back into the history of Palestine over the past few centuries, and even millennia, a nationalist consciousness and identity that are in fact relatively modern.".[35] The modern Palestinian people now understand their identity as encompassing the heritage of all ages from biblical times up to the Ottoman period.[36]

In conclusion: This issue is already mention in this wiki article, among other articles similar to it, and starting the current article that Palestinians are an ethic group like it's a solid fact and agreed upon everyone is just wrong.

On the side note: Any opinions on the Sophronius of Jerusalem matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.171.88 (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Please review WP:Soap and [WP:TL:DR]. Question, have you ever been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia before? Lazyfoxx (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's go over this one by one: 1. Propaganda. Why do you think I spread propaganda? As already mentioned, I did not provide my own source and instead relay on websites you shared. There was even a source you shared and it conflicted with your claims. Additionally I quoted phrases other wikipedia user/s have added to the article, and you can see on what source they relayed on. 2. Opinion pieces. I tend to type "in my opinion" in the aim to be polite. I base my opinions on sources, but that perhaps is an issue with my writing style. 3. Scandal mongering. I don't think I even need to explain why that is not the case, as I assume you've read our conversation. 4. Self-promotion. I highly doubt this article has anything to do with me. 5. Advertising, marketing or public relations. I don't see where profit is gained here. I do keep a natural point of view, but disagree with calling Palestinians an ethnic group for the reasons above (It's a group made of different ethnic groups)

Reading through your previous discussion it seems like you believe it is "known to all" "fact" that Palestinians are an ethnic group, while it is obvious that is not the case just from reading through our discussion (or the previous discussions you had).

I will not send you far, and instead tell you to take your time and read through some historic articles on wikipedia. This way you will know when the Palestinian nationality (in the sense of unity among different ethnic groups) appeared and why. You want to go as far during the roman times? You have the Jewish - Roman war, when the land was renamed to Palestine. You want to go back to the crusaders? You have military campaigns over the land, which was called "kingdom of Jerusalem" when Jerusalem was conquered. Many different ethnic groups lived there, but I have yet to see one that identify itself as a "Palestinian".

We can clearly see that there has been a period of time of many ethnic groups were living in Palestine. When some of them merge under one flag they don't automatically create a new ethnic group.

As stated before, Palestine is used to describe a geographical area. Sophronius, for example, didn't see himself belong to the "Palestinian people" as no such thing existed yet. Not to mention his place of birth. It was only later in history when people of different ethnicity wished to create an independent state called "Palestine".

I also find it amusing that you want to swap Sophronius for St. George, but I assume that is the result of someone who believes it is an ethnic group, or existed as a nation during that time. This is the very reason why I recommend removing it and swapping Sophronius with someone who is in no doubt a Palestinian. You are also welcome to read the Arabic Wiki page and check out the sources they provided. 84.108.171.88 (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani you mentioned the ethnic clashes between the Native (Bedouin Hashemite) Jordanians and the Palestinian refugees/refugee descendants, but that's not the only one (although probably the most known since by now the Palestinians have become the majority in Jordan)ץ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy355 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Palestinians in Jordan are customarily called 'ethnic Palestinians', as numerous sources arttest. It is rather silly therefore to object to the idea of a Palestinian ethnic group, of the same origin, just a few miles across the border.Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Precisely, Nishidani, "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a socially-defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language and/or dialect and sometimes ideology, manifests itself through symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc." It is indeed rather silly that this is one of the few ethnic groups that requires a source to have the word ethnic that in the lead at all. Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Lazyfoxx has now brought additional sources, and we are done here. Frankly, if the Palestinians' self-identification does not qualify them as an ethnic group, then no other ethnic group in the world can exist either. Ethnic groups are defined in the real world not by hard science but by consensus, much like wikipedia. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

I would like to request the location of the stated consensus to remove infoboxes from every ethnic group article, if either of you could provide it I would appreciate it, as per the confusion, thank you. @PacificWarrior101 and Bolter21: Lazyfoxx (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lazyfoxx: There was a recent RFC at WT:ETHNIC, and the result was formalized as WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. Favonian (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES --Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Thankyou both! Lazyfoxx (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Understanding

"The modern Palestinian people now understand their identity".

  • What the fuck does "now understand" mean?
  • Is there anything we can connect this properly to (school materials)?
  • Who is the one that "now understands" exactly (Palestinian Dentists, Palestinian Runway Models, Notable Palestinians)?

p.s. where can I find information about current state of the Arabs and others' support of the Palestinians? Omysfysfybmm (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The full sentence is "The modern Palestinian people now understand their identity as encompassing the heritage of all ages from biblical times up to the Ottoman period"--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC).
The editor makes a good point. It is an odd phrase, not used for other ethnicities. We could just as well have a similar phrase at Jews: "The modern Jewish people now understand their identity as encompassing the heritage of biblical times". Evolution of national historiography is common across all national identities. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

The line says Palestinians are related to other Levantines and then include a list of Levantines and Jewish divisions (Ashkenazi, Mizrahi etc.), also "Mediterranean race" is not an ethnic group and Canaanites are non-exist today.. Shouldn't we just write: Other Levantines, Semitic people: Jews, Samaritans, other Arabs. (Assyrians are far and already included in Semitic). In addition, this whole line is unsourced.

  • A source for the connection with Jews can be this (Although I think we may find a better one): link
  • This may be used to explain Palestinian relation with Samaritans. link.

What about Assyrians? I know Jews are genetically related to them but what about Palestinians? Anyone has a source? And any other offers to improve this line in the infobox?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian are in fact mixed people

Palestinian are Arabized and islamized mixed people and not Arabs.--Romano Marchese (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Source it baby (and you better bring a better sourced consensus that opposes the current sourced consensus--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Palestinians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Fatah, Hamas, PFLP-GC, UNRWA et al.

Why is there no mention of these bodies intrinsic to the cause in the lead? All I see is way too much stats about my brothers and sisters are spread. I wonder if anyone can get through the first paragraph without nodding off. Who wrote this hot mess? Also, what would make Khalidi so important as to have his name in the fucking lead? There are others with better contributions. Martyrs who did not sell out.

Collapse discussion thread opened by sock of blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Weak evidence for "ethnic group", better to refer to them simply as "a people"

The evidence for Palestinians being an ethnic group is very weak. As this article demonstrates, their language is Arabic, their culture is Arabic, and their national symbols are Arabic. I do not see any evidence clearly demonstrating an ethnic identity.

Palestinian identity is a territorial identity like that of Lebanese or Iraqi in the Middle East, that has typically identified the territories within what was the British Mandate of Palestine as being what is considered Palestine. The identity is complicated by the fact that in recent history the leadership in the Palestinian territories who have been seeking peace with Israel now regard the West Bank and Gaza Strip as the state of Palestine as opposed to previous larger claims. As regards to Palestinian nationalism, it has manifested itself as a territorial nationalism of those inhabitants not wishing to be part of Israel or in the past part of Egypt or Jordan as well.--CanadianWriter5000 (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There are two groups. Historians and anthropologists who say they are an ethnic group and historians and anthropologists who say they are not. Who do you belive? I offered to make a section on it in the past but met with heavy resistance from other editors. (to be honest my offer was not so apealing).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe that such a contended claim should not be featured in the intro as a statement of fact. The words "an ethnic group" in the intro should be replaced by "a people". No one disputes that there are a people who identify as Palestinians.--CanadianWriter5000 (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
In my view they are more of a nation rather than a people. The current "ethnic" consensus has sources, so if you want to change it, you need to bring sources.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This was discussed earlier and the archives are rich in further material precisely on this. As User:Oncenawhile pointed out, (aside from many sources which were supplied) it depends on how you define 'ethnic' which is today used synonymously with people (but not 'nation') in English. The editor User:Jeppiz who raised this most recently is scrupulous, and listened to the evidence and arguments given. His doubts were seconded by our one (outstanding) Palestinian editor here User:Al Ameer son. Nothing was decided, though I think Oncenawhile's point that in the common acceptance of 'ethnic' as reflected in Ethnic group fits Palestinians had weight. I might add that the 'Arabic' hence not ethnic argument doesn't work: the fact that Tahitans, Hawaiians and Maoris are Polynesian people, and, at least until the whites arrived, could quickly apprehend each other's meaning, meant that they spoke dialects of the one language, and shared many customs etc. But Maoris, Tahitans, Rapa Nui, Marquesans, Tongans, Samoans etc., are still regarded as distinctive ethnic groups by anthropologists.Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Fully agree. Perhaps Jonathan M. Hall's widely quoted statement that "ethnic identity is socially constructed and subjectively perceived" sums it up quite well. It exists because it exists. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not an expert on the topic of Palestinian identity, but a significant issue involves the Wikipedia policy of due and undue weight on the topic of Palestinians being viewed as an ethnic group. It should be noted that the Palestinian Liberation Organization, that has obviously had a major influence on the history and direction of the Palestinian struggle for independence, in its 1968 Palestinian National Covenant stated: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation. It also said The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians. But throughout the document it repeatedly mentions the Palestinian Arab people, the need for Arab unity, and the connection of Palestinians to the Arab nation. This link shows the document: http://www.iris.org.il/plochart.htm. The Wikipedia article on the Covenant says that after the Oslo Accords large parts of it were wholly or partially nullified (probably involving the material showing opposition to the existence of the state of Israel).--CanadianWriter5000 (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Some believe there is an Arab ethnicity, but most scholars do not - they see it as a pan-ethnic group. As a parallel, some believe Ashkenazi's are an ethnic group, others believe Jews as a whole are an ethnic group. The concept of Arab unity was a deeply political concept, for obvious reasons, but has dissipated in recent years. Arab identity was created in much the same time period as Palestinian identity in the late 19th / early 20th century. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Just for some background. I've seen this argument dozens of times, and it has POV sides to it. Many Israelocentric editors define Jews as an 'ethnonational' group, they worked hard to deny that either nation or ethnic group were appropriate to the people whose lands they occupy. For them, all of these nice distinctions do not apply when defining their own group, but must be rigorously asserted about the 'other' group. Thus a Falasha Ethiopian, a Peruvian Inca, is part of the Jewish ethnos, once conversion is completed, though a few decades earlier they spoke no Hebrew, had no blood bonds, nor marked cultural identity with Jews from Yemen or the spouse of a Russian who had just one person of Jewish descent in his recent ancestry. That's how 'ethnos' is suddenly ascribed to them. But this is denied to anyone who is Palestinian, though their ancestors might have interbred with other people in Palestine for thousands of years, speak that version of Arabic, share all of those distinctive customs, of dress, culture, cooking, attachment to a land etc., that anthropologists recognize as forming an ethnic tradition. The only argument they have is political statements made in the 1960s crafted to (a) define the Palestinians a people (b) in the context of eliciting recognition , financial backing and political support from Arab states. The definition of who is an ethnic Jew is notoriously difficult, but no problem:it's an ethnos; the definition of a Palestinian people is easy - they haven't had the blessing of a long theological and literary heritage identifying them as distinct from 'Arabs' and therefore having their ethnicity recognized must await for that distinct, improbable day, in which Israel releases them from their conceptual subordination to their masters, who say 'no'. In such cases, we can't adopt the political definition of the colonial/master power, discursive or political as it may be, but (I) look at the usual meaning of ethnic group in usage and (ii) how that usage is used in reliable sources. The verdict is that it is sufficiently attested to warrant calling the Palestinians an ethnic group. Several decades ago their clan, and local identities, might not have spontaneously engendered this large cross regional sense of a unified identity. Israel's conflict with them has produced the paradoxical outcome of forging that sense of a collectively shared sense of being a single people, with distinctive traditions and customs, which they might not have had earlier, but which now serve to classify groups as ethnic unities.Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I think this discussion is meaningless. For me and for most central-left to far right wing Israelis, Palestinians are just the name of the Arabs who lived in Mandatory Palestine in 1947 and their nationalism was invented in the late 19th century to counter Zionism and today the name is for those who live in the Palestinian territories. We all see it as an absurd term and therefore we will forever have those discussions in this talk page. This is the Israeli point of view, which many non-Israelis share it. In order for this discussion to change anything, CanadianWriter5000 would have to present a large number of sources sharing a strong consensus not to call Palestinians an "ethnic group". Those sources need to be reliable enough to counter the existing sources and only then, we might say that the term "ethnic group" is disputed between scholars, which I belive is, but not enough to start researching it. So if we can't do that, and since this was discussed before, this is meaningless.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
What Israelis might think of Palestinians has no relevance since they have generally very little knowledge of them other than as 'terrorists', and the political, historical and cultural investment in their non-recognition is so huge as to make reference to it irrelevant. Zionism is just a nationalism invented in the late 19th century to give Jews a collective identity they never had (here,here, here, here, all for the Gerrman Jewish sense that Eastern Jews were a threat to their national identity), most Jews never thought of emigrating to Israel as their 'homeland' (the 'pious rhetoric' of the l'shanah haba b'Yerusalem/'next year in Jerusalem' cliché was a saying never taken literally, but often meant 'next year in America' in usage and their preferred destination was anywhere in the United States (Harvey Wish,Society and Thought in America, Longmans Green 1952 p.249), Western Europe or the British Empire, etc.etc.etc. You are quite correct that the method required is through substantial sourcing of a contrary view explicitly stating that the Palestinians are not an ethnic group. I have over time produced a substantial number of sources, for example, showing that the idea of Jews as an ethnonational group is strongly contested in very good academic sources. No one will budge on adapting the lead of Jews to reflect that diversity of opinion. Editors take it, against all the force of scholarship on the historical complexities involved in such a definition, as an irrefragible truth that only an ignorant outsider (notoriously 'anti-semetic like myself) would even stop a second to entertain. I don't think this attitude should be mirrored here, and I commend Bolter for his insistence here that this is an RS issue, not to be influenced by heteroethnic biases.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This was just my message to CanadianWriter, sort of to explain him the situation and why I think this discussion has no value. Again I say, the thoughts about Palestinians are my thoughts, I am not that of an hater to go and read a ton of academic material of the "Palestinian legitimacy problem" as called here sometimes and I have no intention to defend my opinions on Jewish nationalism. I wouldn't oppose a section about what you wrote in an article about Jews just like I think it would quite make sense to have a one on teh Palestinians' article, as long as it is sourced and doesn't take over the article and make it a broken battlefield-like article.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for barging in. I appreciate your work here. Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
All I try to say is that there is a big background of politics and different mentalism that brought this 100 year old argument and in order to understand it, everyone need to understand the mentalism and each side's definition of things such as "ethnic" and "nation" (by each side I mean the Zionists, the Arabists and the scholars who speak in a "European" language) and therefore I think that only sources will solve this issue, not forum-like debates.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Well said Bolter. A perfect representation of WP:IPCOLL. This perspective is what will make Wikipedia stand out from all other tertiary sources on disputed topics, and bring real value to readers. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Asking someone to provide evidence to demonstrate that something does not exist, i.e. proving that identification of Palestinians as an ethnic group, is problematic because it is not asking for what does exist. Reliable sources where expertise in the subject is shown are required to make any determination on the matter, and then the matter of due and undue weight is also important. This could take time to review available sources and I believe that WP:EXPERT will be needed.--CanadianWriter5000 (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the question to start the review is what does "Palestinian" refer to? Does "Palestinian" refer to a single identity or several identities (i.e. as noted here a Palestinian ethnicity, Palestinian citizens, Palestinians as an Arab people) . That is the central issue of this article. Above I have shown the case of the 1968 Palestinian National Convenant of the PLO recognizing an "Arab Palestinian people" part of an "Arab nation". However the same Covenant also brought up the matter of Palestinian citizenship identity by saying that it would recognize Jews who had resided in mandatory Palestine before 1947 as Palestinians. It should be noted that there are also many sources acknowledging the existence of a Palestinian nationalism and a Palestinian nation. The following source here talks about Palestinians identifying as being within the Arab world while also identifying themselves as descendents of ancient peoples in the region such as the Canaanites, see here: [11]. This reflects the statement in the intro of identification of Palestinians being culturally and linguistically Arab due to Arabization.--CanadianWriter5000 (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Bolter had the last word on this (he bolstered the gate, after the horses of chat were given free rein, and were returned to the yard of policy) and set conditions. The consensus is, this is not a forum, and specific sources on denying Palestinian ethnicity are the only thing that matter if you wish to make a case for reconsidering that phrasing. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I think I need to review the discussion here and perhaps consider having a new proposal that acknowledges those that recognize a Palestinian ethnicity as well as acknowledging other Palestinian identities (i.e. Palestinian citizens, Palestinians as Arabs like the PLO describes them as) in the intro. I have an admitted bias in that I tend to take the side of the pan-Arabist perspective that Arab people in the Middle East have been divided by the historic ruling European powers into territories designed then for those European powers' interests. That bias not been helpful in how I put forward this issue at the start.--CanadianWriter5000 (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Pan-Arab bias, huh? Is that really the full picture of your biases? Nishidani's analysis from 08:29, 22 April 2016 suggests that there is often another bias (a more bigoted one) behind such a perspective. For the avoidance of doubt, this is a rhetorical question; Wikipedia does not oblige editors to admit all our biases. But perhaps if you applied the same passion to the article on Egyptians, I would be less sceptical.
Without sources there is no justification for a change to the lead. The heart of your point here applies to all ethnicities, not just this one. I suggest you stop wasting your own time here, and perhaps discuss this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups.
Oncenawhile (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
First, in responding to your accusations, you interpretation of my motives is wrong. I regard Israel as occupying the territories of a widely recognized sovereign state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and I personally think the article "Palestine" should refer to the State of Palestine now that it is widely recognized like the article on Kosovo is. That being said I do not consider there to be "Egyptian" or "Palestinian" ethnicities, in my outlook they are Arabs who have been divided by circumstances, especially due to European colonialism resulting in the Middle East having states with completely arbitrary borders. I do not spend as much time on articles on the Middle East because I am currently more interested in general political articles and articles on World War II and the breakup of Yugoslavia. I am fine with closing the discussion, but your statements about my intentions go against Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks by insinuating that I am a bigot in a condescending manner that is intending to put my efforts into disrepute, that is highly offensive and inaccurate and I would appreciate it if you rescinded that accusation.--CanadianWriter5000 (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Oncenawhile was talking about a strain of bigotry behind the kind of argument you advanced, meaning (see my background remarks he alluded to), that many people adopt an argument which looks to them sound without realizing that it was often the outcome of bigoted opinions, whose form and shape disappear over time.
We've tried to reason here. Most of the reasons are in the archives. But since this has offended you, just reflect that when you state as your premise an analogy

I have an admitted bias in that I tend to take the side of the pan-Arabist perspective that Arab people in the Middle East have been divided by the historic ruling European powers into territories designed then for those European powers' interests.

