Talk:Palestinians/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

General Consideration

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

I'm personally unhappy with all restrictive definitions of identity, which is, I believe how we reconstruct selectively our various, respective pasts in terms of a group affiliation. I like the Palestinian definition we have because it is very generic. As soon as you get into the nitty gritty, however, by trying to add to its vagueness, points that highlight one or other part of it, you get into trouble, as you do with all such definitions. I've been accused of double-standards in adducing the genetic paper here. In fact I do not think genetics papers are satisfactory sources for history (NMMGG rightly notes this). I do however think that when biblical scholars, historians, area specialists, and public intellectuals can be shown to concur on a definition, then adducing also a genetic paper as a supplementary source, (as Dlv argues) is reasonable, if only to show that the simple sentence has support from several interrelated disciplines. What one should not do, as was done on the Ashkenazi Jews page, is invent a definition that is itself definitionally flawed and historically false, and then, since no historical source supports it, propose an ostensible RS from genetics as unique confirmation of its veracity. Anne Hart there was patently wrong (distinguished geneticists do not publish self-publish and a glance at the text will show the writer is not a geneticist). Nor can you, as Tritomex now says, replace it with a better source in genetics.

One of the complications here, which I haven't mentioned, is that if you consult the literature on the definition of Palestinian Christians, then you will google up dozens of very good sources which clearly affirm their historic roots in ancient Israel/Palestine. If you do this for Palestinian Muslims, then all of a sudden the issue gets tetchy, difficult, controversial, and an extremely high bar of evidence is demanded before any statement that implies, suggests or states that they have historic roots in the area is passed, and even then grudgingly. I see that as a systemic bias in our eurocentric sources and in our general failure to step out of our natural frameworks of perception to try and get a balanced perspective. The sentence we have is vague, generic and well-sourced, though not perfect. In the meta-context it is a fair navigation between the pressures, official and otherwise, of denial of Palestinian roots, and the flimsy rhetoric of Palestinian Canaanitism.Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

While this is all very interesting, let's have a look at what's really going on in the refs for the first sentence.

• Prior talks about Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians and Bar Kochba, then the Byzantines and then the Muslims of the 7th century. Let's say for the sake of the argument that these are all in his area of expertise (although it's quite obvious Bar Kochba and onwards are not). This does not directly support the sentence in the article so far, right? All it would support is that the people living there in the 7th century may have been descendents of those living there 1000+ years prior. It says nothing about what happened after the 7th century. One must engage in obvious OR to jump from the 7th century to modern times. Then he goes on and says that today's Palestinians "may well have" descended from Jews. This is of course completely outside his area of expertise and anyway he's not stating it as fact as our article does, he says it's a possibility.

• The Britannica ref (currently #19) while a good ref for the formation of a concept of a Palestinian people, does not support the sentence.
• The next Britannica ref (going backwards, now #18) is again talking about the 7th century and does not support the sentence. Unless again, you jump 1400 years forward and make assumptions.
• Moshe Gil - You noted elsewhere Ben Gurion is not a Historian. Why did you add him here? Why are you quoting Gil quoting BG and Ben Zvi when Gil himself quite clearly says he doesn't agree with the theory of Jewish origins of the Palestinians right on the same page?
• Ref #16 is just a crappy source for this, see two sections above.
• Ref #15 is actually the only ref that directly supports the sentence.

So there's a long ref list, with a mini article in it, that doesn't directly support the sentence in the article.

The problem with the first sentence in the lead, as I have noted before and even Nableezy has agreed, is that it is vague and imprecise (and the long ref list is an obvious attempt to give it weight). There are people who consider themselves Palestinian who are not "descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries". There are people who are such descendents but don't consider themselves Palestinian. What does "Palestine" mean in this context anyway?

I also find it pretty telling that you're happy with such a vague and imprecise definition for the Palestinians, but insist on detailing every fringe theory you can find about Jews. How does that work exactly? Why do you insist we absolutely need to note that so and so's theory that Ashkenazi Jews came of Khazars but we're not even allowed to mention the documented fact that some Palestinians immigrated into the area in the 19th and 20th century? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Translation. After a dispute on the Jerusalem page, where I fixed two bad sources editors saw at sight were bad, and which you alone denied were bad, by providing a rewrite with 4 new academic sources, you came over here immediately here and rapidly, bang, bang, bang, removed three of several sources. It now appears you contest six or so, and evidently intended to get rid of virtually them all. All but one have been there for a very long time, since you last tried to challenge that sentence. No passing reader-editor over a long time has found all of this problematical or questioned it as you do, repeating what you said a year ago as if the argument hadn't died on its feet after extenuating debate. I find nothing above reasonable just assertive, and with Prior, confused. Ben-Gurion's point is not Ben-Gurion's. I added it, with attribution, because he simply stated the view repeatedly held by two generations of scholars working in the analysis of Palestinian dialect, toponyms, biblical history in the 19th century, and which constituted a very important element in Zionist perceptions (as a reasonable hypothesis) down to 1929. I could replace it with several such sources. I can also add another dozen sources that say what the quotes we have say more or less. It's late here, so I'll start adding more tomorrow. In the meantime, look at the sourcing on the sister page for the definition of Jews, - as I've said before. If definitions of a people worry you in terms of sourcing, that is a far more glaring instance of the ostensible issues you raise with so much energy here. Nishidani (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Translation: you can't address any of the points I made, so you make silly assertions and stupid accusations.

Nableezy agreed with me the sentence is problematic. If my interlocutor wasn't you, he'd have agreed to change it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This was all thoroughly discussed by several editors,here,here,here,here,here,here,here,and here, to cite some examples of whom you, I and Nableezy were just three. Your position was backed by innumerable IP editors.

You really have a problem. First you insinuated that Nableezy wouldn't change the text without my approval. Now if I wasn't here, Nableezy and you would have resolved the problem. You are still asserting, after the thread your initial comment spurred, the idea Nableezy is my lapdog, which is laughable. See my page. I let him make the call whenever I appear to step out of line, and follow his usually impeccable ruling to the word. The fact is that there were several people discussing every jot and tittle, and Tiamut certainly had [1] about some of Nableezy's proposals, though I reacted positively to them. Since Tiamut was the only Palestinian involved, and a very precise and thoroughly informed student of the subject, I was reluctant, aside from the fact that I have, as is proper among serious editors, noticeable disagreements with Tiamut and Nableezy in this area, to press towards any change that did not obtain her agreement. It's called respect.

What is noticeable throughout all those threads is disagreements between Nableezy, Tiamut, myself and several other "pro Palestinians" and the pressure of opposing editors, like yourself, with no dissent in the ranks. I'll reply point by point to your marvellous caricature, though, since you want to do another dress rehearsal of the ancient scenario, I'll be more thorough in dismantling your claims systematically, which will take some time.Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not insinuating Nableezy is your lapdog. I'm saying you guys very rarely if at all agree to make changes the other has a problem with, if there are people outside your clique supporting it. An easy and perfect example was on the Apartheid analogy page where everyone except one of you guys agreed to the text, and not only did you not change it in the article, you were complaining people outside your group are "blocking" it.

Anyway, when you're dismantling my claims systematically, please also address the fact that the first sentence of the lead is supposed to define the subject of the article, and currently a. includes people who are not Palestinian, b. doesn't include some Palestinians. So it's not precise or exclusive. It's in fact not a definition but a trait that some Palestinians and some non-Palestinians have. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You know I'm not obliged to do all this work, while you sit round and say you're unsatisfied. I don't mind being a workhorse, but I think, instead this negative responding, you should do the other editors a favour and actually come up with your ideal definition of the Palestinian people. Perhaps you have, if so, give me a link to the line you crafted which covers all angles.Nishidani (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You're not obliged to do anything. Respond or not, that's up to you. I have made specific points about specific sources. If nobody makes a specific objection, I will have implicit consensus to remove them, according to Nableezy.

I have also given a general outline of what I think the definition should include. You participated in that discussion, and you seem quite capable of finding stuff I said months ago when you think it proves some kind of point, so I'm sure you can find this as well (hint: you've already included a diff of part of that discussion in this section). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I will have implicit consensus to remove them, according to Nableezy. No, no no no no, no no. An edit made that is not challenged has implicit consensus. You cant claim an edit that was reverted shortly after it was made has implicit consensus. And I have to again object to I'm saying you guys very rarely if at all agree to make changes the other has a problem with. I supported a change, but it didnt gain consensus. Thats why I didnt make the edit, not because Nish, or Tiamut for that matter, objected. I asked you back when you first said this that if you want to discuss which "side" suffers more from groupthink that you are welcome on my talk page. But here, can we try to keep this a bit less about the players and more about the article? nableezy - 17:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The page as it stands has a consensual status since it has been that way for over half a year, and was the outcome of the intensive discussions by several parties up to that time. If Nableezy agrees with you in removing the three sources, he will be explicit, not implicit, I presume. Implicit implies a deduction on your part. Rest assured we don't negotiate these things off-line.

You have given no 'general outline' which in any case means just that you've talked at length about other options, and your own particular views. You really owe the page the mental effort to provide a succinct alternative version you think covers all angles. Anyone can sit round pulling other people's edit proposals apart: few can craft a line immune to niggling. If you don't want to rise to the challenge or assume that responsibility it signals to me that you prefer disrupting a consensual statement, to offering another in the hope that it will receive the community's endorsement. So, for once, I'd appreciate a show of willingness to contribute to the construction of the article, rather than endlessly participate in efforts to destabilize its fragile but reasonable compromises.Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

After brief look at other ethnic group articles, would it not be sufficient to make the lead on this article similar to other ethnicities' like the Scottish, Irish, Russians, Iraqi, etc.?

"The Scottish people (Scots Gaelic: Albannaich), or Scots, are a nation and ethnic group native to Scotland."

"The Irish people (Irish: Muintir na hÉireann or na hÉireannaigh; Ulster-Scots: Airisch or Airish fowk) are an ethnic group who originate in Ireland"

"The Russian people (Russian: русские, russkiye) are an East Slavic ethnic group native to Russia"

"The Iraqi people (Arabic: العراقيون ʿIrāqīyūn, Kurdish: گه‌لی عیراق Îraqîyan, Aramaic: ܥܡܐ ܥܝܪܩܝܐ‎ ʿIrāqāyā) are the native inhabitants of the country of Iraq."

So, regarding the Palestinian lead, it can be as simple as, "The Palestinian people, (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī) also referred to as Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون‎, al-Filasṭīniyyūn), are an ethnic group native to Palestine, and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab." Silvertrail (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been arguing for normalization along such lines for a long time now. My similar comparisons, in great detail, are met with stoney silence. Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yuvn86's recent edits.

I am questioning Yuvn86's recent removal of content on the article in the Languages and Related peoples section of the infobox.

All of the languages spoken by the Palestinians whether they are Majority or Minority languages, should be included there, we should not leave out languages that are known to be spoken by Palestinians because an editors believes they are insignificant due to being minority.

In regards to related peoples, why have they removed many ethnic groups from that list that are related to the Palestinians, especially the Jews, Assyrians, and Samaritans?

This version,

"Other Levantines, Mediterraneans, Sea Peoples, Middle Eastern: Semitic peoples: Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Mizrahim, Samaritans, Arabs, Assyrians"

is much better worded regarding related ethnic groups to Palestinians than your edit,

"Other Arabs and Levantines, Mediterraneans and Semitic-speaking peoples." What does everyone think? Silvertrail (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The language section is broken up into Palestinian Territories, Israel, and Diaspora. Diaspora mentions that the Palestinians speak whatever language is the vernacular in their region. For example, the Palestinians in Brazil speak Portugese, by and large. Listing Spanish, Portugese, and French is unnecessary. Do you want to return Aramaic and Greek? We certainly can't list every language spoken by Palestinians, as I'm sure a few speak Xhosa. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The edit regarding the diaspora is fine, but to leave out Aramaic certainly is not accurate because up until the 7th century Aramaic was the primary language spoken by Palestinians, it is still spoken in a significant minority today, mostly among Christian Palestinians, as is Greek. I think languages should be included if they represent a significant amount of speakers. I also disagree with the removal and reordering of ethnic groups from the related peoples section. Silvertrail (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Restoring the consensus sentence against Chicago Style's edit

This sentence is under discussion and should not be altered in its substance, as Chicago Style has done several times, at least until a new consensus emerges.

In restoring the old version, as a prelude to a thorough examination of NMMGG's objections, I made two small changes that are required out of respect for English grammar. I think I mentioned the problems donkey ages ago, but in the heat of discussion these uncontroversial tweaks were not contested. In the interests of comprehensive clarity, I will supploy the details of why I, in restoring the consensual sentence, slightly adjusted it.

The Palestinian people are the modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab.

Grammatically this is awkward, and should read:

The Palestinian people are the modern descendants of people who lived in Palestine over the centuries, and who are today largely culturally and linguistically Arab.