Arabs who have been divided by circumstances, especially due to European colonialism resulting in the Middle East having states with completely arbitrary borders.

Someone else might think to rephrase the point to illustrate the tenuousness of the premise.

Algonquians (cf Arabs) of Canada have been divided by the historic ruling English and French powers into territories (Abenaki, Maliseet, Cree, Innu, Mi'kmaq, etc.etc.etc (cf Iraqis, Syrians, Jordanians, Palestinians) designed then for those European powers' interests.

I'm sorry you are personally offended, but there's little warrant for it in the exchanges with you other editors have provided. Good luck Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Nish - this is a very compelling analogy.
CanadianWriter, I apologize. I tried to avoid making a direct accusation, but having reread my comment I recognize that it contained a strong implication. I retract any implication therein.
Oncenawhile (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Michael Prior and James Parkes are NOT reliable sources on palestinian history. They are theologians writing personal essays. Personal essays aren't history.--Monochrome_Monitor 06:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess you want to try and tear to pieces the definition in the lead? If so, before doing so, look at the definition of Jews, which is the most egregious, anti-historical, piece of WP:SYNTH I know of on wiki ethnic articles (and contradicts its own sources). It is resolutely defended despite all notifications that Albert Einstein, a physicist and Louis Brandeis, a Supreme Court justice, Atzmon a geneticist etc.etc.etc. are not historians of the Jewish people.
Rephrase that in logical terms and it means
The history of Palestine can only be written by qualified historians
Michael Prior and James Parkes were not primarily qualified as historians
Therefore they cannot be cited for the history of that country.
You don't observe this rule yourself since you repeatedly cite journalists with no knowledge of genetics for articles on genetics. The parallel pages on Israel /History of Israel uses theologians, primary religious texts written by theologians (Genesis, Nehemiah, Sefer HaCharedim Mitzvat Tshuva etc.etc.etc.) to source its history, or theologians themselves (John Barton), Rabbi James Ponet, Rabbi Abraham P.Bloch fropm Brooklyn, political scientists (Ahron Bregman), sociologists (Roger Friedland), attorneys and political advisors David Fromkin, a duchess, Jill Hamilton (whose book was written before she began to do graduate studies); etc.etc.etc.
In short you raise the RS high bar to object to Palestinian articles, but ignore the fact these high standards are nowhere observed on historical articles dealing with the same topic in Jewish articles.Nishidani (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The article Jews has "good" article status. This does not.("Jebusites", how cute! We don't even know who the jebusites were!) There's a big difference between the hebrew bible and the opinion of an anti-zionist supercessionist cleric.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
What's "good article" status have to do with the price of chips? GA does not mean a stamp of approval on content. You picked two sources to question, one by a deeply committed philosemite, the other by a deeply committed pro-Palestinian. Parity in opposite POVs. But what appears to determine your objection to both is that in either case, 'Christian' values drove their scholarship. You really ought to get over this animosity: Christianity is just a form of Judaism that dropped the ethnic restrictiveness and idea that the transcendental utopia was attached to a specific piece of real estate on the planet. In any case, Einstein, Brandeis et al, fail your criterion, so if you want to prove your objection here is serious, show me that you can object to the same ostensible sourcing error there.Nishidani (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
You need to discard your weird preconceptions about Jon Entine. He has plenty of knowledge about genetics. He runs the genetic literacy project. It's an offshoot of the science literacy project, an NGO which runs classes for journalists so they don't publish psuedoscientific bullshit. Next, two wrongs don't make a right. You're stretching his credibility. He's a theologian. Theologians often learn languages like hebrew, greek, aramaic, latin... or even Arabic. That doesn't make them historians. Unless you're fine with me citing William E. Blackstone?--Monochrome_Monitor 07:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
"Ethnic restrictiveness"- you sound a lot like Marcion. Judaism was only ethnically restricted because the romans banned conversion to it and jews had no peace to evangelize since. I'm afraid you're basically saying "Christianity is improved judaism that has lost its backwards tribal bullshit", which might I say, is a highly condescending and orientalist outlook. Inclusivity aside, christianity is not JUST judaism with gentiles. It's judaism without monotheism.--Monochrome_Monitor 07:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
As for your gaza statement, that's an extremely offensive thing to say. Israelis don't bomb gaza because they hate muslims. They bomb gaza because hamas shoots rockets at israel from gaza and digs tunnels from gaza into israel and gazans elected hamas. My dad's family came to america because of the pogroms in ukraine, and I don't recall anyone mentioning that leaflets were dropped from the sky reading "PLEASE EVACUATE IMMEDIATELY: RUSSIANS ARRIVE IN 15 MINUTES" But I would argue that the current "stabbing operations" perpetrated by Palestine Arabs constitute "low-tech" pogroms.--Monochrome_Monitor 07:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
More and more you are sounding like a spokesperson for a hasbara organization. There is no individuality, in short, in your statements; it is the standard boilerplate, and is fatal to good editing for an encyclopedia.
You are, as usual, unfocused, and adopt the rhetorical trick of ignoring what you have no answer to. You used Cnaan Lipshiz and Yori Yanover as sources for genetics when they are cub reporters that know zilch about genetics and history. You defended the use of Jon Entine as authoritative, being, putatively, a geneticist, for weeks, only quietly dropping it as a line of defense when I challenged you to show where his curriculum indicates any university level acquaintance with the subject. So you have the usual manipulative approach to articles: anything that blandishes the content result you desire is RS on one page; no high quality source is acceptable on another page if the authors are, in this case, 'Christian' or respected historians of the Middle East, and competent scholars in semitic languages. In one, the POV suits you, so everything can go in; in the other the POV is one you despise, and you'll grasp for any straw to try and undermine its credibility by talking of an RS highbar.
As to Christianity you admit you haven't read the New Testament, let alone its intricate scholarship, and I'd bet you haven't read Marcion either, so drop it. I know the subject thoroughly from the inside, and since early boyhood repudiated it for many reasons: my nature is indifferent to belief systems, - they are all totalitarian in that they eviscerate one's abilities to step outside of what are corporative systems of blind assent to anything the interpretative caste might say, and when religion, as opposed to ethics, mixes with politics, or science, or history you'll get public insanity from the discursive inanity.
p.s. You find everything 'offensive' except Israeli offensives. You have the 'terror tunnel syndrome' of hasbara handouts. Jews throughout their history dug tunnels, used caves, to defend themselves, or prepare guerilla attacks against their oppressors. Palestine/Israel is pitted with them, and they are the object of excited tourist visits by Israelis admiring the work put into them by their ancestors as they resisted the Roman imperial powers. 'Israelis' don't regularly carpet-bomb Gaza. The government and the IDF make those decisions and implement them, Israelis do not. Russians aren't responsible for the slaughter of Chechens, nor Americans for the genocide enacted by their government in Vietnam/Cambodia;nor the Chinese for the destruction of Tibet; populations aren't implicated in anything unless, individually, they assent to what is done, ostensibly in their name. 99% of Gazan 'rockets' are things that fizzle in the sky and hit the southern desert (the estimated explosive content of their mortars/rockets over 51 days, in hitting the desert, is 40 tons; Israel 'responded' with at least 4,900 bombing runs, 6,000 tons of bombs/rockets, and artillery shelling ran over the 10,000 figure. The result? I Israeli child killed, 553 Gazan children killed. You may be a whiz at mathematics, but your capacity to infer the obvious is questionable) 99% of Israel's ultra-sophisticated rocketry hits the designated target. You're talking about aborigines brandishing woomeras at white men with rifles, or Kitchener's Maxim guns mowing down 23,000 tribesmen for the loss of 48 soldiers at Omdurman. :::::That said, you dislike Prior and Parkes. If you think them inappropriate, go to RSN.Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Ireton

Much of the local Palestinian population in Nablus is believed to be descended from Samaritans who converted to Islam.[1] Even today, certain Nabulsi surnames including Muslimani, Yaish, and Shakshir among others, are associated with a Samaritan origin.[1]

  1. ^ a b Sean Ireton (2003). "The Samaritans – A Jewish Sect in Israel: Strategies for Survival of an Ethno-religious Minority in the Twenty First Century". Anthrobase. Retrieved 29 November 2007.

While on the subject of reliable sources, we do not usually allow MA theses. Even PhD theses are treated with caution, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. That eliminates this one, even though it is interesting. Zerotalk 03:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Quite true. There's just one point I'd like you to reconsider, while deferring to your decision (remove text with unreliable source, see talk page).

The only point I’d like feedback on is that Ireton’s MA has been accepted as an important contribution in academic Samaritan studies. Reinhold Pummer is the doyen of Samaritan scholarly studies, and he is not alone in thinking Ireton's paper sufficiently well-done to warrant reference to, and inclusion of its results in, his recent revised book:

I don't want to lower the high bar we insist on in these areas, but the policy guideline does not quite appear to cover this anomaly? Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Samaritan and Jewish descent

Some Palestinian families descend from Arabized Jews, such as the Mahamra clan of Yatta.[1]

  1. ^ 'This is a conflict between brothers; it's all a big misunderstanding'

I've come across this for almost 2 decades. The source should actually, if edited in, read:

Tsvi Misinai is the source, or intermediary for 2 Yatta Palestinians who seem to be confirming his theory, which has zero status, in the form he presents it, in scholarship. The 2 happen to have contradictory stories. One claims to be a member of the Mahamra clan, the very one from which, incidently, the killers in the June 2016 Tel Aviv shooting hail from. The other from the Sawarka Bedouin clan of Al Arish in Egypt. Our article says Bedouins are from the Arabian peninsula, but this one claims his family is of indigenous Jewish origins converted to Islam. Everything is possible. One of these stories holds that a 10th of the population of Yatta itself consists of covert Jews, but not originative of Palestine, but rather descended from a Jew called Mehamar who several centuries ago was expelled from the Arabian Peninsula.

This particular story came into circulation after a Norwegian tourist guide,Tormod Lundgren Hansen, picked up the gossip n the late 70s. It got some minor attention in Richard Oestermann's Born Again, Gefen Publishing House Ltd, 1999 pp.90ff.

There are any number of reasons why this might be useful for POV partying: (a) Palestinians in Yatta have lands in Area C, and pleading Jewish credentials is a card to play (b) inter-clan hostilities, leading to hamula links with Jewish settlers, who have been there since the early British Mandate (c) settler interests, since the claim would validate the idea that the land, though in the hands of apostates, is Jewish (I think there's a Talmudic ruling on that). Likewise it might be denied, as uncomfortable to Palestinian national aspirations,etc.etc. In short, until some serious groundwork by anthropologists gets into the nitty gritty and analyses it, this is just gossip, and can't be used.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

MM

this 08:21, 20 June 2016 alteration] of this is inserting a POV spin on the original text, which does not say ‘though some only do so in order’: It says:

Villagers typically trace their family or their hamula’s origin back to a more recent past in the Arabian peninsula. Many avowed descent from some nomadic tribe that migrated from Arabia to Palestine either during or shortly after the Islamic conquests. By such a claim they inserted their family’s history into the narrative of Arab and islamic civilization and connected themselves to a genealogy that possessed greater local and contemporary prestige than did ancient or pre-islamic descent.'

Your justification reads: 'that is true. many often though? also not all are lying'.

You appear to be incapable of just transcribing fairly and correctly the original sources, because of some private evaluation of how anything looks spin-wise. This has nothing to do with the truth or lying. We have 'many' inserting that claim, transformed (WP:OR) into some only (of the many). Don't persist in meddling with the plain language of sources, please, which only looks like you are trying to, without textual support judge, that of the 'many' who make a claim, 'some' are just making a claim, and therefore (implicit) the others are stating not a claim but a truth/reality.Nishidani (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I would have loved to put in the actual wording, but I knew you would object to that. I thought you would think it was a positive spin.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Israel statistics

In the infobox, a 2013 source of the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics reveal that there are there are some 1,400,000 Arabs in Israel. But we all know that not all of them identify as Palestinians. According to a research (in Hebrew) made by Israeli Professor of Sociology Sammy Smooha, some only 60% of the Israeli–Arabs identify as Palestinians (some as Palestinian–Arabs and some as Palestinian–Israelis). Should we add a note?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not a bad point to raise. No one of course, not even Smooha, that the Arab population of Israel descends from the Palestinian Arab population remaining within the state of Israel after 1948. Worth thinking about and checking around. To self-identify is one thing, ethnic origin another. The same problem emerges in disputes over the number of Jews in various countries, like the US, given the variations between those who are of Jewish descent, and those who register themselves as Jewish, etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Generally Jews are Jews according to religion (I doubted god at the age of 3 and yet I am a Jew cause my mother is). Palestinians are exclusively a nation unlike Jews who might be considered an Ethno-religious group (the religion is based on a nation, the "Sons of Israel") I don't think that comparing the Palestinians to Jews will be the right thing. The term Palestinians simply refer to the non-Jewish or all indigenous people (non-migrants) who lived in Mandatory Palestine in 1947. A similar example might be Syria. The term Syrian pretty much refer to someone whose origins are within the borders of Mandatory Syria (exluding Lebanon). Now Alexandratta was part of Syria for a short while and there are Arabs there (i.e. not Turkish) but today Alexandratta is part of Turkey. Can the people in Alexandratta be called Syrians? And if so, is it correct to refer to those who identify as Turkish as Syrians? Today indeed Arab-Israelis live in the region of Palestine but they are citizens of Israel and some don't feel like identifying as Palestinians. The fact that Um Rashrash (where Eilat is today) is only a few kilometers from Aqaba and yet Aqaba citizens are subjects of the Jordanian Kingdom while Um Rashrash refugees demand return to Palestine, is one of the things the establish the opinion that the Palestinians are not an ethnic group and although I am not willing to change the article's lead, I still stand behind this opinion, and therefore I think that even though the Arab-Israelis are subjected to old PLO charter and fall in the category of Palestinians, I don't think it is right to say that a society such as the Druze ir others are Palestinians if they disagree. I am not asking to change the number in the Infobox, just to add a note saying not all Arab-Israelis identify as Palestinians and according to one reliable research, only 60% do.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 02:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Generally, these issues should be simple, but prove immensely complex when examined, because the methodologies to achieve an objective judgement are flawed by political interests from either side. Figures are dated, perceptions shift over time, and the ethnic categories have political uses, and each interest group pulls the available data one way or another. I usually don’t touch this stuff because I prefer avoiding headaches. Use the same logic on the Israeli Jews page, and you would have to figure out how in the fuck to readjust the actual given figure for ‘core Israeli Jews’ when large numbers of the Haredi population, 750,000,(10%) of Israel’s population, should be subtracted, for example, because doctrinally, the Haredi don’t recognize the secular entity of Israel, and see themselves as Jews, not Israeli Jews.

  • (a)The info box has an Israeli gov source stating there are approximately 1.658 million Arab residents in Israel, not as we have it 1,470,000. So the infobox source is out of synch with the data.
  • (b)The source in any any case does not mention ‘Palestinians’ but ‘Israeli Arabs’
  • (c) there is a gap of roughly 200,000 between the 2 figures.
  • (d) Israel’s Arab population, as you say, descends from Arabs registered as citizens of Palestine under the British Mandate down to 1948.
  • (e) There is a distinct difference between ethnic origin and self-identification. They are two different registers. The Palestinian official view, which happens to be the historic reality, is that Israel’s Arabs are ethnic-Palestinians because they were born there, or descend from Palestinian Arabs born there.
  • (f) Your suggestion needs, technically, an RS making a distinction between Israeli Arabs who self-identify as Palestinians, and Israeli Arabs who do not. This you have, but the only problem is WP:OR, i.e. taking the figure of 1,470,000 or 1,658,000 and taking out 40%.
  • (g) If we take the Israeli Jews page we find the kind of note you suggest.

6,335,000[1][2] 74.9% of the Israeli population are ‘core Jews’ while the ‘enlarged Jewish population (includes non-Jewish relatives of Jews) and peripheral ‘Jews’ (by subtrraction) 607,000

However, the article also notes that ‘The Israeli government does not trace the ethnic origin of Israeli Jews,’ contradicting itself, since the figures for the enlarged Jewish population are based on quite precise data about ethnic origin. Whereas the Palestinian authorities trace the ethnic origin of Arab Israelis’.

My own feeling for the moment would along the lines of a possible note updating the figure, using perhaps 'Arab-Palestinian' and adding a bracketed note that 40% of these may not identify as 'Palestinian'. But I wouldn't rush it. I'd like wider input, and a little more research, and certainly a consideration as to why the Israeli Jews figure is inclusive and ignores self-identification as a criterion, whereas the proposal here for Palestinians is to exclusive, breaking them down by a criterion of self-identification. All we have at the moment, thanks to your intervention, is that the source for that figure is outdated and not material to the topic, and that definitely needs fixing.Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

According to Smooha 20% of Israeli Arabs do not feel "Israeli" but this doesn't prevent me from calling them Israeli-Arabs because the term which historically referred to Arab citizens of Mandatory Palestine, todey refer to the Arab citizens of Israel. The Palestinians in Israel as you say it are indeed decendents of the Mandate population and fall in the category of "Palestinians" (and also the Haredi are Israeli citizens regardless of how much they refuse to die for me as I am forced by law to die for them in battle), but as I don't recognize them as an ethnic group, I don't think it it make sense to call them all "Palestinian", but I am not willing to violate the consensus about ethnicity or re-open the discussion, just add a not saying as much as "not all Arab citizens of Israel refer to themselves as Palestinians".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Let's wait for further imput. I'm inclined to accept a note on this, along the lines you suggest.Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I've just found a percentage which throws some further light on this and may help us

The Palestinian Muslim population inside Israel (which comprises 82 per cent of the total Palestinian population inside Israel)' Michael Dumper (ed.), Palestinian Refugee Problem: Global Perspectives, Routledge 2006 p.317

Though it doesn't tell us of Christian or Muslim Palestinians who disavow an identity as Palestinians.Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
A 2009 study made by Tel Aviv University found out that 24% of Christian Arabs identify as Palestinian-Arabs while only 43% of the Muslims do (while 94% of the Druze identify as Druze-Israelis). The Ynet report (Hebrew) on that might not contain all the information, as the later research by Smooha reveled that 20% of the Arabs refer to themselves as "Palestinian-Arabs" and 40% as "Palestinian-Israelis", which is something many Arabs can identify with, as they feel solidarty with other Palestinians but still want to be normal citizens of Israel. The TLV University study might be less relevent to today becuase it is from 2009 and I belive that things such as the Arab Spring or the 2011 Israeli social justice protests, as well as the shieft of the Israeli government to the right since 2009 and the regresivenes of Israel's approach to solving the I/P conflict might have all contributed to a wider identification of Arabs as Palestinians, after realising they might never be fully incorperated into the Israeli society. Either way, both studies show that not all of the Arab citizens refer to themselves as Palestinians. While searching for it, I found many Haaretz opinion-articles desperately crying for the Israeli public not to use the term "Arab-Israelis" and many other sources such as OCHA refer to the Arab citizens of Israel as "Palestinian citizens of Israel", mainly backed by a political ideology.
As I said, there are enough sources to safely write in a note that "not ". I am one of those who dislike and oppose the political usage of the term "Palestinians" and I find no legitimate logic behind the claim that the Palestinians are an ethnic group, regardless of how many WP:RS you"ll show me, but I really all Arab citizens of Israel identify as Palestiniansdon't care that the article will say that the Palestinians are an ethnic group (and the article already have things I see as problematic like the WP:DUE in the lead section about land confiscations) but becuase I don't recognize the Palestinians as an ethnic group (but more of a national group based on self-identification), I don't think it will make any good for me to try and change the article beucase it won't go with sources, since many of them don't match my ideology, so I only ask for a sourced note (and keep the main information to an article such as Arab citizens of Israel).
And I think RolandR can always prove that I am not bluffing when citing Hebrew sources. Just for the record.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay Stav. Put 'not all Arab citizens of Israel identify as Palestinians'. Good solid work as usual. And I don't need Roland's checking to verify the integrity of your representation of sources. The idea never crossed my mind. Cheers-Nishidani (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I.e.Of 1,658,000 Israeli Arabs, 60 percent self-identify as Palestinians (Smooha 2013+the Israel official website already cited there.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Nishidani, I started adding the note but I had some problems in the way and I decided to leave it and make myself a toast. Now I cam back but I still have two problems: I am not sure how to phrase it; I lack expiriance with notes (and my attempts were messy. Can you put a source inside a note?). Help maybe?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You've caught me 5 minutes before tonight's Uefa soccer kick-off.Just add the bracket
Just adjust the Israeli Arabs to 1,658,000 Israeli Arabs', as the source we have actually states (2013) and then in brackets ('60% self-identify as Palestinians'ref Smooha 2013./ref, I.e. Cheers,Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you screw up. I'm offline now but if you can't get it right, Monochrome's a whiz: give her a buzz.Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

MM Failure to control sources, tampering with text language to create a POV spin, plain reverting with no talk page or adequate edit summary explanation

Context. MM. Most of your recent edits are erratic and it is patently evident you are trying to spin a discredited thesis. Your incompetence is creating just one more in a long line of messes. For third parties let me outline the POV interests one could argue are at play.

(A)The POV can be one that argues that populations -especially its timeless 'peasant-productive base' -in any area that has not witnessed, in terms of the historical record, massive deportation for at least 2,000 years, must have substantial continuities of descent. That is a fairly standard rule of thumb. Even the fixed story of the Assyro-Babylonian and Roman deportations have been discarded because at most, certainly in the former, the strong likelihood is that a proportionately small elite was forced into exile: most of the am ha-aretz stayed firmly rooted to their soil, mostly Israelitic-Canaanite.

(B)Zionist historiography - they even set up a research bureau in 1938/9 to gather evidence of this - at some point tried to dismantle the embarrassing idea the great majority of the Palestinian population basically descended from the same people tilling the soil for centuries and millenia, had somehow come to the land fairly recently. This found expression in Joan Peters' book From Time Immemorial (1984) which left the American intelligentsia dazzled by its 'proof' -rave reviews from all the big shots in the commentariat - that in the 19th century Palestine was an 'empty land', and the Arabs basically began a late drift in from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, attracted by the economic prospects opened up by the wave of early Ist aliyah settlement, with its modern agricultural know-how. In other words, Palestine was repopulated by two contemporaneous waves of immigrants, Jewish and Arab. There was, therefore, no supplanting of an original people by strangers/colonialists, but merely a balanced pursuit by two groups, with the difference that the Jews had an 'historic attachment' to the land, and were returning, whereas the Arabs had no identity, and were basically just immigrants like the wave of Africans today trying to get into the EU countries.

The Peters thesis drew on earlier Zionist arguments, chief of which was that the 'Arabs' overwhelmed this Jewish-Christian country from 635 BE onwards. Even, if one concedes that these Palestinians have long roots in the land, they are, in the longue durée relatively recent blow-ins descended from warlike tribes coming from the Arabian peninsula, compared to us Jews, who were thrust out by Rome and were only going back to the land history had denied us for millenia.

The worst part of frivolous sourcing on this issue is to conflate the 'Arab' presence in Palestine with the Arab conquest of the 630s. As numerous scholarly works, including Fred Donner's argue, the whole peripheral economy of Palestine has always had a permeable relationship between nomadic tribes (from Ivri to Bebouin). Arabs are strongly attested in the 5th century BCE in southern Palestine; the Arab conquest was strategically won by advance groups seeking out local Bedu from the highlands, to thed Golan, to the Negev, who had centuries old arrangements and marriages with the local population, but who spoke dialects similar to the new Arab armies. Some of the Arabs who joined in the assault, from Syria, converted to the Arabian peninsular religion at the last moment. So while settlement definitely was important, it included not only the conquerors from Arabia, but many more contiguous Arab groups who did not travel to the region of Palestine, but had been around there for at least a millennium. Not to take care over this niceity is to push the modern Palestinian-Arabs-descend-from-Arabian -peninsular-invaders thesis of textbook Zionism and slapdash popular histories.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

This is the drum MM's edits have been thumping.

MM has been trying to bolster the discredited Zionist myths by accentuating the 'Arab' conquest meme. I don't contest the right of anyone to defend a legitimate interest, but in MM's case, it is done with superficiality, erratically, and total disattention to the meaning of language, and the sources we use. I will proceed to outline this shortly, but please note. Every mess created like this demands that editors clean up, and fix things the insouciant don't worry about. It's burdencreating editing, not constructive.Nishidani (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Example We have a profoundly stupid sentence, whose existence or form can only be explained by blind POV pressure. No thought has gone into it, and its retention and modulation is the object now of an edit war by MM. It is as follows

According to historical records part of the Muslim Palestinian population is descended from local inhabitants who had resided in the area several centuries prior to the Islamic conquest,[118] and some possibly since prehistoric times.

The message being sent is this:
  • Part of the Muslim population of Palestine today is not descended from the population that pre-existed the Islamic conquest, i.e. an unverifiable and insane proposition which could only be asserted by someone who believes the Muslim Palestinian population has 2 parts, those with pre-Islamic descent, and those with no pre-islamic descent, excluding the fact that populations are historically created by admixture.
A moment's thought would allow any impartial eye to note the idiocy of the phrasing.
At this time, Palestine had a mixed Christian-Jewish population with some notable pagan remnants,and a nomadic/seminomadic periphery of Arab tribes of long standing. Much of the South had Arab populations since the 5th century BCE.The Christian population claims it descends from early Christians several centuries before the Arab period. The Muslim population today consists of people who claim or have roots also connecting them with the Arabs who settled the area in the wake of the conquest. That does not mean they never intermarried with the indigenous population, which has roots in the pre-Islamic conquest. By analogy, using the 'logic' of this POV spinning, because conversion was frequent for 1,500 years of Jewish history, a POV pusher could start writing:'

part of the Israeli Jewish population descends from Christians and pagans who had resided in Europe for millenia.

That is so stupid no one argues that. But Arabs are always described differently.
How did this mess get forged? There are three overt sources(a fourth is in Nebel).Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It was fabricated thus: The 3 main sources are:
  • (a)Shaban MA (1971) Islamic history AD 600–750: a new interpretation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Nota bene. No link. No page number provided. MM has not done her homework.
  • (b)Gil M (1992) A history of Palestine, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp 643–1099
Nota bene No link to a linkable text. The page range is so vast it is unverifiable. MM has not done her homework.
  • (c)Nebel (2000> [doi=10.1007/s004390000426|pmid=11153918 'High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews,'] Human Genetics 2000,vol.107,pp630–641
Nota bene. The link is to the abstract not to the paper. The section cited (see below) is not in the link. More importantly, everyone on Wikipedia knows that historical data are the domain of historians, and must not be taken from papers written by geneticists with no background in the discipline of history.
It turns out that the whole sentence comes not from independent sourcing, but from the genetics paper by Nebel et al:

"According to historical records part, or perhaps the majority, of the Muslim Arabs in this country descended from local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD (Shaban 1971; Mc Graw Donner 1981). These local inhabitants, in turn, were descendants of the core population that had lived in the area for several centuries, some even since prehistorical times (Gil 1992)... Thus, our findings are in good agreement with the historical record..."

There you have it. Fraudulent. 'Part' is highjlighed while its qualification or may have been descended from a 'Jewish-Christian majority' is suppressed, to give the Arab-influx thesis typical of Zionist propagandists, but not of modern Israeli, Jewish or general scholarship. Pretending to cite secondary sources when, it emerges, those secondary sources are taken from a tertiary source that has no competence to synthesise historical details.
Nebel also contains a fourth source for this.
Fred Donner The Early Islamic Conquests, (1981) Princeton University Press, 2014
It is futile edit-warring when these flaws in method are not addressed. Anyone who wants that sentence has to show by specific page no., from each historical work ( Shaban, Gil, Donner) where that statement is justified. To persist in frigging with the language of the text, while trusting a geneticists' team with getting their sources right, is sheer laziness, and blind POV-pushing.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Example 2 In her second revert MM rewrites

Many Palestinian families claim the clan (hamula) to which they belong hails from nomadic tribes in the Arabian peninsula, viewing this as indicating their historical precedence over Jews in the country, though some only do so in order to share the prestige of Arab-Islamic descent, which is more highly valued socio-culturally than origins of a more ancient pre-Islamic descent

As

Despite the popularity of primordialist claims to primeval roots in the land in Palestinian nationalist thought, individual Palestinian families largely eschew these archaeological justifications, with many avowing a more recent past in Arabian tribes that immigrated during and after the Islamic conquest. Such genealogies possess a greater local prestige than ancient or pre-Islamic descent.

This is justified as you may not like what the source has to say, but this is a very faithful representation of it, practically word-for-word. in contrast what I wrote "some only do so" is pure conjecture, not in the source

Rubbish. The source is Ted Swedenburg p.81 Despite is used to convey the idea:'whatever they might say is contradicted by themselves, for they avow that they are indeed foreigners.'

It suppresses the whole context, selects just one sentence (‘The primordialist claims regarding the Palestinians’ primeval and prior roots in the land operated on the level of the collective’ (as opposed to individual family claims) and then embroiders its ideological spin.

The Palestinians primordialist claims are, Swedenburg notes, a mirror of Zionist/Jewish primordialist claims. MM suppresses the analogy, of Palestinians copying and reversing Zionist, ideology, in order to put over that this is just a ‘Palestinian nationalist’ claim, and not one taken from the identical Zionist argument.

'Such claims represented a kind of shadow discourse to that of the Zionists, a discourse articulated in virtually the same terms as its rival’s.p.81

There is no textual basis for ‘largely eschew these archaeological justifications’ which is totally inept because referring to the Bible text’s mythology is not an ‘archaeological justification’, proof again we have a distracted, fretfully hasty editing style.

Thirdly the revert cancels what Swedenburg also notes, namely that ‘Villagers claiming descent from Arabs who entered Palestine during the Arab-Islamic conquest equally viewed these origins as establishing their historical precedence over the Jews.’

Unless you drop this folly, and start trying to actually read sources, collaborate on the talk page, and desist from fiddling with the POV to get your way, you'll be up for a report again.Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You expect anyone to collaborate with this verbosity? I can't see anyone taking the time. How about summing it up a bit?
p.s. Zionists are not the problem. Omysfysfybmm (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
With editors who show high intelligence, accurate edits, and a close familiarity with sources I am extra concise. With those who persist in meddling with texts showing none of those traits, I am, yes, minutely verbose, in the sense that I exercise surgical methods to dissect their nonsense, just for the record. It's more to testify I do actually examine the guts of the issue, than to convince them, since anyone who waves a WP:;TLDR flag is only signaling a twitterishly diminished attention span, of which encyclopedic editing has no need.Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Précis. I removed this passage:

According to historical records part of the Muslim Palestinian population is descended from local inhabitants who had resided in the area several centuries prior to the Islamic conquest,[1] and some possibly since prehistoric times.[2][3]

  1. ^ Shaban MA (1971) Islamic history AD 600–750: a new interpreta- tion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  2. ^ Gil M (1992) A history of Palestine. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 643–1099
  3. ^ Nebel; et al. (2000). "High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews". Human Genetics. 107: 630–641. doi:10.1007/s004390000426. PMID 11153918."According to historical records part, or perhaps the majority, of the Muslim Arabs in this country descended from local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD (Shaban 1971; Mc Graw Donner 1981). These local inhabitants, in turn, were descendants of the core population that had lived in the area for several centuries, some even since prehistorical times (Gil 1992)... Thus, our findings are in good agreement with the historical record..."
Because (a) the statement makes a nonsensical assumption (b)two of the three sources failed verification,(c) the editor adjusting it did not look at those historical sources but (d) replied on a summary of them in a genetics paper, which on wiki cannot be used to source historical topics, esp. as controversial as this. Genetic papers source genetic sections: historical sources source historical sections.Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

My turn

Oh, you're asking for it this time. I'll be awfully through and by the time I finish you'll probably edit what you wrote. I will ignore this and respond to your original statements. I need some room for this.

Despite the popularity of primordialist claims to primeval roots in the land in Palestinian nationalist thought, individual Palestinian families largely eschew these archaeological justifications, with many avowing a more recent past in Arabian tribes that immigrated during and after the Islamic conquest. Such genealogies possess a greater local prestige than ancient or pre-Islamic descent.

This is justified as you may not like what the source has to say, but this is a very faithful representation of it, practically word-for-word. in contrast what I wrote "some only do so" is pure conjecture, not in the source

Rubbish. The source is Ted Swedenburg p.81 Despite is used to convey the idea:'whatever they might say is contradicted by themselves, for they avow that they are indeed foreigners.'

It suppresses the whole context, selects just one sentence (‘The primordialist claims regarding the Palestinians’ primeval and prior roots in the land operated on the level of the collective’ (as opposed to individual family claims) and then embroiders its ideological spin.

The Palestinians primordialist claims are, Swedenburg notes, a mirror of Zionist/Jewish primordialist claims. MM suppresses the analogy, of Palestinians copying and reversing Zionist, ideology, in order to put over that this is just a ‘Palestinian nationalist’ claim, and not one taken from the identical Zionist argument.

'Such claims represented a kind of shadow discourse to that of the Zionists, a discourse articulated in virtually the same terms as its rival’s.p.81

There is no textual basis for ‘largely eschew these archaeological justifications’ which is totally inept because referring to the Bible text’s mythology is not an ‘archaeological justification’, proof again we have a distracted, fretfully hasty editing style.

Lets see what else he has to say. The section is titled "popular primordialism", I'll quote the whole thing for proper context!