(a)‘have lived’ is an historic present implying continuity to the present. But it comes after ‘(descendants of) people’ who are dead. You say in English ‘the dead’ lived . . , not the dead ‘have lived’ . . implying they are still alive. (b) ‘today are’ refers back to the subject ‘(contemporary) Palestinian people’ but grammatically also cannot help referring to to the dead in the preceding clause and therefore you require ‘who’ to disambiguate. This is a grammatical issue, and I have adjusted for clarity. A comma is required after ìover the centuries to make the following words refer only to the subject.Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. I failed to transfer the draft edit on a work page to the article adequately, and required 3 edits to do so. If that constitutes a 1 R infraction, tell me, and I'll revert back. But two edits were purely a matter of correct English.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In the "Friday morning" section I made convincing arguements that my edits support not only the quoted RS, but multiple heavy sources in the body. But since this is being discussed in the below section, we can go there. Still, I'm returning "people" to "peoples" as that is obviously closer to the sources and survived editting by Malik Shabazz and others. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Probably an oversight. I recall Tiamut about a year ago wondering who changed 'the people' into 'people', which you alone now insist must be 'peoples', without listening to anyone. You've repeated violated a convention not to fiddle with disputed passages while discussion on them takes place on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So if it is something you like, it is consensus. If you don't, it is an oversight. You've added and withdrawn sources at your convenience. I'm taking it upon myself to add today's letter, the letter S, when it is a part of the source that is paraphrased and backed up by the others (re: multi-ethnic). Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't distort your interlocutor's views. 'Consensus' means a text that, after intensive discussion, stays stable for several months, as this did until you began to edit it. You are acting unilaterally while all other editors are abstaining from meddling with the text. That constitutes a destabilizing provocation and disturbance of editorial collegiality. You are edit-warring behind the backs of the rest of us who are trying laboriously to hammer out a deal.Nishidani (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There was no discussion about the removal of the S. The S was part of the discussed consensus. It was removed by a single user. So by your definition of consensus, it don't have it. Your accusations are provocative. I'm going to restore the S, it is sourced and I haven't heard anybody object to it other than you. Then again, I see that you incorporated the S into your version of the sentence. That sounds like consensus. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I object to it, you happy now? It isnt necessary as there is no the. nableezy - 06:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Mind a-splainin' your objection? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I object to that addition of "S" as well, the Palestinians are a distinct ethnicity and should be treated that way. Silvertrail (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, so we've all lost faith in Dowty. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Since several editors have shown their objection to Dowty, I will remove the source. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No, there isnt any consensus for that. Nobody but you has mentioned Dowty. Taking that to mean that several have expressed an objection is somewhere between funny and absurd. Im not quite sure where. nableezy - 03:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree, I'm not disenchanted with Dowty. It perfectly sums up what 24 passages from RS I could list remark on. It's a definition which, if anything, goes far too far in reaching out to satisfy those editors who persistently object to any reasonable definition of the Palestinian people. I believe objecting to it has only one aim - to destabilize the article and put a gag order on any other formulation, so the subject will remain without a definition, while the talk page rants on until a consensus that will never be conceded, unless it reflects a Zionist scepticism. Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for singing Dowty's virtues. I was supporting Dowty by including his use of the word "peoples", but several editors have made their disapproval of "peoples" known. I thought it was because the objectors didn't think Dowty RS, otherwise they wouldn't object to him being paraphrased. So it is not I who is attempting to "put a gag order on any other formulation." I'm going to rephrase the lead to keep in line with Dowty and Nishidani's "24 passages from RS". Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

An edit that seems consensually based

NMMGG raised an objection or two I agreed had merit, and no one further commented.

• Bernard Lewis is cited without, anomalously, an accompanying citation supporting his relevance. It may be an overhang. Can we remove it?
• The second Encyclopedia Britannica cite, concerning the name Palestinian, has nothing to do with the formal definition of the people, and NMMGG objected to its incongruency. I found the right citation in the EC to replace it, but that can be held back. In the meantime, can it be removed (or relocated down the page to the Khalidi section)? We should be able to agree on self-evident errors or oversights, and make at least some progress here.Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above user:nishidani, the above overhang looks like it can be removed, also, good job finding the right citation in the other point. Silvertrail (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections forthcoming I will make the stated edits, since NMMGG noted a problem. I provided a possible solution, and a week has passed without contrarian comment. We really should try to make some real progress here, even if, like this, on trivia.Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What should be in the See Also...

The policy says to avoid links that appear in the body, not to exclude them. I believe that Palestinian political violence belongs in the section. It has been there for a very long time, uncontested. It was recently removed. The only reason cited is that it is mentioned (once) in the body. I say put it back. To say that Palestinian political violence isn't significant is to say that the Kurdish people site need not mention their independence movement, or that Malaysian-Chinese need not mention their desire for full citizenship in the nation of their birth. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What WP:SEEALSO says is As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. The links are in the article, and as such do not belong in a see also section. That section is for related topics that are not already linked in the article. Otherwise it would be called seen already. nableezy - 15:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. But Palestinian political violence appears only once, and isn't named as such. This, in addition to the long length of this article, makes this lie outside the "general rule". See also is to help the reader, and they are better helped with a see also that includes major topics. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Your unsubstantiated view that this lie[s] outside the "general rule" is just that, unsubstantiated. I fail to see anything in WP:SEEALSO that specifies how many times something should be linked; what it says is see also should not repeat a link. If it is in the article once that would be enough to make it a repetition, now wouldnt it? nableezy - 14:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that the See Also has expanded to cover a variety of topics a reader might want to investigate (including repetitions like Palestine, State of Palestine, and West Bank) I will re-add Palestinian political violence. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This crap is obviously activist-tilted POV spinning in order to brand or stigmatize a people (esp bad since it is the historical victim of a century of dispossession. Try putting Indigenous Australians and crime onto the Indigenous Australians or Aboriginal Australians see also sections, and see where it gets you (aide from applause from Windshuttlian editors). Anything like that will be automatically reverted. We don't paste Jewish religious terrorism or like articles in the see also sections of Israelis or Jews, anymore that we put See also Genocide or Holocaust on the German people See also section, or List of terrorist incidents in London on the Irish people page, or gulag on the Russian people page, or laogai or Self-immolation protests by Tibetans in China on the Chinese people page. Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ive removed the links in the see also that are already linked in the article. See WP:SEEALSO. nableezy - 14:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality template

The warning of neutrality should go back up. There wasn't a resolution for when this long-time standard of the page was removed.

The neutrality issues of this page include being a self-narrative of the Palestinian people(as opposed to an objective one) and having an overly-emotional tone for an encyclopedia. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

'Stuffing the page'

Whoever crammed the page to 250,000kb should examine her intentions. That is three times the advised length of articles. I haven't had time to check this except for the First intifada section which copied and pasted the lead of that article. If that's what's going on elsewhere, then I suggest the whole article be reverted back to its original state, until this is sorted out. And on last checking some dickhead restored the Golan is Israel map.Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I dont see the map, but I agree that many of the recent edits, while well-intentioned, should be reverted. We have subpages for most of this material, and a duplication of it does not belong here. nableezy - 17:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Many of the edits are copied and pasted from the sub-articles without attribution, in contravention to WP:CWW. See my message to RabeaMalah and RabeaMalah's reply. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I they see added lots of pictures too, I attempted to fix a few of them, they are improvements to the article, they just need to be organized in gallery form, the cuisine images can be made to a gallery in the cuisine section too. Silvertrail (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I must admit all this activism has confused me, indeed I was just emailed by the Nabster and told I should revert, and I'd forgotten I'd made two edits to this page today. See here and here. I can't see, with all the intervening editing, how to undo my second revert, but I'm at fault. If anyone has any suggestions. In the meantime, I'll suspend myself for a month for being a dickhead. Apologies to the page. Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

^ I think you are being hard on yourself, your edit on the article looked well intentioned, the article was a big longer than it need be. Silvertrail (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed most of the obvious copy and paste material. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Responding to NMMGG's objections re sourcing and the sentence

This will take a day or so, so I'll give a close reply to each point. I'd appreciate if editors waited until I am through. Thanks.

You have been challenging for about a year two distinct things. (a) the sentence (b) the sources used to support that sentence. I will deal first with the sources adduced in support (b)

The Palestinian people are the modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab.

Sources:

• Ref #15:

(1)Dowty, Alan (2008). Israel/Palestine. London, UK: Polity. p. 221. ISBN 978-0-7456-4243-7. "Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture."

NMMGG's comment.

'Ref #15 is actually the only ref that directly supports the sentence.'

Reply.

(a) Since you allow that this source, which was challenged but accepted as impeccbly RS, supports the sentence we have, theoretically that is sufficient in itself to justify retaining the sentence (b) You appear to be suggesting that, notwithstanding this, Dowdy is not sufficient authority, and requires further multiple sources. They were supplied, you challenge them, but your premise that only Dowty directly supports the sentence is incorrect, as the examination will show. Please note that all of the succeeding sources, responding to this implicit request, are from a variety of academic disciplines and scholars of distinct, but relevant, disciplines. (c)Alan Dowty is 'Professor of Political Science Emeritus, University of Notre Dame. He was formerly Kahanoff Chair Professor of Israel Studies at the University of Calgary, 2003-2006, and President of the Association for Israel Studies, 2005-2007.' That alone is sufficient to justify the sentence we have. He is both a political scientist and an expert on Israel Studies.

• Ref #16:

The Palestinian people are the modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab.(Dowty)

(2)'Palestinians are an indigenous people who either live in, or originate from, historical Palestine. . .(Although the Muslims guaranteed security and allowed religious freedom to all inhabitants of the region), the majority converted to Islam and adopted Arab culture.' Bassam Abu-Libdeh, Peter D. Turnpenny, and Ahmed Teebi, ‘Genetic Disease in Palestine and Palestinians,’ in Dhavendra Kuma (ed.) Genomics and Health in the Developing World, OUP 2012 pp.700-711, p.700.

NMMGG's obection.

is just a crappy source for this, see two sections above

Reply.

(a)I added the several additional sources with WP:LEAD in mind, specifically:

The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. . .The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview.'

(b)If you compare their summary remark to Dowty's, the content is the same, only the phrasing different, save for the part I bracket, which can of course be removed.

(c)I made the definition itself by multiple sourcing, summarize many of the points made independently in the body of the article. In the present instance the citation from Bassam Abu-Libdeh, Peter D. Turnpenny, and Ahmed Teebi gives support for Dowty's point from the perspective of genetic studies of the Palestinians. (d)Abu-Libdeh, Peter D. Turnpenny, and Ahmed Teebi's definition confirms Dowty, and is in turn supported in the article by the following text:

One DNA study by Nebel found genetic evidence in support of historical records that "part, or perhaps the majority" of Muslim Palestinians descend from "local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD". [104]

The direct source for this is

Note 104 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

And

Note 93 referring to the same study cites it, in turn citing three sources (a) Shaban 1971:(b) Mc Graw Donner 1981; (Shaban 1971; McGraw Donner 1981). These local inhabitants, in turn, were descendants of the core population that had lived in the area for several centuries, some even since prehistorical times (Gil 1992)... Thus, our findings are in good agreement with the historical record..."note 93

Nebel draws on (1)(12) M. A. Shaban, Islamic History: A.D. 750-1055 (A.H. 132-448). University Press 1971 (2)) Fred McGraw Donner,The Early Islamic Conquests, Princeton University Press 1981 (3)Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 634-1099,Cambridge University Press, 1997

Bassam Abu-Libdeh, Peter D. Turnpenny, and Ahmed Teebi don't source their definition, which however largely overlaps with Dowty's. They supply a geneticists' source to supplement a political science source, and not only does their remark reflect Dowty's, it anticipates the historical research, sourced to Shaban, McGraw Donner and Moshe Gil, in the genetic section of the page, below (per WP:LEAD). Since Nebel makes an identical summary to theirs, and explicitly cites historians, one can change this paper with Nebel, using Nebel and Co's references to Shaban et al. But there is nothing in Teebi and co's remark which does not support what Dowty writes.

To make this plain:

(A)Dowty - "Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture." (NMMGG = acceptable)

(B)Teebi et al -'Palestinians are an indigenous people who either live in, or originate from, historical Palestine. . the majority converted to Islam and adopted Arab culture.'(NMMGG crappy)

(C) Nebel et al - historical records that "part, or perhaps the majority" of Muslim Palestinians descend from "local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD". (NMMGG - no comment)

So far (a) a political scientist and Israeli studies expert (b) a geneticist group (b) three historians, an Arab, an American and an Israeli, with specific specialization in Palestine area studies (Shaban, McGraw Donner, Moshe Gil) as summarized by a third source on genetics, 'use the same formulation, plus or minus different emphases.Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

•Ref #17 The Palestinian people are the modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab.(Dowty) Source:

'The process of Arabization and Islamization was gaining momentum there. It was one of the mainstays of Umayyad power and was important in their struggle against both Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula.... Conversions arising from convenience as well as conviction then increased. These conversions to Islam, together with a steady tribal inflow from the desert, changed the religious character of Palestine’s inhabitants. The predominantly Christian population gradually became predominantly Muslim and Arabic-speaking. At the same time, during the early years of Muslim control of the city, a small permanent Jewish population returned to Jerusalem after a 500-year absence.' Encyclopedia Britannica, Palestine,'From the Arab Conquest to 1900,'.