Many interviewees were anxious to have me understand that their national identity possessed a primordial genealogical continuity. In a large part, their allegations represented a kind of rejoinder to constant zionist allegations that Palestinians are relatively "recent" immigrants to Israel/Palestine. (they try to counter zionist claims. okay. he puts recent in quotes because the 7th century is not recent. I agree that it isn't, that's a fair criticism.) Several old men claimed that there was a long genealogical chain of Arab residence in Palestine that spanned the centuries. Many old Palestinans traced their collective ancestry back to the "Arab canaanites." By such means they meant to affirm that their original title to the land of Palestine predated and took precedence over rival Israeli Jewish claims. (Palestinians claim nonsense like that canaanites were arab because they want to rival jewish claims. How damning! I can't believe I left that out.) Such assertions resembled those those made by Palestinian nationalistic folklorists like Tewfik Canaan in the 1920s and 1930s (Canaan 1927), as well as arguments found in more recent official nationalist discourse. (official nationalist discourse, sounds approving. ie, they are reading a script.) Abdallah Frangi, for instance, claims that the Arab Palestinians are the descendants of the autochthonous Canaanite inhabitants of Palestine and that the Israelis are the offspring of ancient Hebrews who invaded Palestine later. The Zionist movement, Frangi therefore concludes, is simply another instance of the perennial interventionist projects of the ancient Hebrews (Frangi 1983: 1-16). (referring to pereniallism, ie primordialism, as in palestinians insert themselves into the position of israel's ancient enemies to make it seem like they have been put down by the jewish oppressor since the dawn of time.) Similarly, Akram Zu'aytir has asserted that Palestine was historically "Arab" long before the Islamic conquests. The Jews were not the original inhabitants of Palestine, according to Zu'aytir, but "foreigners" (note scare quotes) who owned only a part of Palestine and never comprised a majority of its population. The Jewish kingdom, he asserts, lasted only a short time and and left no lasting influence on the country's civilization (Zu'aytir 1955: 35, 58-59). (jews left no influence whatsoever on christian and islamic civilization. reasonable.) People I met told stories that elaborated or expanded upon these "official" narratives. Some alleged that because the prophet Abraham (revered by Muslims) was an Arab, the Jews were therefore the descendants of the Arabs. The Arabs, who who were Abraham's original offspring, therefore possessed prior rights to the land of Palestine. (remarkable feat of logic) One shopkeeper in Jerusalem was a veritable fountain of Arab-nationalist-inflected stories derived from the biblical tradition. He explained, for instance, that when Moses came to Palestine from Egypt, the Jews were reluctant to believe in him but the indigenous Arab Bedouin population of Palestine immediately accepted him as a prophet. The Arabs, by this account, were therefore more genuine followers of the Mosaic creed than the Jews and hence were the true and deserving heirs to the sacred land. Such claims represented a kind of shadow discourse to that of the Zionists, a discourse articulated in virtually the same terms as its rival's. (Here's the kicker! palestinian claims are articulated in similar terms as zionist claims. That totally means he considers them equally valid! Except, that's exactly what zionists say, that palestinian nationalism is a mirror image of zionism. He's saying that ridiculous palestinian claims are a response to zionist discourse, an attempt to one-up the jews.) Yet at the same time, many people also routinely referred to the Jews as "our paternal cousins," awlad 'ammna, and recognized a common descent from Abraham (the Jews as offspring of Isaac, the Arabs as offspring of Ishmael). This view coded the struggle as a kind of feud occurring within the same Semitic family. (you quote this without context to imply palestinians have an affinity for jews. that's not what he's saying. the next sentence makes that clear) Such "genealogical" discourse, typical of the nation's impulse to represent itself as having an eternal past, had the unfortunate side effect of reproducing Orientalist and Zionist assertions that the "Arab-Jewish" struggle is ancient and virtually natural and thereby obviated any need to understand the conflict in its current context. (If that's what you're referring to, it does not say what you think it does. It says that palestinians and jews are guilty of making the claim that the conflict is rooted in ancient blood feuds. But they make it for different reasons- zionists to simplify history into us vs them, them hates us, so lets wash our hands of any responsibility to help solve the conflict. The orientalist aspect is part of this polarization: isaac the favored son vs. ishmael the wild man, wild arabs, you get the point. it's frankly racist, though to be fair the people who make it are either evangelical christians or national-religious. BUT Palestinians make the claims for a different reason: "typical of the nation's impulse to represent itself as having an eternal past") These primordialist claims regarding the Palestinians' primeval and prior roots in the land (Here we are back to talking about palestinian claims, not zionist claims. There's no way in hell zionists would claim palestinians have "prior and primeval roots in the land".) operated at the level of the collective. When it came to an individual's family, however, Arab-Islamic discourse took precedence over archaeological justifications. (no textual basis, eh? he's not talking about the bible. he's talking about palestinian claims of prior roots in the land, those are archeological justifications. instead of saying, the jews have been away for 2000 years while we've been here for 1300 years, they say, the jews were here 4000 years ago, but we were here 7000 years ago! The former is largely true, the latter is largely not. "proof again we have a distracted, fretfully hasty editing style".- proof again you're a jerk who doesn't read his own sources) I ran across no Palestinian villager (or urbanite) who claimed personal descent from the Canaanites. Villagers typically traced their family or their hamula's origins back to a more recent past in the Arabian peninsula. Many avowed descent from some nomadic tribe that had migrated from Arabia to Palestine either during or shortly after the after the Arab- Islamic conquests. By such a claim they inserted their family's history into the narrative of Arab and Islamic civilization and connected themselves to a genealogy that possessed greater local and contemporary prestige than did ancient or pre-Islamic descent. (This does not mean they are concealing ancient roots. It is an explanation of why "When it came to an individual's family, however, Arab-Islamic discourse took precedence". On a collective level, "primordialist claims regarding the Palestinians' primeval and prior roots in the land" are advantageous. But on a local family basis, they "typically trace" their families origins to "a more recent past in the Arabian peninsula". He ran across no villager that claimed canaanite origins, instead they avowed arab origins, which are more prestigious. So on a collective level, ancient origins are more prestigious. On a local one, arab origins are more prestigious. So they are both lies! Nope, it's politics. So which one is closer to the truth? Obviously the latter. Note the difference: "trace their family's history" and "avowed descent", vs "claimed personal descent from the Canaanites" The implication is that the former is a claim, the latter is more honest. However, not entirely honest:) Several men specifically connected their forefathers' date of entry into Palestine to their participation in the army of Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (Saladin), a historical figure whose significance has been retrospectively enlarged by nationalist discourse such that he is now regarded not merely as a hero of "Islamic" civilization but as a "national" luminary as well. (Modern nationalist discourse tends to downplay Salah al-Din's Kurdish origins.) (Nationalist discourse has appropriated saladin from an islamic hero to an arab one, ignoring his kurdish origins. This is true. The Eagle of Saladin is a pan-arab symbol and it's on many arab coats of arms, including the PLOs.) Palestinians of all political stripes viewed Salah al-Din's wars against the Crusaders as a forerunner of the current combats against foreign intruders. Many considered Salah al-Din's victory over the Crusaders at Hittin (A.D. 1187) as a historical precedent that offered hope for their own eventual triumph — even if, like the Crusader wars, the current struggle with Israel was destined to last more than two centuries. (Ahah! so that's why they claim to be descended from his forces. They have a particular admiration for him because they consider him a precedent for their struggle against the zionist entity. Except saladin gave the jews access to jerusalem that they hadn't enjoyed in centuries, but who cares about facts? Anyway, just because the specific claim of saladinish origin is probably a lie, doesn't mean as a whole they lie when tracing themselves to arabian tribes. Again: "claim" vs "avow".) Family histories affiliated to earlier "patriotic" struggles against European aggression tied interviewees to a continuous narrative of national resistance. (Here he explains the politics more. Just as claims of arab-canaanite descent are intended to put palestinians in a continuous narrative of being oppressed by the jews, claims of descent from saladin are intended to put them in a continuous narrative of national resistance.) Villagers claiming descent from Arabs who entered Palestine during the Arab-Islamic conquest equally viewed these origins as establishing their historical precedence over the Jews, whom they basically regarded as Europeans who only began arriving in Palestine in the late nineteenth century. (If palestinians came in the 7th century than jews have no roots in the land, if jews are israelites than palestinians are canaanites. and anything you can do i can do better.)


Here's what you write to sum that mess up:

Many Palestinian families often claim (actually the source says "many avow", not "many often claim") the hamula(clan) to which they belong hail(s) from nomadic tribes in the Arabian peninsula, doing so in order to share in the greater prestige of pertaining to the genealogies of Islamic civilization, which have greater prestige than those of more ancient pre-Islamic descent. Ted Swedenburg, p.81. Some trace their origins back to the Kurdish Saladin's armies.

Talk about ignoring context! That's totally a faithful summary of the chapter!

Vs my summary:

Despite the popularity of primordialist claims to primeval roots in the land in Palestinian nationalist thought, [1] individual Palestinian families largely eschew these archaeological justifications,[2] with many avowing a more recent past in Arabian tribes that immigrated during and after the Islamic conquest. Such genealogies possess a greater local prestige than ancient or pre-Islamic descent.[2] Nonetheless these Palestinians still consider themselves to have historical precedence to the Jews, as most Jews in Israel immigrated in the 19th and 20th centuries.


We'll let Providence decide which is more faithful to the source, which is entitled "popular primordialism", not "claims of arabness".

Next is the "origins" section. I'll be more brief here, that took a few hours.

What you intend to convey here is not just spin, it's false. Arabization was not some force from afar controlling the minds of the palestinians-who-didn't-know-they-were-palestinians making them forget their true nature. But I digress. Arabization was not solely a result of the caliphates. ISLAMIZATION was. Arabization ultimately began with the gradual immigration of arab tribes PRECEDING the islamic conquest, which if anything goes against the "Arab conquest" story you say I promote, since it acknowledges a core pre-invasion population, some of whom were arabs. I cited nebel since he was already used as the source - I was not the one to cite nebel in the context of "historic sources say...." The page had cited nebel for a while. I actually made the wording clearer and the sources clearer. I didn't add new sources- I used current ones. Your opposition to me expounding upon them is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Let's do another before and after, shall we?

Like the Lebanese, Syrians, Egyptians, Maghrebis, and most other people today commonly called Arabs, the Palestinians are an Arab people in linguistic and cultural affiliation. (not cited and misleading, given its invocation of phonecianist and pharoahnist nationalist claims which are only partly true, as egyptians and lebanese do have a real arabian component as well as indigenous elements, whereas maghrebis are quite different altogether- they're arabized berbers and unlike palestinians/egyptians/lebanese actually are known to have predominantly non-arab origins, historically and genetically [12]) Since the Islamic conquest in the 7th century, Palestine, a then Hellenized location, came under the influence of Arabic-speaking Muslim dynasties, including the Kurdish-descent Ayyubids, whose culture and language through the process of Arabization was adopted by the people of Palestine.[3] (ignores pre-islamic arabization- the nabateans were culturally aramaic but were arabized, and guess what? they were in palestine, and their culture influenced levantine christians. and so did the ghassanids.) According to historical records an undetermined part of the present-day Palestinians have roots that go back to before the 7th century, maybe even ancient inhabitants of the area. (undetermined is just sloppy, so is "maybe", I just changed undetermined amount to part, added in the several centuries from the source, and changed maybe ancient to possibly prehistoric. again, the source says prehistoric, and prehistoric is actually better than ancient)[4] During the Ottoman period, the population declined and fluctuated between 150,000 and 250,000 inhabitants and it was only at the end of the 19th century, (unnecessary comma) that a rapid population growth appears, (wrong tense) particularly due to the amelioration of the sanitary condition. (not in the source)[5]


Here's mine:

The origins of Palestinians are complex and diverse.[4] (cited and true. there is no monolithic origin, palestinians themselves claim to be descended from all the peoples who lived in the region.) The region was not originally Arab (true)— its Arabization is due to the immigration of Arabian tribes in the first millennium, most significantly during the Islamic conquest of Syria in the 7th century.[4] (what would you prefer, islamic liberation of syria? It's the wording in the source. again, arabization was not solely political. there were actual real-live arabs involved, as you sort of acknowledge above. Anyway, I'm not one to complain about muslim conquest, it's peaches and cream compared to the christians) Palestine, then a Hellenized region controlled by the Byzantine empire, came under the political and cultural influence of Arabic-speaking Muslim dynasties, including the Kurdish Ayyubids, and following this much of the existing population of Palestine was Arabized and gradually Islamized.[3][4] (I added islamized since it's different from arabized. The levant was arabized before it was islamized. Basically the same as in the prior version, but better cited, and a less simplistic view of history. Palestine was not purely non-Arab and then suddenly arabs conquered the region and everyone was arab because of soft power. there were population exchanges! like in practically all conquests!) Like other "Arabized" Arab nations the Arab identity of Palestinians, largely based on linguistic and cultural affiliation, is independent of the existence of any actual Arabian origins.(here I expounded on the prior version- saying palestinian arabness is merely linguistic and cultural implies it's purely a facade. Saying it's independent of arabianness is a truity- some palestinians are actually descended from arabians, some aren't, but all are arabized.) According to historical records part of the Muslim Palestinian population is descended from local inhabitants who had resided in the area several centuries prior (I added several centuries prior, it's in the source) to the Islamic conquest,[6] some possibly since prehistoric times.[7][4] (essentially no change except I was more descriptive and included the actual sources referenced in the source, not just the source itself. you act as if I pulled the sources out of my ass. I pulled them out of the source.) The Palestinian population has grown dramatically. (a truity added to provide narrative flow) For several centuries (more specific and actually favorable, since it doesn't say that for the entire ottoman period the population was struggling, arab life in palestine was quite vibrant till the empire began to weaken, which is when the europeans visited and found the land "barren", extrapolating it to "the muslims can't take care of it") during the Ottoman period the population in Palestine declined and fluctuated between 150,000 and 250,000 inhabitants, and it was only in the 19th century that a rapid population growth began to occur. (deleted sanitary condition since it wasn't in the source)


Now I didn't want to mention this, but you've pulled no punches in assailing me. Your accusation of me making impulsive shitty poorly sourced edits is demonstrable hypocrisy. Some of your edits have been riddled with errors which I have fixed. [13] You also show little indication of actually reading (let alone comprehending) what you cite, as I demonstrated above. And you aren't just reckless in your edits, but in what really matters- the kind of things that have lasting consequences for real-life human beings. You reported me, fair enough. That's not what gets to me. I broke 3RR for the severalth time, it would have been silly to turn a blind eye. What vexes me is that you had the gall to say my sanction "was far more severe than what [you] expected". What the hell did you expect?!?! I actually would have preferred it if you told me you intended to get me topic-banned all along. But you didn't even recommend a punishment! And then you have the nerve to say, "oops"! Sorry, better luck next time, maybe this greek you can't read will make you feel better. You still think I'm a stupid kid, don't you? Like I didn't research this conflict for years and everything I know is from some hasbara pamphlet? I would say more, but it would hurt your feelings, which I still have some concern for (to my chagrin).--Monochrome_Monitor 11:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Mapping exile and return : Palestinian dispossession and a political theology for a shared future.
  2. ^ a b Ted Swedenburg, p.81. Some trace their origins back to the Saladin's armies, downplaying his Kurdish ancestry.
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Dowty was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b c d e Nebel; et al. (2000). "High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews". Human Genetics. 107: 630–641. doi:10.1007/s004390000426. PMID 11153918."According to historical records part, or perhaps the majority, of the Muslim Arabs in this country descended from local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD (Shaban 1971; Mc Graw Donner 1981). These local inhabitants, in turn, were descendants of the core population that had lived in the area for several centuries, some even since prehistorical times (Gil 1992)... Thus, our findings are in good agreement with the historical record..."
  5. ^ Kacowicz, Arie Marcelo; Lutomski, Pawel (2007). Population Resettlement in International Conflicts: A Comparative Study. Lexington Books,. p. 194.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  6. ^ Shaban MA (1971) Islamic history AD 600–750: a new interpretation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  7. ^ Gil M (1992) A history of Palestine. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp 643–1099

Reply

What vexes me is that you had the gall to say my sanction "was far more severe than what [you] expected". What the hell did you expect?!?!

I expected that my twice repeated comment that you needed a one month suspension (expecting the closing admin, if he decided against you, to mediate between that, and Simon's suggestion of a 2 week break) would lead to something like 2-3 weeks. Note please.
when your inability to recognize the erratic nature of your editing persisted, I was forced to add more evidence I had withheld, but repeated my belief one month was sufficient
A verdict of a 6 month suspension from those articles then emerged.
This surprised me, and I then wrote the words which expressed my surprise, and you call a correct memory of the record, and my honest expectations gall. Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

(You or anyone else may reply interleaving your responses under each point I make below. This improves comprehensibility.) And ps. I don't have feelings to be 'hurt'. I'm pissed off by disattentive behavior, for it wastes my time. You have plenty of that, so use it to actually study topics, rather than editing them before you have mastered them.

  • (1) I am not contesting primordialist claim. I am saying if you use it, you are obliged per NPOv to mention as per the source, that this Palestinian claim mimics and borrows from the identical Zionist claim. Using, furthermore, despite which is not in the source, and attempts to spin this as a contradiction, whereas Swedenburg doesn't do that. Your reading skills are deficient, or, because you edit with one ethnic obsession uppermost, you cannot understand history, which is multiethnic, and which must be written with an eye to all perspectives.Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (2) Whatever you found, you did not control the sources, as I did. Editors who merely rewrite a page without checking whether the existing sources confirm what the text had before, or after they adjust the words, are not doing their job.
  • (3) Nebel was wrongly used for history: the principle is historical details come from historians, so he cannot be used.
  • (4)'Arabization was not solely a result of the caliphates. ISLAMIZATION was. Arabization ultimately began with the gradual immigration of Arab tribes PRECEDING the islamic conquest, which if anything goes against the "Arab conquest" story you say I promote
    • Teaching grannie to suck eggs, again. I added all the sources showing the Arab presence preceded the Arab conquest by 1,000 years. This has nothing to do with the 'Arabization' that ensued linguistically, culturally and institutionally in the long wake of the Islamic conquest.
  • (5)(Nebel). I actually made the wording clearer and the sources clearer. I didn't add new sources- I used current ones.
You haven't replied to the point I made. The way you rephrased it made a profoundly stupid sentence, in that it implies the modern Palestinian population, descent-wise, is divided into 2 mutually distinct descent groups, that in 1,300 years didn't intermarry. You don't pay attention to what your edits actually mean or imply, and the result is nonsense.
  • (6) The Arabization is a complex issue, which the selective use of sources, or failure to actually use more sources, distorted and still distorts:
It was a process that took off significantly 4 centuries after the Arab invasion, over which period scholarship generally considers the majority of the population remained Christian. The sectarian switch was engendered by 3 factors. (a) the negative impact of the Crusades, which acted with extreme prejudice against Eastern Christians (b) the emergence of the Mongol threat (c) and the conversion of the Mamluks, with their rise to power, to Islam, as they fought to defend themselves against Mongols and those Christian communities in alliance with the latter. This is 4-5 centuries after the conquest. There is zero awareness in your text of this context. Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (7)The origins of Palestinians are complex and diverse. The whole article evidences the depth of Palestinian origins timewise and in terms of spatial demographics. Timewise they come from high antiquity, spatially as a key crossroad, they have constantly absorbed populations flowing in from north south east west. The section with those bolded words is stupid because it is called 'Origins' and yet arbitrary starts with the Arab invasion, as if this were the beginnings of Palestinian identity. You've just endorsed this. It's stupid. The whole section needs rewriting to make it cohere with the rest of the text and its evidence. Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Generally, you are frequently reverted by multiple editors: this has been noted; you have had recent arbitration reminders that your behavior is not satisfactory. In particular, the complaint, which was accepted as you were banned from a page where your impetuous editing was chaotic, included a complaint you don't use the talk page. As soon as you were sanctioned, you repeated precisely this behavior, making large-.scale screwed up edits to a page without once dropping a note on this talk page. Your long unfocused rant above was forced our of you by my equally tedious remonstration. So ease up, drop the know-all barging about on subjects you know little about, and make some proposals on the page before making radical revisions.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