NMMGG's objection

'The next Britannica ref (going backwards, now ) is again talking about the 7th century and does not support the sentence. Unless again, you jump 1400 years forward and make assumptions.'

Reply:-

It is a mismatch with our sentence's phrasing, true. But the primary basis for that sentence was Dowty, and the Britannica comment perfectly matches, with expansive details, the Dowty source which you yourself say 'that directly supports the sentence.'

"Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture."]

You accept, in short, Dowty's text supports the definition. You here object that another source, which supports Dowty's full text as cited in the accompanying footnote, doesn't support the definition. You can't have it both ways. The Britannica text says in more detail what our definition says elliptically. Let me construe it:The population of Palestine at the time of the Muslim invasion was a ‘predominantly Christian’ population. a steady tribal inflow from the desert, changed the religious character of Palestine’s inhabitants A large part converted to Islam to become predominantly Muslim and Arabic-speaking, while.A small Jewish population returned to Jerusalem.' I.e. the pre-Islamic population was predominantly Christian. After the invasion, both the new hegemonic religion and a steady tribal inflow alterd the culture of Palestinians to become 'Muslim and Arabic-speaking', i.e. they became, as our definition has it ' largely culturally and linguistically Arab.'

Ref #18

"The Arabs of Palestine began widely using the term Palestinian starting in the pre–World War I period to indicate the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people. But after 1948—and even more so after 1967—for Palestinians themselves the term came to signify not only a place of origin but also, more importantly, a sense of a shared past and future in the form of a Palestinian state."[2] Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007.

NMMGG's objection

'The Britannica ref while a good ref for the formation of a concept of a Palestinian people, does not support the sentence.'

NMMGG is correct on this. Obviously it is in the wrong place, and should be removed, and replaced by the proper reference in the same source, which runs:-

Arab population is descended from Arabs who lived in the area during the mandate period and, in most cases, for centuries before that time.' Encyclopedia Britannica, sub 'Palestine:People'.

• Ref #19

'The Palestinian people are the modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab.'(Dowty) Source

David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi claimed that the population at the time of the Arab conquest was mainly Christian, of Jewish origins, which underwent conversion to avoid a tax burden, basing their argument on 'the fact that at the time of the Arab conquest, the population of Palestine was mainly Christian, and that during the Crusaders’ conquest some four hundred years later, it was mainly Muslim. As neither the Byzantines nor the Muslims carried out any large-scale population resettlement projects, the Christians were the offspring of the Jewish and Samaritan farmers who converted to Christianity in the Byzantine period; while the Muslim fellaheen in Palestine in modern times are descendants of those Christians who were the descendants of Jews, and had turned to Islam before the Crusaders’ conquest.’ Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine,634-1099, Cambridge University Press, (1983) 1997 pp.222-3

NMMGG’s objection.

'You noted elsewhere Ben Gurion is not a Historian. Why did you add him here? Why are you quoting Gil quoting BG and Ben Zvi when Gil himself quite clearly says he doesn't agree with the theory of Jewish origins of the Palestinians right on the same.'

Reply.

I’m not quoting Moshe Gil. I used Moshe Gil to quote the view espoused in Ben-Gurion and Ben-Zvi’s book. Ben-Gurion was not an historian. I note you fail to mention his co-author Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, who was and authored some 20 volumes on Jewish history, which are regarded as important sources still. The fact that one of the authors was not an historian does not invalidate the historical qualifications of the co-author. I clearly state that here, the point cited is a claim. The claim they made is perfectly compatible with what Dowty argued. More cogently, their claim was a truism of the day, shared by many of the scholars, Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau, Claude Reignier Conder, Walter Besant, and many others. Speaking of that generation, Nadia Abu El-Haj, Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society, University of Chicago Press, 2002 writes of the scholars working for the Palestine Exploration Fund and others that ‘By virtue of their syncretistic past, the peasant population (fellahin, Nishidani) of Palestine was seen to embody and to remember a history properly understood as a Judeo.Christian one’ p.35

In the funds ethnography, the starting point for any understanding of the peasant population was a clarification of their race history. According to the surveyors, one thing was clear: the name “Arab” was a misnomer. Besides the inhabitants of towns (in whom they displayed little interest), only the Bedouin of Palestine were considered to be truly Arab. .. .While not themselves the descendants of the ancient patriarchs, their nomadic way of life was presumed to illustrate the manner in which the patriarchs had lived, . .In contrast, Palestine’s peasantry was decisively not Arab, and it was precisely their non-Arab status that rendered them native for these surveyors and thus an authentic locus of biblical history, linguistic memories, or memories of other kinds: “The peasants of Judea are commonly said to be Arabs; and I am willing to admit that they are so in the sense that they speak Arabic. But we must understand what is meant by this vague and deceptive term which is applied to so many distinct races and the heterogeneous remains of so many peoples.” . .It was on the basis of language, manners, and customs that the fund’s surveyors concluded that Palestine’s peasants were not Arabs, but rather, a much older race (or more accurately, a much older amalgamation of races):

The antiquity of the native peasant stock is evidenced both by their language and by the peculiarities of their religion. Their pronunciation of many letters is archaic, and approaches much closer to the Aramaic or the Hebrew than to modern Arabic. There are also many pure Hebrew words in use among the Fellahin which are unintelligible to the inhabitants of towns who use the modern Arabic words instead. The worship of Mukams or “shrines” among the peasantry is also intimately connected with the old worship of trees and high places by the Canaanites, although the traditions attaching to these sacred places are traceable to Crusading, Byzantine, or Moslem origin, as well as in other cases to an older indigenous source.' Walter Besant. Thirty Years' Work in the Holy Land:1865-1895, A. P. Watt & Son, 1895 p.128 cited also in Nadia Abu El-Haj, p.36.

Compare.

‘If we may judge the origin of any people by language, then by their dialect, the descent of the Fellahin or “tillers” may be traced to the older inhabitants of Palestine, and perhaps from the pre.Israelite population, which-despite the fierce onslaught of the first Jewish conquerors under Joshua-was, as we may gather from the Bible, never entirely outrooted, but remained in the loand (in much the same position as that which the Saxons occupied under their Norman rulers) as a distinct people,m though members of the same grea family (the Semitic race), regarded a inferior to the Jewish dominant race, “hewers of wood,””drawers of water,” “the beasts of the people.” It was precisely to this class that the educated Jews of the second century of our era assigned the Aramaic language . .it is extraordinary to note how very small the influence of foreign conquerors, Greek, Roman, or Frank, seems to have been on their language. . .The language, then, seems to show that the Fellahin are a people well worthy of study, because apparently of a very ancient stock, which is still preserved comparatively pure; and we may therefore naturally expect their religion, habits, and customs to have an interesting bearing on the graphic accounts of peasant life which are found in the Bible. The professed religfion iof the country is Islam, ..yet you may live for months in the out-of-.the-way parts of Palestine withoutr seeing a mosque, or hearing the call of the Muedhen (muezzin) to prayer. ’ (they worship, as in the biblepagan cults, mukams etc.) Claude Reignier Conder, Tent Work in Palestine a Record of Discovery and Adventure, Bentley, London 1879 vol.2 pp.216-18.

Sand has a long essay on this as a theme in Zionist historiography, (and Moshe Gil here is simply challenging a position entertained for example by his equally eminent colleague Abraham N. Poliak, showing that the data of the scholars of the Survey of West Palestine was accepted by Zionism from the outset (Israel Belkind), and underwent two crises, one after the Hebron Massacre of 1929 and another after Israel’s conquest of the West Bank. (Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People, Verso 2009 pp.182ff)

In sum, so far we have a strong textual accord showing substantive agreement between (1) a political scientist specializing in Israel, Dowty (2) a paper co-authored by three geneticists expert on Palestinian genetics disorders (3) a further genetics paper citing three authors who are all historians of the Middle East (4) the founding father of Israel, David Ben-Gurionand a distinguished Zionist historian Yitzhak Ben-Zvi making the same essential statement showing that it was perfectly acceptable to Zionism at one time, as (5) Shlomo Sand shows in extenso, citing several examples of this view in Israeli scholarship over several decades, and reflected (5) the consensus of the scholars, such as Claude Reignier Conder and Walter Besant, working for the Palestine Exploration Fund, who did the fundamental groundwork on the fellahin before they were modernized to become Islamic Palestinians.

ps. one of the funny things about this is that a key member of the Palestine Exploration Fund, whose publications secured the definition you dislike here, was Edward Henry Palmer, who happens to be one of the key sources for the more troubled definition we have on the sister page, Jews. It's okay to cite that generation's scholars there, but not their viewpoint here.Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ref #20 Bernard Lewis (1999). Semites and Anti-Semites, An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice,. W.W. Norton and Company. p. 169

No one has ever answered my request that a text be supplied for this. I see no objection to removing it.

Ref #21 Dowty:(1)Dowty, Alan (2008). Israel/Palestine. London, UK: Polity. p. 221. ISBN 978-0-7456-4243-7. "Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture." Source

While population transfers were effected in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian periods, most of the indigenous population remained in place. Moreover, after Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 the population by and large remained in situ, and did so again after Bar Kochba's revolt in AD 135. When the vast majority of the population became Christian during the Byzantine period, no vast number were driven out, and similarly in the seventh century, when the vast majority became Muslim, few were driven from the land. Palestine has been multi-cultural and multi ethnic from the beginning, as one can read between the lines even in the biblical narrative. Many Palestinian Jews became Christians, and in turn Muslims. Ironically, many of the forebears of Palestinian Arab refugees may well have been Jewish.'Michael Prior,Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry, Psychology Press 1999 p.201

NMMGG's objection

'Prior talks about Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians and Bar Kochba, then the Byzantines and then the Muslims of the 7th century. Let's say for the sake of the argument that these are all in his area of expertise (although it's quite obvious Bar Kochba and onwards are not). This does not directly support the sentence in the article so far, right? All it would support is that the people living there in the 7th century may have been descendents of those living there 1000+ years prior. It says nothing about what happened after the 7th century. One must engage in obvious OR to jump from the 7th century to modern times. Then he goes on and says that today's Palestinians "may well have" descended from Jews. This is of course completely outside his area of expertise and anyway he's not stating it as fact as our article does, he says it's a possibility.'

Reply.

Michael Prior was taken to the RS/N and received a strong verdict of adequacy there, when you yourself raised it.Your objections therefore all collapse. I would note that you are criticizing a recognized RS for this on the grounds that his remarks doesn’t cover your objections (WP:OR). Prior argues that ‘most of the indigenous population remained in place’ from pre-Israelitic times, and that Assyrians, Persians, Babylonian, Roman irruptions did not change the fact that the population ‘by and large remained in situ,’ converted to Christianity, and in the 7th century ‘no vast number were driven out, and similarly in the seventh century, when the vast majority became Muslim, few were driven from the land.' That chimes in with many sources above, and leavens out the skeletal definition given in Dowty's remarks in the footnote. He just adds details of the same longue durée which is implicit, but present, in Dowty's laconic definition.

Ref #22 Source:

'the word 'Arab' needs to be used with care. It is applicable to the Bedouin and to a section of the urban and effendi classes; it is inappropriate as a description of the rural mass of the population, the fellaheen. The whole population spoke Arabic, usually corrupted by dialects bearing traces of words of other origin, but it was only the Bedouin who habitually thought of themselves as Arabs. Western travelers from the sixteenth century onwards make the same distinction, and the word 'Arab' almost always refers to them exclusively. . .Gradually it was realized that there remained a substantial stratum of the pre-Israelite peasantry, and that the oldest element among the peasants were not 'Arabs' in the sense of having entered the country with or after the conquerors of the seventh century, had been there already when the Arabs came.' James Parkes, Whose Land? A History of the Peoples of Palestine,(1949) rev.ed.Penguin, 1970 pp.209-210.'

No criticism given:-

It might be remarked however that whatJames Parkes argues is, substantially identical to what Michael Prior claimed. Parkes was, like Prior, a theologian with a lifelong interest in Palestine/Israel. He was also a political activist for Zionism, whereas Prior was a political activist against Zionism. They happen to share the same overall view of continuity over the longue durée, from the pre-Israelitic period through to the Arab conquest and onwards, in the population base of what now constitutes the Palestinian people.Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A few points:

• Does Moshe Gil support what BG and IBZ say? Is that not important? It is not clear from the ref that the "claim was a truism of the day". Is IBZ RS?
• Nebel et al (which I missed, sorry) do not support the current wording. They say that "part, or perhaps the majority" descend from older inhabitants while the article says simply that they "are" such descendants.