section break

Holy cows.. Both of you.. (not calling you cows) You are making arguments as long as an avarage article (even longer), maybe split it to spesific points and go one by one or just go straight (using an electronic Spirit level) to the point, concerning the goals of Wikipedia? I tried to read but it seemed like a Greek Drama dialogue rather than a roundtable (which is what talkpages should be). From what it seems, this is a debate about what should we put more weight to? Zionist propaganda or PLO propaganda? I think it was Nish that once said "Palestine is a state of mind, a state that no one minds about" (probably wrong English-wise), so please, this whole subject is already politically motived by settler and Shariah utopists so at least be more constructive than your sources and reach a discussion less violent than the siege of Stalingrad. Some Palestinians are Arabized-Islamized Jews and some Palestinians are just Fallahs from Arabia. Jee it looks like an argument originated in the rural areas of the Balkan. I guess my comment didn't help anythinh eh?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I got a laugh there, and appreciate this sensible hyperbole. It reminded me of a review in the TLS of a book of mine which made an equally comical resort to hyperbole, in describing what the reviewer called my discursive overkill, (while agreeing that I was right: the reviewer was not particularly familiar with the subject-matter's specifics). But I don't get angry. I get annoyed when thoughtlessness or lack of curiosity for wide reading just flags the message:'Nishidani: there's a motherlode of crap I've just dropped. Could you clean that up with a spoon old man, there's a good chap.'
We should accept neither Zionist nor PLO propaganda. The PLO and its mouthpieces, and even well-meaning but ignorant 'spokesmen' who have descanted on these topics, have nothing to add that would interest an historian, unless we wish to write the history of bullshit. The 'Zionist' side once hogged the limelight in talking about Palestinian history (as the history of Palestinians) but that kind of material, aside from the blogosphere, died of exhaustion in serious quarters some decades ago. If you make your starting point the beginning of Zionism, 1917-1919, you will find many Zionists and anti-Zionists like Lucien Wolf agreeing on one thing, together with the new Mandatory Authority experts: that the Palestinian population represented basically the modern remnant of the ancient population of that territory. As soon as Zionism became a territorial project, a huge effort was made to spin their presence as historically deracinated or extraterritorial, for obvious reasons.
    • Zionism did not begin in 1917. Also, British israelites thought they were israelites, and many jews agreed. It's the same reason many on both camps are attracted to the theory that palestinians are descended from jews- kinship is friendship. In theory.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Thirdly, history this far back is 'speculative': we just don't know enough, and that means we make hypotheses from what little book sources or archaeological allows us to guess. Any strong piece of scholarship will almost invariably tell you, in each narrative section, that various theories have been thrown about, and then advance what newer research reveals.
To illustrate this specifically. There was a demographic drop discerned from the period of the rich and fairly well documented Byzantine Levant through to the early middle ages. Many many sources used to correlate this with the onset of the 'Arabs', wild, Qur'an flourishing but uncultured tribes invading the sophisticated societies of the Sassanian and Byzantine empires. That picture has fallen to pieces, because there is better knowledge of the archaeological record, of the ignored factor of climatic change, of the devastating impact of bubonic plagues etc., and greater detachment from and closer reading of the polemical interests of the Syriac literature of the time. When I see echoes of the old line emerge, I think: 'Oh fuck, here we go: the Pallies are Arab intruders crap again. Someone's forgotten to read what 2 decades of sound scholarship has uncovered.'Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that it seems like everything you'll say will end with Monochrome_Monitor rejection and the same in the other way around. It's not the first I see you both clashing and now we came to the point you two write enough words to build a wall between the US and Mexico, which is quite frustrating for the rest of the editors here. Let me offer you one of my approaches to such thing. Stop for a minute and ask your self wether you are trying to an encyclopedic information to an innocent article or writing your own opinionated blog using sourcrs as an excuse.--

Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Use the simple method I set forth.
An editor complained at my original length, which is focused on what MM does, not on what I think (blog) of this topic. I complied with the request to be brief, by making a précis of the problems with her edits in 7 numbered points above, inviting MM and anyone else to reply under each. No reply. So? Nishidani (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily true. I'm a pretty logical person (except when I'm not), I can be swayed by reasonable arguments and I have been. I went from an apathetic anti-zionist-jew-because-it's-cool-and-my-neighborhood-is-super-liberal, during the last war i became a tribalistic-super-jew concerned with "my people" getting attacked by terrorists (in actuality my people, my sister was there) to a zionist who's sympathetic to the suffering of palestinians even if I know some of that suffering is arab and corrupt ruler inflicted. I care about the middle east in general, israel in particular but they are doing fine on their own, I'm much more concerned about syria and iraq and lebanon and kurdish independence. I think people from both camps are united when it comes to hatred for assad. Although I'm scared what will happen if/when assad looses... the alawites will be subject to revenge killings, and completely fucked in general. Anyway more than anything with regards to the conflict i've become more practical than ideological. I'm an idealist cynical about idealism. Judea is the homeland of the Jewish people, but I don't think they/we should be settling there. There are convincing arguments that it's not technically an occupation because palestine was never a state and the land's most recent legitimate rulers were the british and under ottoman law that land reverts to the state, technically israel, that's just legalistic prevarication. It feels like occupation, and even if in the letter it isn't, israelis shouldn't be settling there precisely because it upsets them, making peace more distant, or at least giving Abbas (who in reality is more concerned about keeping his job than anything right now) an excuse to not make peace. Anyway, I don't think settlements are very important practically, they form blocks which will inevitably stay part of israel, and people should at least be able to renovate their houses without international opprobrium. Most people don't know it but the settlements were established under the socialist labor zionists, not the likud governments. And there's been less expansion under netanyahu than his predecessors, which really pisses off some in his base. They should also make housing less expensive so poorer secular israelis aren't motivated to live in the settlements. And groceries. So that's my shpiel.--Monochrome_Monitor 13:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, brexit. You're british, yes? Your thoughts? Are you the type of leftist who is very upset or the type of far-leftist who is very happy? *cough* george galloway--Monochrome_Monitor 13:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Me British? For fuck's sake, one of my forebears was driven into exile for doing an Irgun job on a British colonialist in Ireland. I have no views on Brexit: either option was/is pitted with dangers. Stay in, and you add a powerful actor opposed to the fundamental principle of the EU's post-war political consensus, that harmony between nations requires a structural bedrock of social security. Stay out, and global finance will probably demand you sell off whatever remains of a national health care and pension system anyway.

There are convincing arguments that it's not technically an occupation because palestine was never a state and the land's most recent legitimate rulers were the british and under ottoman law that land reverts to the state, technically israel

There is no convincing argument. Land doesn't revert to an occupying power in international law. Every judge on the ICJ in 2004 sent down a unanimous confirmation of this in their judgement. It is pointless arguing otherwise.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

That's circular logic. Israel is an occupying power because it's an occupying power? International law is biased, face it. They don't care about tibet, western sahara, or northern cyprus. All are "disputed", and the cases are much more clear-cut. The argument I gave about ottoman land laws is only one- there are many.[14] Obviously their principles are not consistent, so what exactly are their principles? I agree this is not something to argue about though.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

That's an abuse of the term,MN.The Israeli government has recognized it is an occupying power, since that is its status in international law. If 'international law' is biased, just simplify the entailed proposition (all inbternational law ruling against any one state is, according to the interests of that state, biased = the 'law' of the jungle, which, given Ehud Barak's remark about the village in the jungle, appears to be an adoption of your hidden premise. Enough. Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about with a jungle. I'm talking about whether the land is occupied territory, rather than disputed territory. If you have an open mind Israel has a very good case compared to other occupying powers who aren't even called occupying powers. Above all my concern is how international law has been bent to specifically target Israel in this case. That's not an exaggeration. The argument used to call the settlements illegal is a section of the rome statute, more specifically, its rewording by the arab block. First off, the rome statute was adopted in 1997, decades after the settlements were established. And the clause invoked originally condemned "The transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory." However, its wording was adapted to apply to voluntary transfer, specifically because of Israel. It was changed to condemn: "The transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, directly or indirectly, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory." That's a big difference. Does it not bother you that the crime of letting your citizens live in a disputed territory (or even an occupied one) and letting them build some houses is listed as equally severe to forced prostitution, rape, mutilation, medical experimentation, and starving people? Seems a bit odd to me. I can't help but think it's political considering the UN isn't exactly unbiased towards israel- passing more resolutions condemning it than the rest of the world combined. Lastly, Israel isn't a party to the rome statute anymore, as it didn't renew its ratification, and neither is the united states. The settlements issue is blown out of proportion in my opinion. A colonial mandate breaks up into civil war, the colonial power leaves, one state is formed and the other rejected statehood, that state was attacked simultaneously by its neighbors, and it was again in 67, and it occupied territory from which its enemies (Jordan and Egypt) were attacking it. Some day, god knows when, neighborhoods are set up for israelis in this land that has no effective government, many of the neighborhoods being communities reestablished after their destruction in the first arab-israeli war. These settlements grow organically, and then the PLO decides that they actually want the west bank and gaza, though they renounced all claim to it in their foundational charter (very unsuspicious), and these palestinians who used to be arabs are hijacking planes and killing olympic athletes, not to mention committing terrorist acts in jordan and starting the lebanese civil war, which people conveniently forget. Decades later, the arab states whom we all know are so fond of israel, reword a clause in treaty specifically to fuck israel over. You can dispute this as a zionist recital of selective history, but you can't dispute that the ICJ is a pathetic failure which can't even get a guy they convicted of crimes against humanity when he travels to states subject to its jurisdiction.[15] The UN in general is full of corrupt autocrats jerking eachother off. So when you say "the international community", I think, well the international community is full of some shitty people, many of whom hate jews. The fact that its an international opinion does not make it more valid, it makes it less valid in my book. My feelings about the territories not being occupied are not exceptionalism, but rather egalitarianism. What makes the palestinian territories, which have never once been sovereign, occupied, not crimea, part of a sovereign nation which was invaded and is currently under military occupation? How about northern cyprus, invaded and seized by turkey? Or tibet, with an ancient culture distinct from the han chinese, that was brutally conquered in 1950 by china? Or western sahara, once occupied by spain and now by morocco? The international community considers these territories "disputed". WIKIPEDIA considers them disputed. Please tell me what make israel's situation different. Does this not seem unjust to you? --Monochrome_Monitor 03:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Reply reply

  • "I am not contesting primordialist claim. I am saying if you use it, you are obliged per NPOv to mention as per the source, that this Palestinian claim mimics and borrows from the identical Zionist claim."

The source does not say that the zionist "claims" are identical to palestinians nor equally valid. He never even uses the word primordialist to refer to zionism. Which zionist claim is identical again? The one that says Abraham was Arab? Oh wait... He is not talking about claims, he is talking about discourse. Palestinian claims are articulated in similar terms as zionist discourse. He is not painting palestinian nationalism with the same brush as zionism in this chapter (though he's not uncritical). Since you aren't seeing the big picture, I'll give you the details. The word zionism is mentioned merely four times in a chapter which is supposedly all about comparing palestinian nationalism to zionism. Lets look at word choice. palestinian claims are described in the context of "represent[ing] itself as having an eternal past", and are called pereniallist and primordialist. The common theme is that palestinians invent a past to out-past the jews/israelis. Zionist discourse is called "orientalist"- and frankly some of it is, but it's not called primordialist or perenialist. Why? Here's the definition of primordialism: "The belief that nations are ancient, natural phenomena". Jews were actually a nation thousands of years ago, and palestinians were not. The discourse is similar (ie diasporic life, longing to return) but zionists admit that, calling it cultural appropriation. Note that he calls canaanite theology "official nationalist discourse". That's different from just plain "discourse". Subtle, I know. You are reading this through red, white, black, and green colored glasses.

Swedenburg's book is an anthropology of folk memories of the 1930s. It registers popular beliefs, by (in the 30s) a largely illiterate peasantry. These demand great respect for the world-view of a class, they have nothing to do with history. You are confusing what an historian might say with what folks beliefs affirm. We are writing that section basically according to what modern historians generally argue, not what old men recall of their childhood stories about clan origins 1,300 ago. To credit their legends,(which may contain of course grains of a truth) with history is like taking at face value the reconstruction of the history of Canaan from a religious clerisy writing 1,000 years after the event. It's like saying that because someone in Judea recorded a legend that the Ammonites and Moabites east of them arose when Lot's daughters found no men to procreate with, so they dosed dad up with grog, screwed him, befuddled, and thereby you get the bênê 'Ammana (Ammonites). In Jordanian textbooks, all children learn that Canaanites were 'Arabs', this is silly, but no more silly that what you get in Zionist or Israeli schooltexts on ancient Palestine. This is an exact parallel to what we are risking in using Swedenburg in that section. Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Using, furthermore, despite which is not in the source, and attempts to spin this as a contradiction, whereas Swedenburg doesn't do that. Your reading skills are deficient, or, because you edit with one ethnic obsession uppermost, you cannot understand history, which is multiethnic, and which must be written with an eye to all perspectives."


Fair point. Despite is indeed not in the source. The source uses "however".

"These primordialist claims regarding the Palestinians' primeval and prior roots in the land operated at the level of the collective. When it came to an individual's family, however, Arab-Islamic discourse took precedence over archaeological justifications".

However has multiple meanings. Lets go through them![16]

however adverb [not gradable] (DEGREE)

› to whatever amount or degree: However fast we drive, we’re not going to get there in time. If Emma likes something she’ll buy it, however much it costs.

however adverb [not gradable] (WAY)

› in whatever way: However you look at it, it’s still a mess.

however adverb [not gradable] (DESPITE)

› despite this; nevertheless: There may, however, be other reasons that we don’t know about.

however conjunction (WAY)

› in whatever way: You can do it however you like, it really doesn’t matter.

I wonder which definition of however is being used in this sentence... hmmmmm. Well it's not a conjunction.... So take off that fourth one. It's not a degree, "however much arab-islamic discourse took precedence" doesn't sound right.....

Now two left. Is it a way? Like "however Arab-Islamic discourse took precedence over archaeological justifications, it still....." Oh, wait. the sentence ends there. It needs another clause to be used in the sense of "way". Well, is it used to mean despite?

"These primordialist claims regarding the Palestinians' primeval and prior roots in the land operated at the level of the collective. When it came to an individual's family, despite this, Arab-Islamic discourse took precedence over archaeological justifications"..... close but no cigar.

Fix that by correcting word order.... and....

"These primordialist claims regarding the Palestinians' primeval and prior roots in the land operated at the level of the collective. Despite this, when it came to an individual's family, Arab-Islamic discourse took precedence over archaeological justifications".

Oh, that's basically what I wrote.

Instead of using a synonym that clarifies the meaning, you propose avoiding the matter (which comprises the majority of the chapter) entirely and never mentioning "popular primordialism" at all, while putting the palestinian's own words under scrutiny "but some only do so..." But some only do so is not in the source. My fault for assuming you intended your sources to actually support your views. I read it and it didn't, I fixed that, but look here you reverted it. Because you WP:DONTLIKEIT.

  • "Nebel was wrongly used for history: the principle is historical details come from historians, so he cannot be used."

But historical details come from anti-zionist catholic priests? Who are known for their very balanced views about the Jews? Oh, I forgot, WP:YOULIKE what he has to say, and you don't like what a geneticist talking about history in the context of a genetic study has to say. I'll keep that in mind. Now don't play the "your sources are crap too card," since I make the effort to fix them when people ask.

There is no contradiction. I use sources by committed Zionist historians, even immoderate and frequently flawed ones like Moshe Gil, every day. Nebel studies genetics, Prior studied the languages and history of the region at an advanced tertiary level. Nebel didn't. I don't cite Elhaik for history, but for his genetic argument, where, whatever his views, he has technical expertise.Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    • You're exaggerating. :P What zionist book did you read today? Anyway, my main problem is that he's biased.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "I added all the sources showing the Arab presence preceded the Arab conquest by 1,000 years. This has nothing to do with the 'Arabization' that ensued linguistically, culturally and institutionally in the long wake of the Islamic conquest."

Arabs were nomads, and some tribes (eg Qedar) make the trip to palestine in ancient times. Several muslim kingdoms- The nabateans and the ghassanids, were present in al-sham pre-islamic conquest. I never claimed otherwise. My problem is the implication that the levant was not influenced by arab culture / language prior to the 7th century, as in arabs were there but didn't really matter historically, and if they were there they aren't mentioned in relation to palestinians as if palestinians were totally non-arab and suddenly they were exposed to arabness and became arab and haven't changed since. It's all simplistic.

The Levant is 'semitic'. Many early Zionists saw in the toiling fellahin the humble world of the Tanakh. A significant part of the Israelite tribal federation was 'nomadic'. The whole first part of the bible origins brocade is one of semitic nomads. Our insistent respective 'ethnicization' of the past runs flush into the face of the fact that all the divides made in the late recension of the OT were mirrors of religious, not 'ethnic' categories. The Edomites, Moabites, Israelites, Ammonites, Amorites, etc.etc., constituted a variegated tribal patchwork of one semitic, part nomadic, part sedentary world, and this did not stop when the post-Babylonian religious authorities started their interdictive classifications. 'Arab' before the Qur'an did not mean what post Qur'anic 'Arab' means.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I know that! They were frankly orientalist, :P finding how "humble" things were compared to europe. Yes, the proto-semites were nomadic.

You will never find me arguing that arabs (in the sense of arabian) aren't more conservatively semitic than jews and pretty much all other semites. When I say conservative, I mean like a language. Sicilian is the most conservative romance language, meaning its the most similar to "proto-romance" (vulgar latin), whereas french is the most innovative. Applying that to semitic culture (which includes language), bedouin arabs are the most similar to the early semites- tribal society, polygamy, nomadic(ness?), and their retention of some linguistic features... The only classic semitic feature they are missing is a fertility goddess.