• Here's a new source. Professor David Bukay writing in the peer-reviewed Middle East Quarterly -Most of the population now known as Palestinian descended from migrants originating from the surrounding Arab countries and from local Bedouins. Many migrated in waves from the middle of the nineteenth century to the middle of the twentieth century. Others were imported by the Ottoman Empire and by the British for infrastructure and agricultural projects, or migrated to the region following Zionist economic success, which produced a staggering population growth. Palestinians are perhaps the newest of all peoples, comprising many scattered groups. In fact, in origin they are more Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian, Lebanese, and mainly Bedouin, than Palestinian. As you can see, this conflicts with the current wording, and should be incorporated into the first sentence which can not state as fact something that RS don't agree on. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've still a way to go first. Of course, we'll then discuss this point by point.Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The brief answer on David Bukay is contained in the record of his utterances. I.e. 'when an Arab or a Muslim opens his remarks with the expression wallahi, he is apparently intending to lie.' The remark you cite is straight out of Joan Peters' notorious tendentious From Time Immemorial. It is a pastiche of a totally discredited, ultra-Zionist ideological thesis and is not only patent rubbish historically - it can identify a people attached in every country in the ME but Palestine!- and flies in the face, certainly, of what the Christian Palestinian community's records attest.

To paraphrase Nableezy, that the author is not a fan of the most oppressed people on earth is not a valid reason to disqualify him. Bukay is a professor of Middle East Studies and thus this information is within his area of expertise so he's RS for this. MEQ is a peer reviewed journal so RS as well. If you have a policy based reason to not use this source, please produce it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Middle East Quarterly is an explicitly conservative, agenda-driven quarterly devoted to defining the ME "explicitly from the viewpoint of American interests". It is 'peer-reviewed' by, yes, the like-minded, i.e. 'One of its goals was also to provide a voice to academics who felt that the mainstream academic press was not giving voice to their views on Islam.' That means it gives voice to stuff that can't pass peer-review muster in 'the mainstream academic press'. WP:Fringe. But, since I wasted a day replying to what I privately consider faux-dumb niggling and wikilawyerish pettifogging over academic sources, I expect you to do me the courtesy of avoiding temptations for the moment to shift the goalposts, and address my comments above. Nishidani (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The main thing about the comments above is that is quite obvious from your sources that except for Dowty, they don't say as absolute fact that the Palestinian people "are the modern descendants of people who lived in Palestine over the centuries". They say some are. Or that they might be.

I'm not shifting any goalposts. Being descendent from older peoples is not a requirement for being part of the Palestinian people. It does not define them. It's a trait some of them have that you chose to highlight for political reasons.

I will keep in mind that you think peer-review by "the like-minded" is not good enough. Those kind of journals are used in this topic area quite often. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence at WP:RSN that MEQ is regarded by the community as a peer-reviewed journal for Wikipedia purposes. As one uninvolved regular RSN contributor puts it "MEQ has come up several times before. Not to be regarded as a straightforward academic journal." [3] Dlv999 (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nishadani Its interesting that considering Khazar theory of Jews, you are the first in pushing for its inclusion in many articles, claiming it to be legitimate historic theory. Also, you do not see it as WP:fringe in genetics, while not a single academic book or genetic study confirm it. In the same time, when it comes to Palestinians and when other editors are presenting WP:RS, for what you perceive as questionable regarding whether all Palestinians originated from Palestine, you are immediately describing it as rubbish and WP:fringe. Also a self declared anti-Israeli activist, one priest another mathematician is presented by you as WP:RS, (despite their confirmed non neutrality regarding the conflict) for the history of Palestinian people, while the peer-reviewed article in academic journal and in fact an entire journal is described by you agenda-driven. So regarding Israeli-Palestinian conflict, self declared Anti-Zionist and Pro-Palestinian activists are not agenda-driven, but Middle East Quarterly is.--Tritomex (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

When I was editing the genetics article, I searched and read everything available and came across this. Antonio Arnaiz-Villena is a qualified geneticist. He wrote, with some colleagues, a paper entitled "The Origin of Palestinians and Their Genetic Relatedness With Other Mediterranean Populations,’’ in Human Immunology 62 (9): 889–900. doi:10.1016/S0198-8859(01)00288-9. I saw thatintemperate and defective language was used in it and that this caused an uproar because of language in it injurious to Jewish sensibilities. See Robin McKie, Journal axes gene research on Jews and Palestinians, in The Guardian, 25 November, 2001. I didn't even raise the issue. When I am not assured that good scholarly judgement lies behind a source, I don't use it, even though it would be, if one thought of editing as a free-for-all POV battle, it might buttress a position favourable to Palestinians. It's called editorial discretion for encyclopedic ends. Bukay is a good example of the same. Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone who regularly tries to use sources like Ben White can't pretend to have clean hands. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

NMMNG, I think you could use that source, though I dont think it should be used, but you would have to be mindful of due weight. I think you will acknowledge that it is minority view that Palestinian tactics are simple yet sophisticated: preaching and dispersing lies and distortions of reality or that Palestinians have managed to fabricate a "legitimate" history and political traditions out of nothing. Or, more importantly, that [m]any migrated in waves from the middle of the nineteenth century to the middle of the twentieth century. Or that these waves resulted in a staggering population growth. Im pretty sure that other sources have been provided that refute those last two quotes, like, oh say this or this or this to link the few that I could quickly find in the archives. If you dont acknowledge that these are minority views please make that clear. nableezy - 07:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care if the source is used or not. Do you agree that what is stated as fact in the first line of the lead here is disputed by scholars? At least insofar as it applies to all the Palestinian people? Tessler acknowledges it in the source you provided above, and I don't think anyone here doesn't know it, but I'm still asking for the sake of clarity. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

To a point. I still think over the centuries is sufficiently vague that it covers nearly every objection, but Ive said before I dont mind changing the sentence. But nearly every attempt to change it has been outrageously non-neutral. There was some immigration, but no more than you see among other people in other places. There have been, and I know you know this is true, repeated attempts to use the first sentence to further the idea that the Palestinians are, for the most part, newcomers to Palestine and that they have no legitimate claim to the land. That the "Palestinians" are just pretenders from Arabia. If the choice is the current lead vs what a steady stream of "editors" have been pushing for years now, I say stick with the current. But as far as I can remember, youve never actually said how you want to change the lead. Youve said X, Y, and Z are problems. Ive agreed, to a point, but I dont recall you saying how it should be changed. So how do you think it should be changed? nableezy - 17:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a a little light relief, re some "immigration", I've waited for years for someone to read Salo Baron's account of how Arab tribes infiltrated into Medina, where powerful Jewish tribes existed, and were hospitably received by Jewish farmers, a majority in part descended from Arab proselytes. Many Arabs were allowed to settle only when the converted to Judaism (Salo Wittmayer Baron,A Social and Religious History of the Jews, Columbia University Press, vol.3 1957 p.65). I'd love to see the uproar among ethnic praetorians if that was edited in somewhere! So much for all this bullshit about 'Arabs' intruding into 'Jewish' Palestine. The world is a brothel, and I don't believe a fucking word of anyone who writes with complacent vacuity about races or ethnic groups, as if they were somehow outside of the world's redeeming gusto for promiscuity, starting with the Bible.:)Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the current wording is not "sufficiently vague", it's overly vague to the point of being incorrect. I think the lead, per WP:LEAD should start with a definition of who the Palestinian people are. That's not what we have there at the moment. I think it should be something along the lines of (going to use terminology you won't like here, but I think you'll get the gist) - Arab[ized] who were living in the area of [British Mandate] Palestine from when the term "Palestinian" started indicate the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people (ie late 19th/early 20th century), and their decedents. Then it can go on to say that part/most of them descend from earlier peoples, as the sources allow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I dont see why we should define the subject of an article on an ethnic group by when nationalist concepts began forming. Look at, for example, Lebanese people. It isnt limited to when the Lebanese began to see themselves as "a people" with collective rights to such things as a state. The article for when Palestinian nationalism came into being is Palestinian nationalism. nableezy - 21:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Because they're not a distinct ethnic group? See for example German people or Mexican people for other examples of how these things are treated. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you see the word distinct in my reply? But they certainly have distinctive attributes. Im not aware of there being much in the way of Jewish ancestry among Egyptian Arabs for example. But no matter, I wouldn't be opposed to something along the lines as the Germans article. nableezy - 22:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestion on how to do it along the lines of the Germans article? By the way, did you notice the Lebanese article doesn't mention Arabs, and says that it includes the inhabitants and their ancestors which makes very little sense? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that you mention Tessler, add this to the above list. We used to have it but it was disappeared.

'The Palestinians are descendants of two ancient peoples, the Canaanites and the Philistines. The former are the earliest known inhabitants of Palestine, which in the Bible is in fact called the Land of Canaan. The Philistines from whom the present name of Palestine is derived, entered the area around 1200 B.C.E and took up residence in the southern coastal plain. Both the Canaanites and the Philistines were pagans, although some converted to Judaism following the arrival of the Israelites. Many later converted to Christianity, as did a number of Jews, and a majority subsequently embraced Islam, which was introduced by the Arabs in the seventh century within a few years the territory had been conquered by the Arabs and incorporated into their rapidly expanding empire.'Mark A. Tessler A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Indiana University Press 1994 p.69.Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are quoting Tessler, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, on page 211 he clearly states that Palestinian people are also descendants of other Arab people who immigrated from neighboring countries to Palestine in 19th and 20 th century. Estimates of this immigration range from 7-38,5% (counted from natural increase according to Tessler, ) However this figures presented by Tessler covers partially only recent immigrations. Rivka Shpak Lissak [4] speaks about other waves of Palestinian immigration [5] although personally I do not agree with her views. It is evident from population genetics that Palestinian people originated from same stratum as Jewish people, having undergone admixture with many populations, as in the case of Ashkenazi Jews, this admixture was South European, in the case of Palestinians this admixture was mainly Arabian.

This is the reason why I do not understand why the lead was changed.--Tritomex (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 1 :The Palestinian people (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī) also referred to as Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون, al-Filasṭīniyyūn), are the modern descendants of peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab.

Proposal 2 −The Palestinian people, (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī) also referred to as Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون, al-Filasṭīniyyūn), are the modern descendants of the multi-ethnic peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, in addition to various population transfers from conquering powers and tribal inflow from the area

proposal 3 Palestinian people (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī) also referred to as Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون, al-Filasṭīniyyūn) are the descendants of people who have lived on the territory of Mandatory Palestine, originating mostly from various ethnic groups which inhabited Palestine during centuries. Today, Palestinians are largely culturally and linguistically Arab.--Tritomex (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

proposal ME Palestinian people (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī) also referred to as Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون‎, al-Filasṭīniyyūn) are people who have national or cultural connection to Palestine. Today, Palestinians are largely culturally and linguistically Arab.

If you look at the lead, you can see that the second paragraph launches right into genetic studies about Christians and Jews being ancestors of Palestinians. The third covers the when and how of national identity. The first paragraph can address the now. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This is my proposal, it follows the trend with other ethnicity articles on Wikipedia,

"The Scottish people (Scots Gaelic: Albannaich), or Scots, are a nation and ethnic group native to Scotland."

"The Irish people (Irish: Muintir na hÉireann or na hÉireannaigh; Ulster-Scots: Airisch or Airish fowk) are an ethnic group who originate in Ireland"

"The Russian people (Russian: русские, russkiye) are an East Slavic ethnic group native to Russia"

"The Iraqi people (Arabic: العراقيون ʿIrāqīyūn, Kurdish: گه‌لی عیراق Îraqîyan, Aramaic: ܥܡܐ ܥܝܪܩܝܐ‎ ʿIrāqāyā) are the native inhabitants of the country of Iraq."

So, unlike the above proposals, I do not think Palestinians deserve a different definition than other ethnicities, they are an ethnic group and should be treated as that seeing as how they are an ethnic group and they are native to Palestine, so, my proposal, "The Palestinian people, (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī) also referred to as Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون‎, al-Filasṭīniyyūn), are an ethnic group native to Palestine, and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab." Silvertrail (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The above debate and the proposals have one elementary procedural defect. They take the stable, Dowty-based definition, and suggest modifications from the several quoted sources that were added afterwards to support Dowty's definition. The effect is destabilizing of course.