  • "The way you rephrased it made a profoundly stupid sentence, in that it implies the modern Palestinian population, descent-wise, is divided into 2 mutually distinct descent groups, that in 1,300 years didn't intermarry. You don't pay attention to what your edits actually mean or imply, and the result is nonsense."

The source uses "undetermined amount", I used "part", reflecting what the source says (i could even add "or perhaps the majority" which is in the source). There is no difference except WP:YOUDONTLIKE what the study has to say, and decided it needed to go, because it implies not 100% of palestinians were in palestine before the islamic conquest, which is a demonstrable fact.

"2 mutually distinct descent groups, that in 1,300 years didn't intermarry."

Your logic: Everyone had sex and so they have a common history. Here's an idea, maybe there ARENT two distinct groups, nor one monolithic one, and palestinians were historically endogamous within their clans, and are still albeit somewhat less to this day?[17] (there's another group now, city dwellers, who are much more exogamous, and clans in specific villages now often practice village endogamy) Weaker clans may be absorbed by stronger ones and the clans have been split into branches in different countries, but there are strong family traditions and especially in families of pedigree descent is fastidiously recorded, sometimes back to the 7th century. There were waves of immigration into palestine, and a clan-based society was not the model western-style melting pot. I don't know what you find paradoxical about saying some palestinians have pre-7th century roots and others don't. Some families came to palestine more recently, say the ottoman period, others in the 7th century, some earlier, some later. Have the palestinians been put in a blender so they're now a monolithic ethnic group? In truth they are better described as a nation than an ethnic group, and I'm not talking about a state (and yes I know ethnos means nation). Lets take the british isles. The welsh are descended from the earliest settlers, scotts and irish from later continental settlers, english from even later anglo-saxons and some neolithic french. They are all british people. Yes, the palestinians are a single ethnos today, but they didn't always consider themselves as such. Do all welsh marry other welsh? No. Nor do all palestinians marry within the clan. When you operate purely by dna your claims become more tenuous. Humans are wonderful creatures who store most of their "information" not in their DNA, but in their culture. Palestinian culture is by and large levantine arab culture. Now before I go on about how irrational the "canaanite" moniker is I apologize if this is a straw man. I suppose only the most revisionist of palestinian nationalists say they're descended from the canaanites and jebusites (the latter only existing in jewish texts). Others say they're "all the peoples mixed together", which is much more accurate but still very nebulous as far as an ethnos goes. Anyway.... let's establish this once and for all.

The canaanites died in the bronze age collapse. Died, they're dead. I think history would record it if people later on went around calling themselves canaanites. By iron age I the canaanites were split into israelites, ammonites, moabites, edomites, and phonecians. We know what happened to these societies. Israelites became jews and samaritans, and edomites ceased to exist as a distinct people due to the combined forces of judaization and hellenization. Phonecians are, according to lebanese nationalists and maronites, lebanese people, and according to others, a not insignificant component of lebanese people. So if Palestinians are phonecian than the lebanese have just as much a right to claim southwest canaan as they do. Which they don't, because the phonecians are indigenous to north canaan. Now the ammonites aren't totally accounted for, they sort of faded from history. I could suspend disbelief and imagine palestinians have some ammonite extraction. But then they would be indigenous to southeast canaan, which is Jordan! So the only remaining "canaanite" they could be is Israelite, native to southwest canaan. If they just said that, "we're descended from jews and samaritans", I would be a lot more sympathetic, since it's not a blatant lie, but instead they need to revive dead civilizations and claim to be the obsolete "canaanite" and "jebusite", using terms from the Hebrew and Samaritan Torah's which is ironic because they wouldn't know about these supposed ancestors if not for the former. It also relies on the revisionist/biblical ultramaximalist idea that israelites are a fundamentally different stock from the canaanites. Or they could just not make any of these spurious claims and say "we've been here while you were there".... Which is actually an honest argument. Again, this may be a straw man.

You are trying to think out a solution to flesh out the dark holes of history. So do I, in my solitary speculations. But in an encyclopedia, our drudgery consists in simply looking at what the best sources say, and paraphrasing them correctly. It's humble work, humiliating to some extent, since we are the proxy peons doing work for a global readership that wants a quick fix for 'info', without the tedium of actually rolling up their sleeves for themselves to find out. What we have so far is an ill-assorted assemblage of mostly well-sourced statements, edited in under a siege of insecurities. What the truth is, I have no idea. I can spot the POV bent however, be it Palestinian or Zionist, fairly readily. Neutrality will consist in simply producing a text that enlightens and disappoints both types of partisan reader in some regards, but gives the general, detached reader a sense of the state-of-the art commentary on this. I've always intended doing my bit to shape this up better, but it's a touchy issue, and that is why I suggest slow, careful and collegial proposals here. if I have the time, I'll, in the next month or so, show how I think all those quotes can be boiled down.Nishidani (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The Arabization is a complex issue, which the selective use of sources, or failure to actually use more sources, distorted and still distorts:
It was a process that took off significantly 4 centuries after the Arab invasion, over which period scholarship generally considers the majority of the population remained Christian. The sectarian switch was engendered by 3 factors. (a) the negative impact of the Crusades, which acted with extreme prejudice against Eastern Christians (b) the emergence of the Mongol threat (c) and the conversion of the Mamluks, with their rise to power, to Islam, as they fought to defend themselves against Mongols and those Christian communities in alliance with the latter. This is 4-5 centuries after the conquest. There is zero awareness in your text of this context.

Yes, the origins section is bad. Particularly egregious is the dumping ground of quotes that promote psuedohistory. But apparently a single sourced sentence about how arabs immigrated to palestine during the first millenium and contributed to arabization shows zero awareness. That genetic study is very favorable to palestinians, I'm surprised you don't want to include it, its angle towards history is something like your own. Its conclusion, that many palestinians have pre-islamic and perhaps prehistoric roots, was put on this page as something to be celebrated, a rebuttal of zionist claims that most palestinians are post 7th century migrants. But not all studies end up that way. It's a pretty mixed bowl. A majority are more sober-[18] finding that jews, bedouin and levantines are very similar y-genetically, meaning they share common prehistoric male lineage(s), not that one is descended from another. It's funny if you think about it that they use jewish DNA to legitimize themselves.... ahem.

That genetic study is very favorable to palestinians, I'm surprised you don't want to include it

If you were surprised you are missing something in my editing pattern. I follow a rule (as far as I am aware of). However 'good' stuff may appear for Palestinians (or any other group) I refuse to accept it if it fails WP:RS, and is not written by an area-competent source. It requires very particular circumstances for me to make an exception on this, and only if I can find a consensus. I can't above re Zero's technically correct removal of an MA, so that stays out. Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • The origins of Palestinians are complex and diverse. The whole article evidences the depth of Palestinian origins timewise and in terms of spatial demographics. Timewise they come from high antiquity, spatially as a key crossroad, they have constantly absorbed populations flowing in from north south east west. The section with those bolded words is stupid because it is called 'Origins' and yet arbitrary starts with the Arab invasion, as if this were the beginnings of Palestinian identity. You've just endorsed this. It's stupid. The whole section needs rewriting to make it cohere with the rest of the text and its evidence. Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

"Timewise they come from high antiquity, spatially as a key crossroad, they have constantly absorbed populations flowing in from north south east west." But that's not proven. Some anthropologists can hypothesize it, but anthropology is the most anthropocentric (and the most left-wing) of the sciences, and is not nearly as reliable as history or archeology. You correctly note that the land connects three continents, with nations from each continent making it part of their empire. So many demographic changes in a community without a distinct identity... and yet you use this as proof of palestinian continuity. As for "high antiquity", technically every people comes from antiquity in some form or another... mitocondrial eve and y-chromosonal adam, amino acids in a primordial soup, carbon fused inside our sun... What makes a people ancient in any meaningful sense is having an ancient ethnogenesis. Palestinian ethnogenesis (when they identified themselves as an ethnic group and/or others identified them as a distinct ethnic group) was in the early 20th century. australians are older. I look to recorded history to support fantastic historical claims. If history changes without new information coming to light, it's probably revisionism. Anyway, starting at the 7th century doesn't preclude a prior past- take the Assyrian people. While the wikicoverage of assyrians is full of primordialist claims that assyrians have a past totally not anachronistically spanning 4500 years, they start assyrian history with the christian period....for obvious reasons.

I'm glad you're being somewhat nicer here (still condescending but less vituperative), but I would respect you a lot more if you admitted you are wrong about some things.--Monochrome_Monitor 12:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I thanked you for your edit removing (pro-Palestinian) nonsense from Canaan, for a very simple reason. You spotted crap, egregious crap. The Ottoman Turks, for one, did not use the Turkish word for Palestine in most of their documents, and when they did, it did not refer to Canaan, but the coastline. I am somewhat obsessive about the precise, nuanced use of words to fit complex political, historical and social realities. I edit little because most of the articles (this one included) look messy, and demand extensive revision from that perspective. I would boil this down radically were edits here no so conflictive and pointy, many of them to do with Palestinian assertions. But this requires long close work. I don't want the problems multiplied.
    • That's actually not why I deleted it, I deleted it because it implies that after 1948 no one called it that, like history was sealed- it was called israel and then palestine and now israel and we go full circle and it's happily ever after. I thought you thanked me because of that. XD I did think "all parties" was weird though. Um, what parties?--Monochrome_Monitor 19:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


You're thinking of the politics of texts and editors, in highly simplistic terms, and that is why you'll probably find I challenge quite a lot of edits you make.

anthropology is the most anthropocentric (and the most left-wing) of the sciences, and is not nearly as reliable as history or archeology.

That is another broad-brush generalization that shows unfamiliarity with the topic. You cannot distinguish anthropology from history or archaeology for the simple reason that anthropology is integral to both the latter, so we have disciplines like historical anthropology and archaeological anthropology.
If you approach any subject thinking in Manichaean terms (Left-wing/right wing//Zionist/anti-Zionist) you won't get anywhere, except dig yourself into a deeper hole. Try and find on which side of that pseudo-divide Franz Boas, Alfred Radcliffe-Brown, E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Raymond Firth, Irving Goldman, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Franz Baermann Steiner,Clifford Geertz, Marvin Harris, etc.stand. The distinction is meaningless.
I've been reverted on several occasions each by Oncenawhile, Zero, Nableezy, Tom Reedy and dozens of other editors, and I've never squeaked: they are extremely precise, and don't do that unless they are dead certain something is wrong. I first specialized in ancient Greek, which, despite the hodgepodge of ethnic mixing evidenced over the last 50 years, was depicted as a unified ethnos by a traditional ethnocentric reading. This is all changed now: modern Greeks, with millennia of intermixtures added on, are still the descendants of classical Greeks, we don't split hairs and challenge that because their whole history shows immigration flows. I apply the same principle here (on the basis of what I read). Ask yourself why, uniquely, Palestinians are subject to stringent rules of ethnic sifting when their past is analysed?

What makes a people ancient in any meaningful sense is having an ancient ethnogenesis

That's meaningless to me, because ethnic identitites are constructed, and in modern times.

(The Zionist Association would require to have permission at the same time to build Jewish schools, where Hebrew would be taught, and in that was) to build up gradually a nationality which would be as Jewish as the French nation was French and the British nation British.'(Martin Sicker, Reshaping Palestine: From Muhammad Ali to the British Mandate, 1831-1922, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999 p.148.)

You think recent genetics can fix things (science!) Recent genetics has thrown marvelous light on many things, but it is in its infancy. It will take a decade for the discipline to sort out exactly how its partial results square with the wobbly, unstable discursive conceptual tradition of nations, ethnoi etc.
My advice continues to be: don't rush. Don't do multiple edits to complex pages. Do one or two, and make explanations on the page. Neither Israel nor Palestine's fate depends on what we do here.Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I told you already, Jews in the mid to late 19th had just gotten basic civil rights and were busy assimilating. You can tell by how they refer to themselves- take the "Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith", the ultra-cautious name for a jewish org set up in 1893's Berlin. You say it like they didn't think of themselves as a people, which isn't true. They desperately wanted to fit in, to be "Jewish Germans", and not "German Jews". Asserting that they were just Germans of the Jewish faith, with no ethnic component, was also a way of combating the new hip philosophy "antisemitism". This moniker, "X of the Jewish faith", replaced the former PC term for themselves, "Israelite". The word Jew was derogatory so they called themselves Israelites, some jewish organizations in Europe are still called that. Anyway, my point is, yes, Jews were not a nation in the sense that france was a nation. That's why zionism was so revolutionary, many jews weren't ready for it. Like the Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith. They were anti-zionist like good, loyal german citizens. And when the nuremburg laws stripped them of their citizenship, they had to rename themselves "Jewish Central Association". Poor things, I can't imagine they lived to have grandkids. Jews were a nation in a different sense than France, it's the difference between klal yisrael and medinat yisrael. However, I won't deny that Israeliness was a new/reconstructed identity. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
You can't call the new jewish nationalism an ethnogenesis by any meaning of the word.--Monochrome_Monitor 16:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
These arguments bore me, really. I have to wade in my daily reading through so many articles which harp on just the ethnic identitarian aspect regarding anything, I wonder why people can bear it for weeks, then months, then years, then decades, then a lifetime.
This is the last I hope to have to say on that (since we interact and it's such an important motivating issue for you, as you note above) I grew up where everyone I knew defined themselves by their political nationality, and it was utterly no one's business as to how each person defined his 'descent', recent or otherwise. I knew and know many people who, according to one external definition or another, are or were 'Jewish' (including relatives) but who never showed the slightest interest in this as a public identity to be worn on their sleeve or to get anguished or proud about, let alone to brandish the 'I'm a victim' complex as the start-up topic of any interaction, in someone else's home, without even asking the locals what their experience of the world I represent is'. This goes for all groups. Being tugged by the sleeve one way or another must be terrible. (I've witnessed vigorous even threatening arguments made by ethnic obsessives from the Balkans against people of the same ethnic or religious or linguistic culture badgering individuals to 'declare' this or that one identity. A Japanese fiancée was once harassed by officials at Haneda airport for not using the standard, gender-marking terminological jargon expected from a submissive 'Japanese woman', etc.). Everyone must choose what discursive universe they prefer to live in, of course. Mine is, from the age of 5, to prefer outsiders to insiders. I never had, for my decisive primary school years, kids of my own 'confession' or 'ethnic group' among my elective friends. Call it a prejudice, if you like, but that's part of the structure of my makeup, and it makes me far more detached in reading history than I would be had circumstances made me 'patriotic'. Jews have had 2,000 years of antisemitism, which is basically being told to 'fuck off because you ain't like us.' In the 19th century, thanks to Napoleon, a glimmer of enlightenment allowed some of them to feel Jewish, or French etc., or both or neither, without having to keep battling with an other-imposed and impossible identitarian neurosis. That's all I want to say on this. Let's focus on the specific edits you'd like to propose, re 'Arabization' from the 7th CE onwards in Palestine without being entangled in wider issues, ay. I'm interested in world history, and I have no, and don't want an, ethnic thread of Ariadne to help me grope my way through its labyrinths.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, you're talking about jews today? Haha, you don't need to tell me about jews "you know", I live with them. My mom is funny. She doesn't think jews constitute a people but she considers herself a Jew. And when I say, well, what makes you jewish then, you heretic? And she says "my ancestors were jews". Too funny. Those are the contradictions of the post-napolean diaspora jew. Also, I want you to know I don't consider myself a victim. Well, for being a Jew at least. Not at all. Do I bear grudges against certain nations? Yes. What's motivating to me again? My Jewishness? I'm not "patriotic" in the way you imagine. The only jewish things about me are chinese food on christmas and a genetic mutation predisposing me to breast cancer. See, we grew up in different environments. You see irish people killing eachother and think, wow, irish nationalism is scary. On the other hand, I see jews with christmas trees and think: Wow, we're completely fucked. (my aunt: "we celebrate all religions"). --Monochrome_Monitor 18:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Assessment

I think many of your above arguments and counter-arguments are getting off-topic. Instead of talking about Palestinians as an ethnic group, the conversation (and its relatively few sources) covers topics relating to the long history of the Palestine region, demographic changes in the area from Late Antiquity onwards, the effects of the Muslim conquest of the Levant and the resulting Arabization and Islamization of the region, the effects of the Crusades and the modern perception of them, and the population growth which turned a relatively sparsely-populated area into an area with over 9 million residents. Do you honestly think that all this is relevant for a basic understanding of the Palestinians?