• The obviously correct procedure for making or revising a definition is to look at sources bearing on it, and modulate the definition to cover all of their angles.
• Do this and you get the following statement:-

"The Palestinian people, (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī) also referred to as Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون‎, al-Filasṭīniyyūn), are a culturally and linguistically Arab(ic)ized ethnos descending from all of the peoples who were indigenous to, or had settled in, Palestine from pre-biblical times down to the modern era. Apart from a small Christian and Samaritan minority, they are predominantly Muslim by confession.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That covers all of the objections raised above. It does not cover the desire to restrict the idea of a Palestinian people to a definition in terms of a modern self-awareness of their collective national identity, though the implicit reason for this is the Zionist one of denying them any identity at all, except a flimsy recent one without roots beyond the political map laid down by an intrusive foreign power. The formal textual basis for this objection is Rashid Khalidi's book, which no one appears to have read, except Tiamut. Khalidi's book is quite explicit, that all modern identities are recent constructs and that Palestinian identity, being no exception, nonetheless encompasses everything in Palestine from pre-historical times to the present (p.18) and therefore he cannot be used to deny that a deep sense of the past infuses the identity of the Palestinian people, which we are here defining.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not bad proposal except 3 small corrections: Palestinian People, as any people should be not defined through "biblical time", so I suggest to replace it with "ancient time" The second proposal is not to generalize. Concerning Samaritans, as Palestinians are defined through ethnicity and not nationality, they are ethnically not Palestinian as they do not see themselves as such. They number only few living in Palestinian territories, while the majority of them are living in Holon Israel. Ethnically they define themselves as Israelites, although in both Israel and Palestine they should be described as ethnic minority.

(a) 'pre-biblical' is what several sources say, or mean by pre-Israelite, which I wish to avoid because pre-biblical refers to a biblical narrative of Israelites 'invading' Canaan, whereas it is quite probable the tribes later known as Israelite were there before, and may even have been in part 'Canaanite' (b) 'ancient times' is far too vague in English, 'high antiquity' is what you mean. Many texts say pre-historic, but that is only 'pre-biblical' and I wished to avoid using 'history', 'historic' too often; (c) in history a large part of the extensive Samaritan population assimilated to first Christianity or/and then/ Islam. It's hard otherwise to explain the diminution of their numbers. Jewish lore also regards them as 'mixed' (Cushites). The small Samaritan minority here refers to the present day Samaritans, divided between Israel (Holon) and Nablus. The former aren't Palestinian in terms of nationality. They could be excluded on punctilious niceties like this, but it might'nt be fair. I always think the division of Palestinians into Christians and Muslims unfair to the 700al hundred (outmaying with Ukrainian and East European women I hear because of genetic problems stemming from inbreeding) who remain in Nablus. Technically, since Palestine is a state, the people are now a recognized nation of sorts. But I keep that out.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

My proposal::

"The Palestinian people, (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī) also referred to as Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون‎, al-Filasṭīniyyūn), are a culturally and linguistically Arab(ic)ized ethnos descending from peoples who were indigenous to, or had settled in, Palestine from ancient times down to the modern era. Apart from a small Christian minority, they are predominantly Muslim by confession.

--Tritomex (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

from "high antiquity" term is also acceptable. I do not think that Palestinian ethnicity should be defined directly through its relation with Biblical, Israelite or Jewish history, because this will unnecessarily complicate the whole thing, Concerning Samaritans, they may have been assimilated during centuries, however in this sentence we are speaking about Samaritans today, precisely about those who define themselves today as Samaritans and they are considered a separate ethno-religious group within Israel/Palestine. All Samaritans both in West Bank and Israel are Israeli nationals. I agree with you that it isn't necessary to focus on the recent origin of Palestinian identity in the opening sentence.--Tritomex (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with this suggestion, "The Palestinian people, (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī) also referred to as Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون‎, al-Filasṭīniyyūn), are an ethnic group native to Palestine, and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arabized." Silvertrail (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Silvertrail: Please see the discussion and objections stated above. If you intend to cite Dowty he must be cited correctly.--Tritomex (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion was not discussed or objected to by any editor above, it follows suit with other ethnicity articles, seeing as how we should be treating all pages equally, I think my suggestion is the best choice. Silvertrail (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"It does not cover the desire to restrict the idea of a Palestinian people to a definition in terms of a modern self-awareness of their collective national identity, though the implicit reason for this is the Zionist one of denying them any identity at all..." This comment by Nishidani is not helpful. I have said the first sentence (just the first sentence) should be a modern-day description. This is what is done on Wikipedia. That isn't an attempt to spread Zionism. Isn't having the lead sentence making claims about "pre-historic" lineage a politically charged thing to do? The first sentence should be a simple, uncontraversial definition. Things like their history should come after the first period, not bracketed by commas. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That remark is so self-evident (Golda Meir etc.) that any serious editor knows what it refers to. You're apparently editing unaware of the literature. Rashid Khalidi states the obvious in the 2010 introduction to his classic work:

While their state aspirations are being destroyed ‘the reality of the Palestinian people, their very existence, is now recognized and even taken for granted by many, including even some of their foes. Before the 1990s, Palestinian identity was fiercely contested.'p.xxii; In much of American, European, and Israeli discourse, moreover – in spite of lip-service in favour of recognizing the existence of the Palestinian people- there remains today the familiar undercurrent of dismissiveness of Palestinian identity and Palestinian national claims as being less genuine, less deep-rooted, and less valiud than those of other peoples in the region. pp.xxiii-xxiv;

Is that 'helpful'?Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of Khalidi, I've referred to him in a discussion with you very recently. You didn't address my point, instead you again insinuate that I doubt the Palestinian identity. I would thank you to stop making claims of agenda-driven editing. As Khalidi states, Palestinian identity is not a recent invention, but has been influenced by the many events of Palestine. By including the fact that "various wars and exoduses" have influenced the culture of Palestinians, I am not denying, nay I am supporting the thesis that you and I agree on. All this historical data must be part of the lead. The first sentence, especially, must be free of POV. It must be a definition. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The definition of the Palestinian people must conform to the general style of definitions of all other peoples on wikipedia, which excludes the addition of 'all this historical data'. Their origins are no exception to the known facts of historic peoples, and attempts to cram in extraneous 'data' are POV-driven, to make out there is something unusual with their origins. Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't agree more that "attempts to cram in extraneous data are POV-driven". Reread the article's first sentence and compare it to all the other peoples shown below. Do you see the POV-driven extraneousness? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I see a consistent refusal to allow the Palestinians to be defined in parallel with the following example of a relevant ethnos, listed below.

The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yehudim 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 has no mention of the diaspora, or 'tribal admixture' while the simple definition of Palestinian people is rendered POV by attempts to emphasize 'inflow from outside populations' and 'multi-ethnicity'. Blind Freddy and his dog can see the POV spin going on.Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

But Nishidani can't see it in the mirror? You are right that the Jewish definition above is loaded. Jews are not a nation. But two wrongs don't make a right. Just because you've had trouble fitting Khazar theories into the page of one group, doesn't give you the right to fowl another page.

I added "inflow" as a balance to the claim that Palestinians have existed in a solid state (in the chemistry sense of state) "throughout the centuries". So you can't justify ignoring multiple RS that you added that say there was inflow and exchange. It belongs alongside the history of Palestinians, because their (and there) history includes inflow. It is a high traffic area, the Levant. The first sentence should be a modern day definition, while the roots and inflow of the Palestinians should be discussed after, as per RS. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

'Inflow'. No other ethnic article has that in its definition, and all other ethnoi had inflow over the centuries. Ergo. POV leveraging to make the Palestinians look exceptional, and totally unacceptable for that reason alone.

Khazar theories have to be added because they are a significant if minority position within the academic literature in several disciplines. I don't 'believe' these theories, any more than I believe anything, for the umpteenth time. I consider all knowledge provisory, unlike POV-pushers. I'll believe in the bona fides of editors of this page obsessively concerned with extreme precision when I see them hazard their chances at correcting the humongously flawed definition on that sister page. It has to be done because attempts to readjust the definition of Palestinians, ineludibly, translates into a position regarding Zionist dismissals of Palestinian identity and nationhood. 'Fowl' is catachrestic, unless you mean my edits are chickenshit. You meant to write 'foul'. Shakespeare punned on these homonyms in Macbeth, but could distinguish them. You haven't.Nishidani (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought Khazar theories were fringe, not accepted in scholarly circles. Where do you get your information that it is fowl (as in has wings)? But that, your linking of Palestinians with the I-P conflict, and your grammar policing, are not the things that worry me most. The troubling thing you said is, "...attempts to readjust the definition of Palestinians, ineludibly, translates into a position regarding Zionist dismissals of Palestinian identity and nationhood." This gem you said seems to be the equivalent to "anti-Israel is anti-Semite". As I told Lazyfox, extremists from both ends are usually identical and attack all the moderates as enemies. Please be civil and remove yourself from talk pages you can't be helpful on. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Silvertrail The problem with your proposal is both in wording and sourcing. According to Dowty Palestinian people are the modern descendants of peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab. This peoples include both native people like Canaanites and their linear descendants the Israelites but also non native people like Arabians, Egyptians, Syrians, Moroccans, Africans, Armenians, European crusaders, Circasians and others. Your proposal overlooks that for example the Old city of Jerusalem once had Mughrabi Quarter and still have African and Armenian quarter. Also, you should present source for your proposal as the sources used here in this context refer to Palestinian people as modern descendants of this peoples. This was debated above and as far as I see there are other proposal which could include the diversity of Palestinian people from ordinary Palestinian from Gaza, Bedouins living in Jordan wally, Christian Palestinians of Old City to al-Salamat tribe for example.---Tritomex (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

According to your reasoning above Tritomex, nearly every ethnicity article on Wikipedia needs to be reworded to fit your viewpoint then, because in realist terms, no ethnicity is pure, nearly every ethnic group has had some degree of influx from other ethnic groups throughout their history. That does not mean that an ethnic group is not native to a region. The Palestinians are native to Palestine, just as the Scots are native to Scotland, the Lebanese are native to Lebanon, the Nigerians are native to Nigeria, the Syrians are native to Syria, the Armenians are native to Armenia, etc. This proposal to differentiate the Palestinian ethnicity from other ethnicities on Wikipedia in terms of definition is certainly absurd and treats the Palestinians differently than other people. Shall we go ahead and start rewording the leads on these articles as well then, because they all have had influx from varying ethnic groups at some point in their history?

The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yehudim 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.

Italians (Italian: italiani) are an ethnic group native of Italy that share a common Italian culture, ancestry and speak the Italian language as a mother tongue.

The Greeks, also known as the Hellenes (Greek: Ἕλληνες, [ˈelines]), are an ethnic group native to Greece, Cyprus and other regions. They also form a significant diaspora, with Greek communities established around the world

Albanians (Albanian: Shqiptarët) are defined as an ethnic group native to Albania and neighboring countries or as citizens of the Republic of Albania regardless of ethnicity

The Sardinian people or Sardinians are the people from or with origins in Sardinia, a western Mediterranean island and autonomous region of Italy.

The Turkish people, or the Turks, (Turkish: Türkler), are a nation and an ethnic group primarily living in Turkey, and in the former lands of the Ottoman Empire where Turkish minorities have been established.

"The Scottish people (Scots Gaelic: Albannaich), or Scots, are a nation and ethnic group native to Scotland."

The Welsh people (Welsh: Cymry) are an ethnic group and nation native to Wales and associated with the Welsh language.

The Bretons are an ethnic group located in the region of Brittany in France. They trace much of their heritage to groups of Brythonic speakers who emigrated from southwestern Great Britain, including Cornwall, in waves from the 3rd to 9th century (most heavily from 450 to 600) into the Armorican peninsula, which was subsequently named Brittany after them

The Galicians (Galician: Galegos; Spanish: Gallegos) are an ethnic group and nationality, whose historical homeland is Galicia in north-western Spain. Most Galicians are bilingual, speaking both their historic language, Galician, and Castilian Spanish.

The Catalans are an ethnic group; the people from, or with origins in, Catalonia who form a historical nationality chiefly located in the northern Spanish state.

"The Irish people (Irish: Muintir na hÉireann or na hÉireannaigh; Ulster-Scots: Airisch or Airish fowk) are an ethnic group who originate in Ireland"

"The Russian people (Russian: русские, russkiye) are an East Slavic ethnic group native to Russia"

Hungarians, also known as Magyars—Hungarian: magyar (singular); magyarok (plural)—are a nation and ethnic group who speak Hungarian and are primarily associated with Hungary.

The Basques (Basque: euskaldunak, Spanish: vascos, French: basques) as an ethnic group, primarily inhabit an area traditionally known as the Basque Country (Basque: Euskal Herria), a

Swedes (Swedish: svenskar) are a nation and ethnic group native to Sweden, mostly inhabiting Sweden and the other Nordic countries, with descendants living in a number of countries.

Lithuanians (Lithuanian: lietuviai, singular lietuvis/lietuvė) are the Baltic ethnic group native to Lithuania, where they number around 2,679,600 people

Latvians or Letts (Latvian: latvieši; Livonian: leţlizt) are a Baltic ethnic group native to Latvia and the majority (over 62%) of the population.

The terms Finns and Finnish people (Finnish: suomalaiset, Finland-Swedish: finnar (ethnic Finns), finländare (citizens of Finland)) are used in English to mean "a native or inhabitant of Finland". They are also used to refer to the ethnic group historically associated with Finland or Fennoscandia, and they are only used in that sense here

The Romanians (dated: Rumanians or Roumanians; in Romanian: români pronounced [roˈmɨnʲ] or — historically, but now a seldom-used regionalism — rumâni; dated exonym: Vlachs) are an ethnic group[31] native to Romania, who speak Romanian; they are the majority inhabitants of Romania.

"The Iraqi people (Arabic: العراقيون ʿIrāqīyūn, Kurdish: گه‌لی عیراق Îraqîyan, Aramaic: ܥܡܐ ܥܝܪܩܝܐ‎ ʿIrāqāyā) are the native inhabitants of the country of Iraq."

"The Japanese People (日本人 Nihonjin, Nipponjin?) are a nationality originating in the Japanese archipelago and are the predominant ethnic group of Japan."

"The Korean people are an ethnic group originating in the Korean peninsula."

"Armenians (Armenian: հայեր, hayer [hɑˈjɛɾ]) are an ethnic group native to the Armenian Highland."

"The Kurdish people, or Kurds (Kurdish: Kurd, کورد), are an Iranic people[23][24][25][26][27][28][29] native to Southwest Asia, mostly inhabiting a region known as Kurdistan, which includes adjacent parts of Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq."

"The Assyrian people,[25] most commonly known as Assyrians and other later names, such as Ashuriyun, Atorayeh and Syriacs (see names of Syriac Christians), are a distinct ethnic group whose origins lie in ancient Mesopotamia." Treating the Palestinians differently because of their current political situation, and how they are viewed by certain extreme groups such as Zionists, is something I think we should avoid here.Silvertrail (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Silvertrail there are no common patterns used for all ethnicity/peoples in Wikipedia. In some similar cases, where ethnic and national identity developed in 20th century, like Jordanian people, such articles and definitions do not exist.

The definition of Palestinian people should include both facts, namely their nativity and origin from Palestine, as well as historical facts which led to the creation of separate Palestinian ethnicity from many different people which inhabited Palestine during centuries.

Different definition of people

The French (French: Français) are a nation that share a common French culture and speak the French language as a mother tongue. Historically, the French population are descended from peoples of Celtic, Latin and Germanic origin, and are today a mixture of several ethnic groups.

Lebanese people The Lebanese people (Arabic: الشعب اللبناني‎ / ALA-LC: al-sha‘ab al-lubnānī, Lebanese Arabic pronunciation: [eʃˈʃaʕb ellɪbˈneːne]) are the inhabitants of the country of Lebanon and their ancestors. The term may also include those who had inhabited Mount Lebanon prior to the creation of the modern Lebanese state.

The cultural and linguistic heritage of the Lebanese people is a rich blend of both indigenous elements and the foreign cultures that have come to rule the land and its people over the course of thousands of years.

Libyans are people from Libya, a country located in North Africa. The Libyan population is mainly ethnically Arab and the culture is basically Arab-Muslim, descended of the Arabs who conquered and emigrated to Libya since the seventh century after Christ. There is a small number of Berbers, who retains their culture in certain parts of the country. Moreover, according to DNA studies, 90% of the Arab Libyan population descended from the Arab-Berber inter-ethnic mixture[2] and the rest of the 10% are from Arabs, Phoenicians, Black Africans (especially in the South of country) and other North African and European people.

Canadians (singular Canadian; French: Canadiens) are the people who are identified with the country of Canada. This connection may be residential, legal, historical or cultural. For most Canadians, several (frequently all) of those types of connections exist and are the source(s) of them being considered Canadians.

Germans (German: Deutsche) are the people who are identified with the modern country of Germany and historically Germanic Central Europe. This connection may be ethnic, historical or cultural, legal or residential.

Tunisians The majority (98% [1]) of modern Tunisians are Arabized Berber or Arab-Berber, and are speakers of Tunisian Arabic. However, there is also a small (1 percent at most[1]) of pure native Berbers located mainly in the Jabal Dahar mountains in the South East and on the island of Jerba. The Berbers primarily speak Berber languages, often called Shelha

Also, please adhere to WP:NPOV, to label (equal) Zionism with extremism is POV.--Tritomex (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Canadian is a nationality, not an ethnic group. Also regarding Zionism, denying the existence of a people, namely the Palestinians, is a form of extremism. "Extremism: 1. the condition or act of taking an extreme view." Silvertrail (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Wheter we define Palestinians as ethnic group or nationality is the question of this debate. I assume that Palestinians are both. As nationality Palestinians are a citizens of Palestine (West Bank and Gaza) and as ethnicity an ethnic group which developed its separate national identity during modern times, tracing its roots to numerous peoples, indigenous and non indigenous to Palestine from ancient times until 1948.--Tritomex (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, this article is about the ethnic group Palestinians and the lead should be modeled like other ethnic group articles, if you look above at the examples posted by me and also user:nishidani, there is a common trend among them, if we want to also include everyone that identifies as Palestinian nationality wise but are not ethnic wise, I suggest you propose another new article named "Citizens of Palestine", where you can include members of the Palestinian population that are not ethnically Palestinian, this article already distinguished a little in regard to the Bedouins. Silvertrail (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Silvertrail, I believe you've hit the nail on the head. This is a site for the common usage of the phrase "Palestinian people" or "Palestinians". The common usage contains both nationality and ethnicity, so we must take both. Bedouin, Circassian, Samaritan, Druze, and others make up Palestinians. When we go back into history we find even more. But this section of the talk page is about what the first sentence should be. It should be a definition that is free of the various scholarly debates of roots and influences through time. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is NOTADICTIONARY, we write articles on encyclopedic topics and select an appropriate TITLE. We don't pick a word or phrase and then describe all the meanings of that word in "common usage". Dlv999 (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hence why this is a article about the ethnic group Palestinians, if some editors want to include other people that aren't ethnically Palestinian in this articles definition, I believe that defeats the purpose of this article, I suggest those individuals go into a new article named "Palestinian Citizens" or "Citizens of Palestine" where we can include individuals that are not Palestinian ethnically but are citizenship wise. It is frivolous to try and include immigrants in an ethnic group's page. You do not see people going on the Irish page and claiming that English people who immigrated to Ireland in the past few decades are ethnically Irish, yes they may be nationality-wise but they do not belong on the page talking about the specific ethnic group. Silvertrail (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition..." is part of WP:NOTADICTIONARY. How can a reader know what the article is about unless this is defined in the first sentence in the way that the English word is most commonly understood? As for this article's scope, I'd ask Silvertrail to explain how he knows this page's boundaries. There have been Bedouin, Druze and others on this page for a long time, yet you seem to be questioning if they are Palestinian people. Also, Arab Israelis (or Palestinian citizens of Israel) and the Palestinian Diaspora (or refugees) aren't citizens of the West Bank and Gaza (the Palestinian Territories or State of Palestine as recognized by the UN). So before anyone proposes a new lead, it should be a WP:LEAD that reflects the body of the article. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

As I see on this page, the Bedouin mentioned on this page are only as a distinguisher, that unlike ethnic Palestinians, they are clearly and historically an Arabian people who settled in Palestine, some may identify as Palestinian, but that is in a nationalistic sense, not ethnic, Bedouins are a separate ethnic group. I do not question that that many of them are citizenship wise Palestinians, many of them are also citizenship wise Israeli's. The fact that many Palestinians, in Israel, or in the diaspora do not have citizenship in the West Bank and Gaza is a null point, if they are ethnic Palestinians, their ancestors had citizenship in Palestine. Again, this page is about the ethnic group Palestinians. You do not see people going on the Irish page and claiming that English people who immigrated to Ireland in the past few decades are ethnically Irish, yes they may be nationality-wise but they do not belong to the specific ethnic group. Silvertrail (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. You simply can't get into the ethnic thing because it utterly confuses a simple definition. Pre Mandatory observers noted a distinct difference between feelahin and bedouin, sedentary and nomadic Palestinians reflecting the age-old ME human ecological difference between the desert and the sown. You have distinct Bedouin groups throughout the West Bank and the Negev, but there has been a great deal of settlement and mixing between the two. Hebron, for example, has a strong Bedouin element dating from early modern times, settled tillers of land. Hebronites, to name but once example, are now just Palestinians, irrespective of descent. They are not Bedouin because three centuries ago. . . .Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Great stuff from Nishidani. The Hebron page (under Early Ottoman rule) has a source that Nishidani takes as fact that claims that most of the present residents of Hebron are descendants of Bedouin from Transjordan. Since Hebron is the largest city in the West Bank, I'd say that is some serious info. Sounds like an awfully big, two century-long, inflow from the desert. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I made that addition to the page. I didn't 'take as a fact'. I made the edit because a splendid RS registers it as a fact. You miss the point. 'Inflow from the desert' is utterly irrelevant, like defining Jews by remarking on 'inflow' from non-Jewish populations. Hebronites are 'Palestinians' just as the people of 'Yanun' who have some Bosnian ancestry, are 'Palestinians', just as Israel's 'Jewish' population contains a massive 'slavic' influx of 'non-Jews' (either rabbinically or in terms of descent and culture), and this fact is totally irrelevant to definition either Jews or Israelis. Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You stated it as fact, as an event you witnessed yourself. This comes shortly after you stated, "I consider all knowledge provisory..." and that you don't "believe" anything. I think you should leave both your nihilism and your activism off this page. We use RS. Three of the RS currently listed after the first sentence say that there was not an immutable population. I'm fine with using only a modern definition of Palestinians, but if there is going to be talk of "descended from..." than it needs to be neutral. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A Palestinian is not exclusively an Arab, since there were around 400,000 Jews in Palestine before the formation of the State of Israel, and the words "Palestine" is not an Arab word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.174.51 (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That is true, a Palestinian is not exclusively an Arab, try to convince the State of Israel that. Truth is, irrespective of religion, a Palestinian is a Palestinian, their religious affiliation is not their ethnicity. Just because many are Muslim and have adopted Arab culture, that does not mean they are ethnically Arab, some people can't grasp this concept. The high majority of Palestinian Muslims are descendants of Palestinian Christians, Jews, and Pagans that either converted to Islam after the Islamic conquest or centuries thereafter in Palestine. Silvertrail (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What are you two on about, who said a Palestinian is an Arab? I mean other than Nishidani saying that Arabic-speakers who live in Palestine are exclusively Palestinian. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not true. It is well known that "Palestinians" are illegal settlers from Arabia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.227.61.51 (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Are Palestinians Muslims?

Should the Category of "Category:Muslim communities" be included in the article? (as the majority of Palestinians are Muslims.) Faizan -Let's talk! 06:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would say no in the same sense that Thai people aren't a Buddhist community despite the vast majority identifying themselves as Buddhist and in the same sense that a basket of fruit with 9 apples and 1 orange isn't a basket of apples. The inclusion criteria says "This category is for articles about communities of Muslims that are also defined by ethnic, linguistic or regional identities". I don't think this article fits that criteria. Being Muslim isn't a defining characteristic of the Palestinian people (unlike the defining characteristic of being Palestinian, obviously). Having said all that, it really depends on how strictly people want to apply the categorization rules and in practice they aren't very strictly applied. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• The category "Category:Jewish communities" is not on the Israelis page, I assume for the same reason Sean outlines above. For that matter Irish people lacks "Category:Catholic communities",again, rightly so. So the answer is, no. Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I personally think the category may apply as the majority of Palestinians are indeed Muslims. Moreover, Palestinian-identified Muslim nationalism plays an important role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the outside world's perception of Palestinians in general (and the ethnic/cultural/religious dimensions to the conflict). So again, I think the category may be relevant. Mar4d (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The outside world's perception' is a fantasy, of course (b) Palestinian nationalism's origins were stacked with Christians, who indeed, following the Lebanese example, introduced nationalism into an Islamicizing culture that was, tendentially, pan- or supranational. One might say that to downplay the Christian element, by overplaying the 'Muslim' card in interpretations of that complex reality, belongs more to the world of political spin than to historical reality. The Palestinians were, aside from specific tribal densities in places like Hebron, cultural infidels in the round, before modernization.Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• i agree with sean and nish. of course, if you added the categories of all peoples to all countries, then maybe. Soosim (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• No. Just like Syrian people aren't a "Muslim community", though only 10% are Christians. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I must say I agree with the above users, Palestinians are not a Muslim community, in fact, they founded another Abrahamic religion, Christianity, and only after the Islamic Conquest did they begin the process of becoming a majority Muslim population. Silvertrail (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Palestinian is an identification for an ethnic group, rather than a religious group. There is a sizable Christian minority (I think roughly 15%, but don't quote me on that), who would identify as Palestinian, and so the categorization would be inappropriate. Chri$topher 14:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The citation for this source [6] needs to correct "Kuma" to the correct name Kumar.Paragon27 (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The answer to the question in the RfC is no. The separate question in the heading, is, it does not matter, as Palestine is too big to be a "community", and includes many communities, some Muslim, some Christian, and some Jewish even. The category, Palestinian communities, can only be applied to places that are actually communities, i.e. small populated places consisting mostly of Muslims. And these of course can be in Jewish portions of Israel as well as in Palestinian portions of Israel, or anywhere else on the planet that "two or more gather in my name" oh wait that is for Christians, well then three or more face Mecca each morning. (pretty confusing, all in all) Apteva (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

demographics

For the record, I did not intend to remove the qualification of the demographic count. I did not intend to keep it either. I was only intending to remove the link to Palestinian political violence, which is utterly unacceptable. About the demographics, it is true that the CBS page cited includes Druze and Bedouin under "Arab". As we know, those groups are not uniform in whether they self-classify as Palestinian. I'll leave it to others to decide what to do about that. Zero^talk 18:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The source distinguishes "Arabs" and "Jews and others" and is not clear to state if "Arabs" include Druzes. I doubt this much given Druze have a different religion and culture than Israeli Arabs. Without more information, we should not make the source say something it does not. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a footnote stating what "Jews and others" means, and the table purports to cover everyone, so I think it is clear that Druze and Bedouin are counted as Arabs. However there is surely a CBS page somewhere that spells it out more explicitly. Zero^talk 21:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