Also some of your comments and ideas do not strike me as either factual or as accurately representing major viewpoints. Lets see some specific examples:

  • Nishidani starts his/her text with the idea of "continuities of descent" in the population of Palestine over a period of millennia. While more sources are needed to establish that such a continuity exists, it is not implausible. But it may not represent the full picture at all. Human beings tend to have two biological parents, four grandparents (excluding the possibility of incest in this line), 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents etc. It is basic genealogy. In any given case where there is interbreeding (genetic admixture) between two interacting populations, the descendants can legitimately claim descend from both of them. In an area such as the Levant with a recorded history of interactions between numerous ancient, medieval, and modern peoples, there is a strong likelihood that they have all interbred and have descendants in common.
I had in mind many passages in recent scholarship on the contradiction in premises between the Jewish narrative, (stressing continuity despite upheavals, deportations, population mixture and invasions) and the narrative bias against Palestinians (where the same elements are interpreted as proof of discontinuity), in the representation of their respective histories in that one land. See for the paradigm here, pp.254-258 here, the Arab transition myth as upheaval here, and chapter 2 here pp26ff., esp. the citation from Maxime Rodinson p.38. Nishidani (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Jews have maintained an identity and culture, proving their continuity. Palestinians have not. Jewish history is recorded history for the most part, palestinian history is not. I could go on. The compares to jews are just silly.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Sheesh. That statement is almost enough to suggest to me you shouldn't be editing this page. The Jewish history of scores and scores of Jewish communities is not well known (Ethiopians, Chinese, Moroccan, Tats, the Jews in Israel for 2,000 years etc.etc. is not well known to them, or scholars, because for 2,000 years their communities wrote no 'history'. I compared the discursive frameworks used to represent two peoples per sources. You took this as a comparison between them. The comparison becomes ridiculous because it's caught up in an us/them vaunting of a collectivist plus for us/ minus for them logic, so that a Jew from Siberia, Yemen,Ethiopia with no documents beyond a few sparse family anecdotes, and perhaps a birth certificate of one grandparent acquires automatically a 'history' written by scribes he's never read, while the Rashidis, Husaynis, Nuseibehs, for example, whose archives allow them to trace 1,300 years of presence in Jerusalem, have no continuity with the land, or history, compared to any Joe-blow from wherever who happens to be 'Jewish'. It's one of the endless examples of total naïve unthinking typical of the Zionist genre. You said you read anthropology:imagine an American of Puritan descent writing

White Americans have maintained an identity and culture, proving their continuity. The Comanche have not. White American history is recorded history for the most part, Comanche history is not. I could go on. The comparions of Injuns to Whites are just silly

Comparing the way an American white historian might write of the glories of their settlement of the land, with the way the same historian might briskly dismiss, or use caricatures, to touch on the indigenous peoples, is more than legitimate. It's not about who has history, but who controls history and dictates its terms. I'm not editing today. I hope you reflect a little. Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Inane comparisons. Chinese Jews are most likely a myth introduced by european missionaries. Oral Ethiopian Jewish history covers centuries and its reliably has been proven, many recorded historic events line up with their accounts. The history of the Moroccan Jews is recorded, they were the first non-Berber people to settle in the maghreb and their presence is noted by the Romans and later by Arab and Moorish (Arab-Berber) historians- later sephardic jews who arrived after their expulsion are even more well know to historians. The Mountain Jews are descended from Persian Jews who arrived in Dagestan in the 5th century, maintaining a rich oral history and continuous genealogical records. Yemeni Jews are attested since the Himyarite period, their continuous existence further validated by latin, syraic and arabic sources, they were noted by the caliphs, by the early medieval period they were in contact with the andalusian jewish community, most significantly maimomaides. Their exile to mawza is engraved in their collective memory and in historical records... I'm not just talking about western history or inscriptions in stone, I'm also talking about oral tradition and records kept in communities. I'm not saying the Palestinians don't have a history- they DO have a history. Many families trace their families back for centuries, like you said- up to the 7th century. My point is not that they haven't kept a history, it's that they have and this history is different from the history palestinian nationalist theorists now proclaim. That is the difference. Not discontinuity in historical records- A gap in the historical record that maintains narrative continuity is different from a continuous historical record or narrative that is revised in the modern era. The comparison to whites and native americans is the most disgraceful- the anti-zionist meme of white colonialists overtaking the indigenous population. Jews and samaritans are the indigenous population of southwest canaan, every historian worth their salt knows that.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • "the Arabs basically began a late drift in from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, attracted by the economic prospects opened up by the wave of early Ist aliyah settlement, with its modern agricultural know-how. In other words, Palestine was repopulated by two contemporaneous waves of immigrants, Jewish and Arab." Nishidani says it with disdain, but if there are reputable sources pointing to immigration waves coming to Palestine in the 19th century, they should be included in the relevant articles. it might give some proper background to the region's population growth.
Most competent historical demographers dismiss it with disdain. 'It is largely accepted . .that at least until the early 1920s the growth of the Arab population.. (not an isolated case in the region). had little to do with external migratory waves. '(Lorenzo Kamel, linked above pp.40-41) Nishidani (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
For the discursive framework in Zionist discourse, Kamel documents how:

(The early Zionist thesis that the fellahin were converted Jews was dropped as Zionist colonization got underway) i.e. since the abandonment of the thesis of the Jewish origin of the fellahin) the descendants of Jewish farmers were removed from Jewish national consciousness; the Palestinian fellahin of the present day quickly became, in the eyes of the official memory agents, Arab immigrants who arrived en masse in the nineteenth century in an almost empty land and whose migration continued into the twentieth century, following the economic develiopment of Zionist agriculture that, according to this myth, attracted thousands of non-Jewish labourers’ p.31 Nishidani (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

We're talking about Jewish farmers? I told you I'm much more receptive to claims of being arabized jews, because that is actually plausible. My problem is for whatever reason, perhaps antisemitism, they can't make such a claim, and instead have to embarrass themselves by claiming the throne of a civilization of which it is literally impossible for them to be, unless palestine was stuck in a slo-time field or amber or something.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The Palestinian peasants interviewed by Swedenburg have no more knowledge of the history of that era than you do, and their views are not material to the issue. No we are not talking about Jewish farmers, since the majority population of Palestine at that time was Christian. Jews in any case were deeply 'Arabized' from the Arabian peninsula through the Middle East before the invasion

The inroads made by Arabic into the communities of the Middle East occurred over a lengthy period, between the sixth and ninth centuries. It seems that there were numerous Arab-speaking Jewish communities in the Middle East even prior to the Islamic conquests, in the Arabian peninsula as well as in certain areas of Syria and Iraq. Conversions to Judaism on the part of native Arabic speakers, members of Arab tribes from the region, also contribute to the increasing use of Arabic on the part of the Jewish population of the Arabian peninsula.'(Miriam Goldstein, Karaite Exegesis in Medieval Jerusalem: The Judeo-Arabic Pentateuch, Mohr Siebeck 2011 p.1)

Their claims are very relevant, they have everything to do with the mentality of the claimer. I do not pretend to remember the late bronze age period- I let archeology do the remembering for me, and that archeology proves without a doubt that the canaanites spoke canaanite and not arabic. I know about the Jewish tribes of Arabia. Their presence and quasi-genocide is recorded in the hadith. A common palestinian chant is "khaybar, khaybar, ya yahud, jayshi muhammad sawfa ya'ud". Which is rather ironic considering they are comparing themselves to a jewish tribe whose land, women, and property were stolen by muslims.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "The Peters thesis drew on earlier Zionist arguments, chief of which was that the 'Arabs' overwhelmed this Jewish-Christian country from 635 BE onwards." So it is a "Zionist" argument that a Christianized area of the Byzantine Empire was conquered by the Rashidun Caliphate and underwent conversion into a different religion and assimilation into a different culture. While I suppose other sources are arguing that nothing changed and/or the changes were not the result of conquest? Nishidani, are you certain that only Zionists believe this? Because I have my doubts about your statement.
You ignored my actual recent edits to the page, which show I am documenting exactly the opposite, that Arabization was a slow and centuries long process, not coterminous with 634 as once implied, and islamicization one that basically skyrocketed after the failure of the Crusades.Nishidani (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I think he's talking about the zionist argument that palestinians are all descended from the conquerers and none of the conquered. Peters is infamous for pulling figures out of her ass.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "As numerous scholarly works, including Fred Donner's argue, the whole peripheral economy of Palestine has always had a permeable relationship between nomadic tribes (from Ivri to Bebouin). Arabs are strongly attested in the 5th century BCE in southern Palestine". Could you clarify your statement? "Ivri" is listed in Wikipedia as a synonym for "Hebrew". I have no idea what a "Bebouin" is, though you might mean Bedouin. If you have access to scholarly works pointing to Arab presence in Palestine from the 5th century BC onwards, you should probably add it to relevant articles. However, it might not be enough to trace the ethnogenesis of the Palestinians in that period.
Didn't you notice that I wrote 'Southern Palestine had a large Edomite and Arab population by the 4th century BCE.'+ Inscriptional evidence over a millennium from the peripheral areas of Palestine, such as the Golan and the Negev, show a prevalence of Arab names over Aramaic names from the Achaemenid period,550 -330 BCE onwards',recently. I first noted this on Palestinian historical articles some years ago.Nishidani (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Many old Palestinans traced their collective ancestry back to the "Arab canaanites." By such means they meant to affirm that their original title to the land of Palestine predated and took precedence over rival Israeli Jewish claims." (Palestinians claim nonsense like that canaanites were arab because they want to rival jewish claims. How damning! I can't believe I left that out.) The editorial view of Monochrome_Monitor seems decisively POV here. The source does not explicitly state that Canaanites were Arabs. These Palestinians apparently claim that they are descendants of the Canaanites. Technically this is not "nonsense", this is standard procedure for Historiography and nationalism. The nationalists of a modern nation choose to claim descend from one or more ancient and possibly extinct ethnic groups. Albanians claim descent from the Illyrians and Pelasgians, Romanians claim descent from the Dacians, Sarmatism proponents claim that the Slavs descent from the [[Sarmatians], Macedonian nationalists claim descent from the Ancient Macedonians, the Illyrian movement claimed that the South Slavs descent from the Illyrians, and the 16 Great Turkic Empires concept in Turkish nationalism claims the descent of the Turks from the Xiongnu, the Huns, the Hephthalites, the Göktürks, the Pannonian Avars, the Khazars, the Uyghurs, and a varied number of Mongol, Tatar, and Turkic states.
  • "Abdallah Frangi, for instance, claims that the Arab Palestinians are the descendants of the autochthonous Canaanite inhabitants of Palestine and that the Israelis are the offspring of ancient Hebrews who invaded Palestine later. " ... (referring to pereniallism, ie primordialism, as in palestinians insert themselves into the position of israel's ancient enemies to make it seem like they have been put down by the jewish oppressor since the dawn of time.) This is not a reference to perennialism. The claim of Abdallah Frangi is potentially based on the supposed invasion of Palestine by the Israelites, which is vividly portrayed in the Book of Joshua. "The Israelites cross the Jordan through the miraculous intervention of God and the Ark of the Covenant ...The conquest begins in Canaan with Jericho, followed by Ai (central Canaan)". The fact that the events recorded in the book are probably not historical does not mean it has not shaped the popular perception of history for a couple of millennia.
  • "The Jews were not the original inhabitants of Palestine, according to Zu'aytir, but "foreigners" (note scare quotes) who owned only a part of Palestine and never comprised a majority of its population. The Jewish kingdom, he asserts, lasted only a short time and and left no lasting influence on the country's civilization (Zu'aytir 1955: 35, 58-59). (jews left no influence whatsoever on christian and islamic civilization. reasonable.)" The source says one thing, you seem to be getting something completely different. One is a claim that Jews were foreigners in Palestine, which by the way is a theme that gets used a lot in the Book of Genesis and the Book of Joshua. The second is a claim that the Jews only owned part of Palestine. This seems to be accurate, since the ancient sources report on areas held by the Philistines, by Edom, by Moab, and by Ammon. The third is a claim that Jews never comprised a majority of Palestine's population. Which may be plausible, since they never held full control of the area. The fourth is a claim that the Jewish kingdom was short-lived. It largely depends on which kingdom we are talking about. The Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) lasted about 2 centuries, the Kingdom of Judah for 3 centuries, the Hasmonean dynasty for about 1 century, the Herodian kingdom for about 35 years, and an attempt to turn Judea (Roman province) into a new kingdom under Herod Agrippa lasted for 3 years. None of these kingdoms lasted for more than 400 years. The last claim is that the Jewish kingdom left no lasting influence on the civilization of Palestine. Debatable, but this is a statement about the legacy of Jewish monarchy, not the Jews in general. So the influence of Judaism on Christianity and Islam might be irrelevant to the statement.
  • "Some alleged that because the prophet Abraham (revered by Muslims) was an Arab, the Jews were therefore the descendants of the Arabs. The Arabs, who who were Abraham's original offspring, therefore possessed prior rights to the land of Palestine. (remarkable feat of logic)" I don't get the logic either, but this is apparently what they believe. Not necessarily a statement of fact. As for Jewish descend from the Arabs, wouldn't this make them kinsmen?
  • "Such claims represented a kind of shadow discourse to that of the Zionists, a discourse articulated in virtually the same terms as its rival's. (Here's the kicker! palestinian claims are articulated in similar terms as zionist claims. That totally means he considers them equally valid! Except, that's exactly what zionists say, that palestinian nationalism is a mirror image of zionism. He's saying that ridiculous palestinian claims are a response to zionist discourse, an attempt to one-up the jews.)" The source points to the essential similarity of the two nationalist discourses and their use of nearly identical terms. It says nothing about the validity of the claims involved in the discourses. As for how "ridiculous" they actually sound, I personally agree but the characterization is not in the source.
The talk page is one thing. The edits one makes another. Neither claims are valid. Both spin history.Nishidani (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    • It's subtext. He does not need to say they are bullshit. He is counting on the reader to fill in the blanks.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Such "genealogical" discourse, typical of the nation's impulse to represent itself as having an eternal past, had the unfortunate side effect of reproducing Orientalist and Zionist assertions that the "Arab-Jewish" struggle is ancient and virtually natural and thereby obviated any need to understand the conflict in its current context. (If that's what you're referring to, it does not say what you think it does. It says that palestinians and jews are guilty of making the claim that the conflict is rooted in ancient blood feuds. But they make it for different reasons- zionists to simplify history into us vs them, them hates us, so lets wash our hands of any responsibility to help solve the conflict. The orientalist aspect is part of this polarization: isaac the favored son vs. ishmael the wild man, wild arabs, you get the point. it's frankly racist, though to be fair the people who make it are either evangelical christians or national-religious. BUT Palestinians make the claims for a different reason: "typical of the nation's impulse to represent itself as having an eternal past")" Here much of your comment does not relate to the source at all. It mostly points that Palestinian nationalists' views match those of the Zionists and Orientalists, transforming the relatively recent "Arab-Jewish" struggle into something that sounds like eternal war across the millennia. The motivation behind such views is not given in the source, the views of Evangelicalism are not mentioned at all (unless you consider them Orientalist), and I do not see any claim about "wild Arabs" in the text.
I'm referring to the hysterical descriptions (which some political morons in the Arab elites also use) of the 'jihadi' purge of Palestine and many Zionist polemicists refer to as the killing, enslavement and deportation of Christians and Jews. The cheap literature is crammed with this, see Bat Ye'or pp.112f. The 'wild' comes fantasy memes she popularized for that period and from such generalizations as 'the trope of savage stateless Arabs, frequently used in Israeli rhetoric to discredit the very concept of 'Palestinian people' Nishidani (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, in that section he's talking about the perpetual war. In a different part he compares palestinian claims to zionist ones, not meaning just as ridiculous, but put in similar terms- nationalist concepts like "ancestral homeland, and eternal capital". I didn't say the arab thing was in the source. I was talking about positions I've heard on how the war is rooted in biblical us vs them, and I'm saying I mostly hear it from evangelicals. Have you read your tanakh? :P There's a part where it says ishmael will be a wild man, and his hands will at be at everyone's throats. Sometimes like that. Too lazy to look it up. Anyway, modern orthodox and american evangelicals are fond of using this explain things like islamic terrorism, and even the horrors of the arab winter, which is pretty mean.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "I ran across no Palestinian villager (or urbanite) who claimed personal descent from the Canaanites. Villagers typically traced their family or their hamula's origins back to a more recent past in the Arabian peninsula. Many avowed descent from some nomadic tribe that had migrated from Arabia to Palestine either during or shortly after the after the Arab- Islamic conquests. By such a claim they inserted their family's history into the narrative of Arab and Islamic civilization and connected themselves to a genealogy that possessed greater local and contemporary prestige than did ancient or pre-Islamic descent. (This does not mean they are concealing ancient roots. It is an explanation of why "When it came to an individual's family, however, Arab-Islamic discourse took precedence". On a collective level, "primordialist claims regarding the Palestinians' primeval and prior roots in the land" are advantageous. But on a local family basis, they "typically trace" their families origins to "a more recent past in the Arabian peninsula". He ran across no villager that claimed canaanite origins, instead they avowed arab origins, which are more prestigious. So on a collective level, ancient origins are more prestigious. On a local one, arab origins are more prestigious. So they are both lies! Nope, it's politics. So which one is closer to the truth? Obviously the latter. Note the difference: "trace their family's history" and "avowed descent", vs "claimed personal descent from the Canaanites" The implication is that the former is a claim, the latter is more honest. However, not entirely honest:)" You might be reading too much in this sentence. None of these Palestinians claimed direct descent from the Canaanites, but they "avowed" (stated publicly) that they claim descent from a number of nomadic tribes in the Arabian Peninsula. The source goes out of its way to explain why they make such claims, to connect their familial history to a grand narrative of Arab/Islamic civilization. Its not just lies or politics as you say, its a combination of genealogical claims to an illustrious ancestry and a sense of pride to be Arabs. As to which is closer to the truth, the source does not claim anything on the matter. So I do not get where this "obviously" comes from.
    • Avow doesn't just mean stated publicly. It's got the connotation of admitting something, saying it without shame. Especially in this context, avow here is used more in the sense of confess. :)
  • "Several men specifically connected their forefathers' date of entry into Palestine to their participation in the army of Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (Saladin), a historical figure whose significance has been retrospectively enlarged by nationalist discourse such that he is now regarded not merely as a hero of "Islamic" civilization but as a "national" luminary as well. (Modern nationalist discourse tends to downplay Salah al-Din's Kurdish origins.) (Nationalist discourse has appropriated saladin from an islamic hero to an arab one, ignoring his kurdish origins. This is true. The Eagle of Saladin is a pan-arab symbol and it's on many arab coats of arms, including the PLOs.)" That Saladin seems to have inspired his own hero cult in modern Muslim cultures is a quite interesting legacy of the Crusades. However, what you seem to ignore here is that these Palestinians claim descent from the soldiers who fought under Saladin in the 12th century. The idea seems to be that "we are proud our ancestors fought against the Crusaders".
  • "Palestinians of all political stripes viewed Salah al-Din's wars against the Crusaders as a forerunner of the current combats against foreign intruders. Many considered Salah al-Din's victory over the Crusaders at Hittin (A.D. 1187) as a historical precedent that offered hope for their own eventual triumph — even if, like the Crusader wars, the current struggle with Israel was destined to last more than two centuries. (Ahah! so that's why they claim to be descended from his forces. They have a particular admiration for him because they consider him a precedent for their struggle against the zionist entity. " This is not unique to the Palestinians. Per the article on the Historiography of the Crusades, modern Muslims view the Crusades as the embodiment of Western/European invasion in their home area and have to some extend have projected current concerns into the past. "In the 21st century, such as the Pan-Islamism movement, continue to call Western involvement in the Middle East a "crusade". Today many Muslims consider the Crusades to be a symbol of Western hostility toward Islam."
  • "Villagers claiming descent from Arabs who entered Palestine during the Arab-Islamic conquest equally viewed these origins as establishing their historical precedence over the Jews, whom they basically regarded as Europeans who only began arriving in Palestine in the late nineteenth century. (If palestinians came in the 7th century than jews have no roots in the land, if jews are israelites than palestinians are canaanites. and anything you can do i can do better.)" And you completely ignore that they consider the Jews to be European invaders, somewhat resembling their image of the Crusaders.