CBS is very clear. Quote: (2) The group "Jews and others" includes Jews, population not classified by religion and non-Arab Christians. Druze are not Jews, "unclassified" by religion or Christians. It's obvious Druze and Bedouin are included in the "Israeli Arab" group (despite Druze and many Bedouin reject to be called "Palestinians", that's why clarification is needed).--IranitGreenberg (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

In the Israeli statistics which specify religion, "Druze" are counted separatly, and so are "non-Arab Christians". For the year 2011, the total "Arab" population is 1 592 300, of which 1 337 800 are Moslem, 128 700 Druze and 124 100 Arab Christian [7]. It is a fact, that all Israeli Arabs do not self-identify as Palestinians, but IranitGreenberg's addition suggests that all Druze and all Bedouin of Israel cannot be counted as Palestinians, which is not accurate, particularly in the case of Bedouins, and imo quite inappropriate. Personally I would only count the "Muslim" and "Christian Arabs", statistically speaking, and not include the "Druze", or alternatively give the total of "Arabs", and add something like (total Arab population). But that does not solve all the problems with using the Israeli CBS figures, which include the population of East Jerusalem, the Golan and the "Judea and Samaria area" as population of Israel s. here on p 31f! Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say all Druze and Bedouin don't identify themselves as Palestinians (Druze are completely Israelis though), that's why a small clarification is needed saying the total "Arab" Israeli population includes Druze and Bedouin. It's very simple.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

@Zero0000 : Ok. My mistake. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding cite note 1 : I clicked on the link but I could not find the quote associated with that citation ("208,000 Palestinians were counted in east Jerusalem ... 2.345 million in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and 1.416 million in Gaza"). All I see is an indication that the population is 4.02 million in 2011. Dlv999 (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the demographic data for the Palestinian Territories with up to date information from the Palestinian central Bureau of Statistics. Figure published here are consistent with up to date figures published by non Palestinian sources E.g [8], [9], [10], [11]. Dlv999 (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The figures presented for Israel are not correct. Beyond counting 128 700 Druze who do not consider themselves Palestinians it counts about 30 000 Druze from Golan (included in Israeli CBS) as Palestinians while about 300 000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem are double counted as both CBS and Palestinians include them in their population.--Tritomex (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Israeli statistics count the whole population both of Israel, the annexed territories, i.e. Greater East Jerusalem and the Golan, and the "Judea and Samaria Area". Tritomex is right, the Palestinians in Greater East Jerusalem are counted twice, and the Druze in the Golan are also included. The latter shouldn't be listed as "Palestinians of Israel" in WP, not because they are not Palestinians, but because en.WP does not consider the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, and the Palestinians of Greater East Jerusalem should not be counted under Israel, for the same reason. As for the rest of the total Arab population in Israel, I suggest to add (total Arab population), just for the record. It is not up to WP to decide which Israeli Arabs are Palestinians and which are not. And it is not as simple as IranitGreenberg seems to think – because being "completely Israelis" has nothing to do with it. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The Palestinian central Bureau of Statistics quotes the figure of 1,360,214 [12] Palestinians residing in Israel for the year 2010. This seems fairly consistent with the Israeli figure of 1,650,000, bearing in mind that Israel takes the anomalous position of counting 300,000 Palestinians that reside in East Jerusalem, outside Israel's internationally recognized borders.

My suggestion would be to quote the Palestinian figure in the table, cite both the Israel and Palestinian statistics documents and cite a third source such as this, that would explain the discrepancy due to the EJ figures without having to indulge in OR. Dlv999 (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, you suggest to use the Palestinian central Bureau of Statistics's figure for the number of Palestinians in Israel, instead of the Israeli figure which is used now. I think that's reasonable, as it clearly states under West Bank, that EJ is included. If both the Palestinian and the Israeli sources are cited, I suggest to use the same year, which seems to be 2010, if these are the most recent figures from the Palestinian central Bureau of Statistics. As for the third source, it imo needn't be in the infobox, but I'm open minded about it. Ajnem (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverted change by IranitGreenberg who doesn't seem to understand what consensus-based editing means – very unfortunate. Ajnem (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was very clear Israel includes Druze and Bedouin (not precisely "Palestinians") in the "Arab" classification. Does someone think the opposite?--IranitGreenberg (talk) 07:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody thinks that Druze and Bedouins are not Arabs or are not included in the Israel CBS figures. We are not editing the Israeli demographic statistics but the English Wikipedia, IranitGreenberg. As of now, we have two suggestions. Yours and Dlv999's. Dlv999's suggestion has my support, whereas yours hasn't. So, for the time being, you have two users against you. So please refrain from reinserting your POV. Thank you, Ajnem (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If we have a source (i.e. the Palestinian central Bureau of Statistics) that specifically refers to Palestinians and would not need to be qualified, that would seem to be a better option for the table. Regarding our earlier discussion the latest PCBS figure (1,360,214) for Israel I could find are for the end of year 2010. [13] The December 2010 figure quoted by the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics for "Arabs" is 1,574.1 [14] Dlv999 (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Which means that the Pal. CBS has about 215 000 less Palestinians than the Israeli CBS has Arabs. That should be ok. The Druze are certainly not counted in the Pal. CBS, and neither are the Bedouins who don't care to be Palestinians. So what's the problem with just using the official Palestinian figure for the Palestinians in Israel? Ajnem (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If the Palestinian official statistics are reliable, I think it should replace the Israeli CBS in the infobox, at least in this article, since Israeli statistics don't count "Palestinians", but only "Israeli Arabs".--IranitGreenberg (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The official Palestinian CBS do count Druze and Bedouin Israelis as Palestinians. However, it counts also East Jerusalem Palestinians and doesn't count the Druze of Golan. That means that the numbers given by Palestinian CBS are closer to the actual number of Palestinians living in Israel, than the numbers given by Israeli CBS. Currently there are 1,650 000 Arab citizens counted in Israel by Israeli CBS, including 128 100 Druze, 30 000 Druze from occupied Golan and 300 000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem. This means that the actual number of Palestinians in Israel is little less than 1,2 million or about 15% of population (if occupied territories are not counted).

Therefore I suggest to include official Palestinian CBS (1,360,214) figures with fuss note that this numbers includes Druze and Bedouin citizens.--Tritomex (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Care to give a source for your claim, that the "official Palestinian CBS ... counts also East Jerusalem Palestinians" as "Palestinians living in Israel" or that their figure "includes Druze and Bedouin citizens" of Israel, Tritomex? Ajnem (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes of course. Here is the Palestinian CBS population publication.[15] The publication directly classify Druze and Bedouins as Palestinians and it explains this on page 13. Concerning Palestinian CBS figures for the number of Palestinian Israelis, as the publication explains, this numbers are based on Israeli CBS, reduced by the population of E.Jerusalem, Arabs from Golan and Lebanese living in Israel. "When the number of the Palestinian population in Israel is to be calculated, the data of the Palestinian

population living in Israel must be separated from the data of the Palestinian population of Jerusalem Governorate (J1 Region) the Arabs in Golan Height and the Lebanese lived temporary in Israel." The fact that Druze are counted as Palestinians is also obvious from next page 14 "4. Projection of the number of Palestinian population in Israel are based on a dominant constant annual growth rate of 2.7%.(3.0% for Muslims, 1.9 for Druze and 1.4% for Arab Christians) " --Tritomex (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

For those who cannot access the journal for the Lustick article Zero just added see now:Ian Lustick, ‘What Counts is the Counting: Statistical Manipulation as a Solution to Israel’s “Demographic Problem” at Middle East Journal, 67, no. 2 ,(Spring) 2013, pp185–205. It is very useful for parsing the confusion over these sources.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Although this paper is totally unrelated to official CBS publication, both Israeli and Palestinian (it deals with one-million person gap, namely the accusation made by some Israeli demographers that Palestinian CBS inflated the number of Palestinians by over 1 000 000 ) as we accept the legitimacy of both of this institutions and their numbers. (which is similar)

However, although I am not demographic expert while reading this info mentioning ICBS I checked out the numbers. " Taking all these figures into account, we see, for example, that according to the ICBS, the Arab natural increase rate was 23.5 (per every 1,000 residents) in 2010 and 2009, down from 31.9 in the 1996–1999 period compared to a Jewish natural increase rate of 14.9 in 2010, up from 11.7 in the 1996–1999 period. In other words, despite a downward trend in Arab fertility and an upward trend in Jewish fertility, the Arab rate of natural increase in Israel remains 58% higher than the Jewish rate" I checked this numbers at ICBS: [16] Actually the Jewish natural increase rate was NOT 14,9/1000 for 2010 but 21/1000 almost a 50% mistake, which translated to numbers means almost 60 000-70 000/mistake/year. An enormous mistake! and I even did not checked out other numbers! Surely this enormousness mistake by the logic of mathematics disqualify the entire projection based on such error. The difference between Palestinian/Israeli natural increase went down from 18/1000 in 1996 to 10/1000 in 2006 and to 3,4/1000 (almost identical) in last year. Which mathematically leads to equality within 3.6 years probably due to Haredi natural increase, which made Jewish population increase rate very high. However, as I said this is not important, because the only question we have, and I hope its now being answered is the number of Palestinians living in Israel.--Tritomex (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The 21/1000 figure in the ICBS document is for Jewish live births. Lustick is talking about the natural increase (births minus deaths). If you read the paper, the significance of the distinction is discussed in some detail. I didn't read the whole paper, but in that particular section, one of the points Lustick is making is that Arutz Sheva article distorted the data by only comparing Arab/Jewish live births instead of the natural increase (births minus deaths). As the Arab population has a significantly younger population profile (therefore less deaths), ignoring deaths leads to a distorted representation of the demographics. Dlv999 (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I wish Tritomex would edit his posts so that one can see what's his and what's not his. But what annoys me is the figure the PA gives for 2010 under the objectionable heading "the Palestinian Territories Occupied in 1948": 1,252,000, adding "Note: The population in this table not equal to the population in other tables because of the source" [17] not giving any source, as far as I can see, as opposed to its figure for the same year under the heading "Estimated Number of Palestinians in the World by Country of Residence, End Year 2010" of 1,360,214 for Israel. All the figures are estimated anyway, but does anybody have an explanation for the difference? Ajnem (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

comment

DJ Khaled is not listed as a notable Palestinian American. Please rectify this situation immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.143.240 (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Something missed?

The article in Ancestral origins says "Ali Qleibo, a Palestinian anthropologist, explains:", but there is nothing after it. Is something missed? Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The source was considered unreliable, and in removing the remark, the editor failed to remove his name.

Also Iranit. Many of your edits are uninformed, and almost demand immediate reverting, like The name "Palestine" was invented by the Romans in the 2nd century AD. Replacing erroneous anachronistic map for a better one (more clear and historically precise.

(a)the edit summary indicates you haven't read the page (the name was not invented by Romans)

(b) the replacement map is one of many reconstructions from the Bible, an unreliable document for historical claims. To many, such 'United Kingdom' maps of empire are sheer fantasy and their use on wikipedia is ideological, not 'clear' or 'historically precise'. It therefore must be reverted.Nishidani (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask you a simple question: The name "Palestine" existed in times of Saul? (like 'Israel' did)... if the answer is "no", the image of 1915 must be replaced or removed.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

@Iranit Everything can be only supported by WP:RS, please read the article properly before making such edits. Faizan -Let's talk! 07:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. And you broke 1RR. Here and here. Revert yourself or I'll report you.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

See my response here. Faizan -Let's talk! 08:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Palestine Maps

There has been some recent edit warring over maps in the Ancestral origins section. The original maps in the section were this and this.

I don't think either map is particularly appropriate for this page largely because they are anachronistic representations of ancient Palestine. They were produced in the late 1800s and early 1900s respectively. What they tell us is what people in the late 1800s and early 1900s thought about ancient Palestine. We should be basing the article on modern scholarship. The maps produced during late 1800s/early 1900s are largely based on the bible, presenting it as fact. Modern scholarship has called this approach into question based on archeological findings.

Having said that Iranit Greenberg's choice of this map is no better. It is problematic because it is an editors derivative work based on this original. The original clearly states that it is "according to the book of Joshua", but the derivative work fails to make that clear. Dlv999 (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so why do we have a 1915 bad copy of a Biblical map, probably erroneous and certainly with an anachronistic title? The name "Palestine" didn't exist in times of Saul, it would be like put an image of Aztec Triple Alliance where the caption says "United Mexican States in times of Aztecs". Erroneous map has to go. Either replace it or remove it.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are not consistent with what RS say on the topic. For example, if I turn to The Routledge Handbook of the Peoples and Places of Ancient Western Asia (Trevor Bryce, 2009, Routledge)

• Pg 340- "Israel (map 8) Iron Age kingdom located in Palestine. If one accepts OT tradition, it reached its peak in C10, during the reign of King David. David allegedly exercised control over a large spread of territories extending from the Palestinian coastlands and plains northwards to the region of Damascus, and eastwards to the Euphrates. But attempts to reconcile this picture of the Israelite kingdom with information provided by archaeological and non-biblical sources have not been successful.....There is little in either archaeological or contemporary written sources to corroborate OT accounts of the early history of the Israelites. Egyptian records, for example, contain no record of Israelite settlement in Egypt, of Israelites used as slave labour, or of an Israelite exodus from Egypt.....Many scholars now argue that in the absence of either archaeological or written evidence to support it, the tradition of a united kingdom under Saul, David, and Solomon has no historical basis, and that these kings are essentially literary creations. The argument continues that it was not until the reign of Omri (876–869), allegedly the sixth king of Israel and founder of the so-called Omride dynasty, that a united kingdom was formed – with its capital at Samaria in central Palestine."

• Pg 522 "Palestine - A name originating from the Peleset, one of the groups of so-called Sea Peoples (q.v.), who in C12 [twelfth century BCE] settled in the southern coastal plain of the Levant, where they re-emerged in OT tradition as the Philistines (q.v.). Their land was called Philistia."

According to RS while Saul does not even exist in "the times of Saul" (as you put it), Paleset (the precursor to the name Palestine) does exist in 12 century BCE sources. Dlv999 (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Philistines of the Mediterranean coast has nothing to do with Palestine or present Palestinian Arabs. In 131 (Philistines were extinguished many centuries before), after a series of Jewish revolts, Emperor Hadrian renamed Jerusalem Aelia Capitolina and the Roman province, until then known as Iudaea Province, was renamed Palaestina. Some sources say the name was in honor of extinct Philistines, since they were enemies of Israel, while other sources say "Palestine" is a Latin translation of "El fights/struggles" (where the name "Israel" comes from). In any case, the name "Palestine" didn't exist in times of Saul, although Philistines did exist, but only in five major cities: Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gath (not the entire Israel). Therefore, the map must be replaced for an appropriate one (without anachronism) or simply removed for being historically inaccurate.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Good grief. This is a hackneyed meme you find on hand-out sheets for hasbara pushers.

It is POV-pushing to replace a generic map of Palestine by inserting a map of an hypothetical 'United Kingdom of Israel', choosing a time-frame that prioritizes Jewish claims. We could as easily provide a map of Canaan, going back a century earlier, which happens to coincide with 'Palestine', unlike the United Kingdom of Israel which imbricates over no historically, as opposed to biblically, attested united geopolitical reality at that time. Egyptian Peleset (cognate with Palestine) is attested as early as 'Israel' on Egyptian stelae, and in both early instances, the reference is to a people, not a geographical reality. Therefore your assertion is wrong, and your question has been met

.'The only designation recalling the Philistines is the one most widely used today, at least outside of Israel: "Palestine" itself. From the Assyrian "palastu" to the Greek "Palaistine," via the Latin "Palaestina", the term was ultimately adopted not only by the European languages, but also by Arabic, where it appears as "Filastin".' Gudrun Krämer,A History of Palestine, 2011 p.4.

'In the Bible, Israel is the name for the larger Hebrew-speaking kingdom, where it indicates the people as a body in their power to act, and it encompasses the same people during the period before kings. . .In strictly historical terms, we do not know who took the name "Israel" before the kingdom of the ninth century.' (After Saul and David and Solomon) Daniel E. Fleming,The Legacy of Israel in Judah's Bible, Cambridge University Press, 2011 pp.239-255 p.240

This is all in the text, and you are endeavouring to spin things towards a contemporary Israelocentric POV. Please read articles before editing them, and please grub up some elementary information from neutral sources rather than sploshing the text with identifiable contemporary political spinning.Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Are you saying the name "Palestine" (not Philistines) existed in times of King Saul? Yes or no?--IranitGreenberg (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything. I am reporting what RS say, which contradict the opinion which led you to introduce a spurious (see Dlv's note above that it comes from an imagining of the historically nonsensical narrative of the Book of Joshua) map. Israel and Peleset/Palashtu (the root of which is behind Palaistine) are ethnonyms for the period you are referring to, not toponyms. A map shows toponyms, not ethnonyms. Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Trivial reverts like what have been going on with changing the description of that picture back repeatedly are minor but significant attempts of editors on here to disassociate Palestine from history. The editors that keep reverting that map's description from Palestine to Israel should be reported for editing out of POV and banned from editing this page, their edits are not improvements to the article, they are just provocation. Silvertrail (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you guys focus your efforts on removing the catalyst of these problems from the article, namely Chicago Style (without pants). Every 1RR violation should be reported (there have been many, and another today [18][19]). Even slow motion editing warring should be reported because it's still edit warring. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What's happening here is that 2 editors, Iranit and the Chicago guy, are provoking edit-warring by the selective reintroduction of an unhistorical and (see the source) outdated and deceptive map in order to screw into the article a 'Israelite' fix. Palestine, they are asserting must be mapped as it was according to some fantasy-ridden reconstructions from the Bible that highlight one ethnic tradition over the rest. We are dealing with Palestine (an area fought over and populated by waves of Philistines, Israelites, Phoenicians, Greeks, Aramaeans, etc.etc.), not one tradition about one of its petty kingdoms. Let me illustrate the fatuity involved.

Depiction of the Israelite kingdom (colored) in Palestine during the time of Saul c. 1020BC according to George Adam Smith's 1915 Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land.

All very interesting, a 1915 map. The problem is it maps (a) one putative Israelite kingdom in Palestine in an arbitrary period, and (b) is no longer accepted. If you want to see how modern scholarship imagines, taking (which is dubious) the Biblical account at its word, the area controlled by Saul, it is much smaller, see Siegfried Kreuzer, ‘Saul-not always-at War: a New Perspective on the Rise of Kingship in Israel,’ in Carl S. Ehrlich, Marsha C. White (eds.)Saul in story and tradition, Mohr Siebeck 2006 pp.39-57 p.46 (see the map p.47).

‘there is a far-reaching consensus that the area of the tribe of Judah did not belong to the kingdom of Saul,’ (which however the map suggests it included, as it includes much else indiscriminately.

This POV-pushing, with its indifference to quality control of sources, is only causing serious editors an attritional waste of their time, which I suspect is the purpose of this kind of thoughtless edit, i.e. choosing 'stuff' that fits a contemporary ideological position, rather than material that illustrates a specific historical point. Cut it out.Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for the images inclusion. It has two things written on the image. One says, "Palestine in the time of Saul C.1020" and the other, "Kingdom of Israel colored thus". I was attempting a caption that included both. But Nishidani seems to prefer the images removal on the grounds that it is not RS. I agree, the map isn't reliable and obviously ambiguous. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, why edit it in before analysing it?. It is patently wrong to any knowledgeable eye and (coloured) is stupid, since there are two colours, not one, the green apparently alluding to the Philistia area. By 'cut it out' I meant primarily, desist from a pattern of editing that shows no evidence of a knowledge of the topic, or of a willingness to mug up on RS dealing with the article's substance, and fails to seek consensus on the talk page. This article was relatively stable, and significant edits should be proposed for discussion. Look at the Shakespeare Authorship Question talk page. We work hard on the talk page sometimes for weeks, or months, and if something new and well-written gains consensus there, it gets in. The rule is all the more important for a fraught topic like this. Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Did the User Chicago Style have any other reason besides their personal opinion stated in the edit summary that the material was "redundant", to justify removing this entire paragraph from the Ancestral Origins section without so much of a discussion? This user seriously needs to be blocked from editing this page, and his edits need to be reverted ASAP, Wikipedia should not be encouraging users like this, I took a look at his edit history on the page, what small percentage of his edits have actually been constructive improvements to the article? Silvertrail (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"Throughout history a great diversity of peoples has moved into the region and made Palestine their homeland: Canaanites, Jebusites, Philistines from Crete, Anatolian and Lydian Greeks, Hebrews, Amorites, Edomites, Nabataeans, Arameans, Romans, Arabs, and Western European Crusaders, to name a few. Each of them appropriated different regions that overlapped in time and competed for sovereignty and land. Others, such as Ancient Egyptians, Hittites, Persians, Babylonians, and the Mongol raids of the late 1200s, were historical 'events' whose successive occupations were as ravaging as the effects of major earthquakes ... Like shooting stars, the various cultures shine for a brief moment before they fade out of official historical and cultural records of Palestine. The people, however, survive. In their customs and manners, fossils of these ancient civilizations survived until modernity—albeit modernity camouflaged under the veneer of Islam and Arabic culture."

I do not think that peoples like "Hebrews" Canaanites or Edomites "has moved into the region and made Palestine their homeland". Historically peoples like Hebrews emerged from previous cultures shaping their independent identity through religious and social reforms. The biblical myth of exodus does not have historic validation.--Tritomex (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE that makes that point in reference to the topic of this article (Palestinian People) you are welcome to add it to the article. If you are interested in debunking Jewish mythology with modern scholarship you might prefer to take a look at Jewish Diaspora or Jerusalem in Judaism, both articles are based almost entirely on ahistorical mythology. As to the quote under discussion attributing the quote should resolve any concerns you may have. Dlv999 (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I see the removal of content by Chicago Style before the recent protection on the page was not discussed or justified, I'll be reverting it. Lazyfoxx 21:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a redundant paragraph. The very next paragraph discusses the same ideas, but in a less whimsical manner. Dr. Qleibo's quote isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia article that is striving for neutrality. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the concept of neutrality as defined by Wikipedia. We represent all significant views on a topic. The Palestinian point of view is obviously a significant opinion on the topic of Palestinian people. Quoting a Palestinian academic is a high quality source to represent the Palestinian view on the topic of Palestinian People. Dlv999 (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If you read the Ancestral Origins section, you will see that I did not remove any viewpoint. Qleibo's views are the same as Antonius, Lewis, Myers, and the Abstract of the genetic study. These five voices quoted into one view is not NPOV.

So I deleted the one that talks of Canaanites, Jebusites, Hebrews and other "peoples" not well-supported by the archaeological record. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that it is your view that it is redundant, that is not a position you have been successful in persuading other editors or reaching a consensus to delete the material from the article. Dlv999 (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So, after 16 minutes of my reasoning being on the talk page, you've decided that my rhetoric is failed and that your opinions are the default majority? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• IG's latest changes to the caption are problematic. Firstly the edit is misleading to readers: "the Israelite kingdom (colored)" is inaccurate as two kingdoms depicted in the map are colored Israel(pink) and Philistia(green). Saying the colored section is Israelite Kingdom is plain wrong and misleading. Secondly the map depicts the "Palestine in the time of Saul" which includes a depiction of Israel, Philistia, Edom, Moab Ammon, Phonecia ect. Cherry picking one detail from the map and not the rest is not going to fly. Dlv999 (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Dlv999, you began this section by calling the image anachronistic. I agree with you. The creator of this image obviously put too much stock in the Biblical narrative. I think his Bible had an atlas in it, too. How else would he know what the water level of the Dead Sea was. For Pete's sake, the borders of the modern state of Israel and the Palestinian territories are not universally agreed upon, so this image is quite questionable.

So Dlv999, are you still ok with deleting this info? Unless we can nail down a consensus caption (which the recent page protection should have but didn't resolve), it should be removed. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - thought you might like to know that.... this map actually has an important place in history. Smith's book was used as a reference by Lloyd George during the negotiations for the British Mandate for Palestine - in other words it was this map that informed Lloyd-George's creation of modern Mandatory Palestine following his mantra of From Dan to Beersheba (see e.g. [20]). Not that this has any bearing on the debate above - i just thought people might appreciate knowing that this isn't just any old map.... Oncenawhile (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)