I think you both let your own biases speak instead of the sources in these cases. Dimadick (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Biases are no problem on a talk page. The proof of the pud is in the balance of article editing. Bias is not the problem on Wikipedia. Unfamiliarity with the subjects edited is.Nishidani (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't ignore the european invader thing. I referred to it- when they say they are arabians who came after the conquest, they say that jews have no roots in the land (consider them european invaders). But when they admit jews are descended from israelites, they say they are canaanites.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic group

The "ethnic group" characterization is spurious, and the two sources backing it are weak. Both are abstracts of studies, the former refers to "palestinian ethnic identity" among Israeli Arabs and the latter in passing to "the survival of Palestinian ethnicity, culture, and attachment to homeland" (the former source is also biased in saying non palestinian arab israelis lost their identity). The ineptitude of the "ethnic group" comparison is found when looking at other levantine nationalities- "The Lebanese people are the nation of Lebanon", "The Syrian people are the inhabitants of Syria". Palestinians are many ethnicities, that is patently obvious, thus the existence of the template Ethnic groups in the State of Palestine. Palestinians are a national group, not an ethnic group. "Palestinian nation"- 102,000 results. "Palestinian ethnicity"- 1,320 results. That's nearly two orders of magnitude of difference. I know bolter has mentioned it before, so @Bolter21:--Monochrome_Monitor 22:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I"ve once talked to an Antropologist and I asked him what is his stance on the Palestinians as an Ethnic group and he replied: "Well if an Ethnic group is the definition of a political movement, then they are an ethnic group". Seriously, you can't draw a border for the Jews and define all non-Jews as an ethnic group. (literally, the UK drew the borders of the mandate to include all Jewish settlements, the Galilee Panhandle is today considered part of "Palestine" but originally it was outside of the Mandate, until the Jews who were attacked demanded the Brits and Frenchies to include that territory in the Mandate, which was made at december 1920). Why aren't Egyptian Rafah, Taba, Aqaba, Kafr Kila, Yaroun, Rmaich considered Palestinian? They are literally less than a mile from the border of Palestine, did the UK happen to draw a border according to ethnic distribution? Some of the Syrian villages in the Golan Heights were for a short while part of the Mandate, why are they today considered Syrian land? Becuase France and UK had an agreement? I don't care how many titles people who say "Palestinians are an ethnic group" have, this opinion has no logic behind it. I wanted to stay out of this argument, so I only share my opinion on this but I am not willing to enter a serious debate on that.--23:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
It's like saying the british are an ethnic group. The population is not monolithic- case in point the bedouins and the druze. I guess the implication is that they don't count?--Monochrome_Monitor 00:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't forget the Maronites, Kopts, Circessians, Armanians, Baha'is and Samaritians, all of course... ethnically Palestinians? C'mon nock it off, we are all humans, but non of us are ethnically Palestinians.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Bolter, look up the standard definition of an 'ethnic group' in Max Weber, the greatest sociological thinker of the last century. Most of the very numerous sources that accept Palestinians are definable as an ethnic group draw on his definition, and the source used by MM to erase it is an Israeli writing of Palestinian Israelis, who are defined in Israel as a 'national group'.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hardly any sources call the Palestinians an ethnic group. A few use it in a careless way. It would have been great if it was true from a Zionist perspective. Israel would not have had to fight all those ethic wars with the ethnic Arabs.
Doubt article will chance but whatever it is probably good for Zionism if the Palestinians are divided from their Arab brothers.Jonney2000 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Unusually on this you are wrong re sources, which are abundant. See how it is classified in the 'ethnic conflict' literature. As to the rest, all aspiring empires use a logic of 'divide et impera.' In Europe, when Jews adopted a German, French,Polish identity etc., they were rejected as irrefrangibly Jewsm local splinters of a worldwide whole: in the Zionist cant, when a Arab self-identifies with his Palestinian identity, he is brushed off contemptuously as an 'Arab', which of course in modern Hebrew means he's filthy, dumb, an incompetent. One of the endless examples of how Zionism transformed extreme sensitivity to prejudice in modern Judaism, into a yawning contempt for the 'other'.Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Ugh he reverted it. I'm sure he has a great explanation why there's 2 order of magnitude of difference in those search terms then. And he's wrong, the quote doesn't appear in full. It stops at "other".--Monochrome_Monitor 06:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC) And he also abused his revert, reverting all of my edits even the ones he didn't have any criticism for. Insufferable.--Monochrome_Monitor 06:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Sse below on fraudulent editing, which is what is really insufferable. Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing fraudulent. I made a mistakes. You make lots of mistakes, except never admit it.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

One of the many cites for "arabization"

Says, "Although the Muslims guaranteed security and allowed religious freedom to all inhabitants of the region, the majority converted to Islam and adopted Arab culture". Um, that's patently false. What a ridiculous thing to say. What about all the samaritans forced to convert to islam?[19] It was the most catastrophic period in their history.--Monochrome_Monitor 06:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Never use one source to form a judgement, esp. historical. Compare Nathan Schur in Gerard Russell,

Heirs to Forgotten Kingdoms: Journeys Into the Disappearing Religions of the Middle East, Basic Books, 2015 p.157 Nishidani (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not just one source.[20][21] It's a fact of Samaritan history and it's whitewashed out.--Monochrome_Monitor 08:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Your procedure is ideological, i.e. you find a quote you like, ignored all book evidence to the contrary, and change the text accordingly to construct your Israelocentric POV for a people whom the state of Israel occupies. Any contrary evidence from very strong recent sources dealing specifically with the issue (a)Gideon Avni The fate of the Samaritans after the Arab conquest is not clear.’ (b) Monika Schreiber, The Comfort of Kin: Samaritan Community, Kinship, and Marriage BRILL, 2014 pp.46-7 is dismissed as 'white-washing'. That even here you know nothing of the specific topic is indicated by the fact you cite texts that are unaware of the general consensus that the massive devastation of the Samaritan communities in Palestine took place under the Byzantines, not under the Arabs.
I repeat. Stop editing any subject you lack basic historical knowledge of, until you have mastered the background and grasped the interpretative distinctions.Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I repeat. Quit it with the condescending bullshit. I think the Samaritans would know if they were forced to convert, and their tradition says that they were.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
What you or I think is immaterial. You don't think much, if in one edit you push the idea that Palestinians labour under a primordial misconception (wrong) , and think they know after 1,300 years that they come from Arabia at the time of the conquest (true), and then change tack with Samaritans, who are related to Jews, and assert that after 1,300 years they know they were forced to convert at the time of the conquest (true). All an independent analyst sees here is that what you think changes tack according to the ethnicity and political profile of the subjects. There is no disciplined learning behind edits that follow from such a premise.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 27 Jne 2016 (UTC)

First off, on primordialism I'm not talking about the average palestinian, I'm talking about the "official nationalist narrative", as swedenburg aptly put it. I know quite a bit about samaritans, certainly far more than you do, I've read several books about them. There are many recorded instances of forced conversion to islam- and I'm not talking about the 7th century, I'm talking about the late ottoman period (conversions before then were largely due to economic and political pressure, not force). During the 19th century samaritans nearly went extinct. Your source "the comfort of kin" describes the persecution during this period, as do others.[22][23] It's seared into their collective memory. So yes, it's absurd saying that since the original conquest no one was forced in to convert.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Fraudulent editing again

This latter is a fraudulent edit summary aiming at removing, as she did, the following part of the quote from James L. Gelvin, a first-rate source.

As we have seen, Zionism itself arose in reaction to anti-Semitic and exclusionary nationalist movements in Europe. It would be perverse to judge Zionism as somehow less valid than European anti-Semitism or those nationalisms. (It would be per verse to judge Zionism as somehow less valid than European anti-Semitism or those nationalisms) Furthermore, Zionism itself was also defined by its opposition to the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants of the region. Both the “conquest of land" and the “conquest of labor” slogans that became central to the dominant strain of Zionism in the Yishuv originated as a result of the Zionist confrontation with the Palestinian “other.”

Since the original quote is on p.93 of that page (James L. Gelvin, The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War, Cambridge University Press. p. 93.), 'what doesn't show up on the page' is inexplicable. It can only mean MM did not read the page, but only a snippet view. The page, I repeat, has this text.

Palestinian nationalism emerged during the interwar period in response to Zionist immigration and settlement. The fact that Palestinian nationalism developed later than Zionism and indeed in response to it does not in any way diminish the legitimacy of Palestinian nationalism or make it less valid than Zionism. All nationalisms arise in opposition to some “other”. Why else would there be the need to specify who you are? And all nationalisms are defined by what they oppose. As we have seen, Zionism itself arose in reaction to anti-Semitic and exclusionary nationalist movements in Europe. It would be perverse to judge Zionism as somehow less valid than European anti-Semitism or those nationalisms. It would be perverse to judge Zionism as somehow less valid than European anti-Semitism or those nationalisms. Furthermore, Zionism itself was also defined by its opposition to the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants of the region. Both the “conquest of land" and the “conquest of labor” slogans that became central to the dominant strain of Zionism in the Yishuv originated as a result of the Zionist confrontation with the Palestinian “other.”

The bolded words are what she removed. The italicized words were what the quote omitted to avoid violating WP:QUOTE's strictures against excessive length.

One more reason why the said editor can not be trusted to edit these pages. Either she pretended she had read the page, but could only see a snippet, and tried to pull the wool over other editors' eyes, or simply read it all, and disliked part of the content, and concocted a superious edit summary to justify the cancellation of what she dislikes. In either case, the tactic is fraudulent, and, given her record, close to sanctionable.Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

And don't as often, weasel past this. I'm waiting for an explanation.Nishidani (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

And you can be trusted? You haven't admitted being wrong, EVER. I admit when I'm wrong. I admit I was looking at the snippet quote, my bad.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Just this last deception cost me more than an hour's work, when I have professional writing to be done every day offline. The amount of private time I've wasted over the past year trying to negotiate an understanding of the basics of reading up a subject and editing in an informed way, since I accepted your apology for calling me an anti-Semite, would be sufficient to write 30 articles or a book. I sacrificed it willingly, because I like sharing what I know. You've learnt nothing. I come away convinced you can see the point, and then you repeat the same crude and aggressive edit-barging time and time again. I see no apology, not that I need one. But editing on these pages with you is a nightmare, because you don't know much (yet), seem to have a competitive urge that lacks detachment, and are quick to be resentful when caught out. Ease up, take time off to study the topics. You may be highly intelligent, but even a dumb and tedious bookworm like myself, with half a century of reading on these topics, will catch at a glance even a genius if they fake it. Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
That not a "deception", you shouldn't assume malicious intent so easily. I genuinely didn't understand why the quote was not in full in the preview, and I assumed there was a formatting error somewhere causing it, when I couldn't fix that I took the stuff off the quote to match it. Yet you constantly delete things WP:YOUDONTLIKE with no justification. You haven't addressed any of my points, still. Like about how "however" in that sentence means "despite", you thought that was evil spin. And how you were wrong about archeological justification not being in the source. Etc, etc. How am I supposed to respect you if you never admit it when you're wrong?--Monochrome_Monitor 23:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
when I'm wrong, I admit it Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Talk all you like. Your edit summary states
(a)'rm from quote what doesn't show up in the page'
(b)'it does show up on the page.'
(c)therefore you removed what was visible on the page.
(d)therefore your edit summary was false.
(e)I noted this
(f)You replied:'I admit I was looking at the snippet quote.'
(g) so your edit summary justifying removal was deceptive.
(h) Which you deny, digging yourself deeper into the hole, by insisting:' I genuinely didn't understand why the quote was not in full in the preview.'
(i) Everyone in the wiki universe knows that a 'snippet' view of a page is the opposite of a 'preview' of a page. A preview page gives you the whole page, a 'snippet' less than a tenth of the page.
(j)you deceived, and then, caught out, began to prevaricate.
GO away and don't come back before you learn intellectual rigour and honesty. Nishidani (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
It did NOT show up in the body of the article and it still doesn't. I checked, it's buried in the references. I assumed this "burying" was purposeful, that the quote was considered controversial, cut off by some executive decision since I couldn't find fault in the formatting that would cause it. I thought this non-usage in the lead and body was evidence it wouldn't be missed, obviously I was wrong. I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about with snippets, I meant I read the first few paragraphs, but it's not in the last few either, which I have read now. You always do this, thinking me saying "oops" was symptomatic of me not knowing what I wanted when really I had opened two windows, one to edit and another for comparison, and I got mixed up and made one edit on one and a further edit on another, accidentally reverting the previous edit. Speaking of honesty, will you apologize for telling me I "spun" the source when in fact you spun it in your own mind, as my words were based on the source's and "despite" is a synonym of however? No? How about when you made the baseless claim that samaritans weren't forced to convert to islam during the muslim period, which I proved false by your own sources? Stop with the petty righteous indignation. If you're going to treat me like a naughty child act like a good role model and follow your own advice.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

IP noise

Never before have I seen an article as fraudulent as this one

This entire article is filled with lies and reflects extreme Arab propaganda. "Palestinians" are not an ethnic group any more than Lebanese, Saudis, Jordanians, Qataris, Emiratis, Syrians, Yemenis, Omanis, or Bahrainis. All of these are just nationalities, and the majority of people living there are ethnically Arab. And why out of all the Arab nationalities, "Palestinians" are the only ones that Wikipedia says is an ethnicity? Looks like Wikipedia clearly has an agenda, which doesn't surprise me given its extreme Israelophobic bias. This entire article should be deleted as a blatant hoax. --Judean Patriot (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Golda Meir's talking point, and she was completely disinterested.Nishidani (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC).

Wiki practice is actually to embrace ethnic definitions of all groups recognized as minorities by Israel within Israel, except the Palestinians. Nod, nod, wink, wink.

  • The Druze are ‘an Arabic-speaking esoteric ethnoreligious group an Arabic-speaking esoteric ethnoreligious group
  • Arameans in Israel Some Syriac Christians in the Middle East (particularly in Syria and Israel) still espouse an Aramean ethnic identity to this day
  • The Samaritans are an ethnoreligious group of the Levant.( Demographics of Israel)The simple fact is that Palestinians do not require a certificate of their identity or ethnicity stamped by the occupying power. They are defined as sources define them, and the I/P conflict is widely recognized as an ethnic conflict. Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
They are defined in passing in selectively chosen sources, even though 2 orders of magnitude more sources define them as a nation. If palestinians are an ethnic group you have to leave out druze, bedouin, maronites... that's like saying an american ethnicity exists but it's just white people. It's totally baseless. Your righteous indignation about zionist plots to rob palestinians of their "ethnicity" reflects a narrow conception of palestinian identity which alienates many of whom you think should self-identify as palestinian.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

More fraudulent use of sources. This one is a hangover from the good old days

I removed:

According to Rashid Khalidi, the Palestinian nationalism developed a historiography that "anachronistically read back into the history of Palestine over the past few centuries, and even millennia, a nationalist consciousness and identity that are in fact relatively modern."p.149

This is gross source distortion. Note how it was done. No link to the page to allow editors to check it.

So, actually no. Rashid Khalidi in context said something completely different.

‘In contradiction to these Arabist and Islamist views, there is the mainstream secular Palestinian nationalism, grouped together under the umbrella of the PLO. These groups, which have probably represented the views of a majority of Palestinians since some time in the mid- or late 1960s, emerge from a relatively recent tradition which argues that Palestinian nationalism has deep historical roots. As with other national movements, extreme advocates go further than this, and anachronistically read back into the history of Palestine over the past few centuries, and even millennia, a nationalist consciousness and identity that are in fact relatively modern.

Khalidi is, for those who can't construe English precisely, saying that the anachronistic reading is one extremists make, which goes beyond the mainstream position of modern secular Palestinian nationalists and the people they represent. He is not saying that the mainstream modern Palestinian position has an anachronistic view, as some POV pusher spun it.Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding pages to quotes is nice. Still a ho hum script with nothing definitive. What does "probably" mean. We'll never know. When they say "extreme", do they mean a few psychos or the mayor of Jenin and the minister for religious matters and a bunch of other guys? No one can tell from this text. Seeing how its all in the wind and our time is finally coming I could care less. There's nothing wrong with the original text you removed. But to make everyone happy. Just fix it up a bit, find another source maybe. Win-Win. Omysfysfybmm (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of fraudulent use of sources.... Israel/Palestine's quote: "palestinians are the descendents of all the indigenous peoples who lived in palestine over the centuries" Is used within the context of rhetoric summarizing both sides claims to the land. It is not spoken within the author's own voice. Case in point it also says, "Jews point to a unique historic tie to the land of Israel, extending over at least 3,200 years, with a continuing (if sometimes small) physical presence throughout that time. Such a bond between a land and a people is unmatched in human history.... Jews who returned to their ancestral homeland have built a dynamic society that will, within the next generation, be home to over half he world's Jews - fulfilling theodore herzl's vision of a Jewish state as the ultimate answer to antisemitism. To those who argue that ancient history cannot shape modern territorial dispensations, the Jewish answer is that there is no recognized statute of limitations on the restoration of historical rights or the rectification of past injustice for an entire people. Jews were exiled from their homeland and have always prayed to return to it; only in the last century and a quarter did this become possible.... is the Jewish claim weaker simply because it is more ancient than other claims?" The source's words on palestinians are put into the author's own voice, when really he's being rhetorical. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinians/Archive_23&oldid=1136373023"