Template talk:Palestinians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 October 11. The result of the discussion was to keep..

1 First Comments
2 More Suggestions
3 Title of Template
4 People section?
5 Rename to: Palestinian Territories
6 Notable Personalities
7 Size and relevance

[edit] First Comments

Well the colours are pretty ugly at the moment but that can be fixed... As for the rest of it, I wanted to make a navigation box that would make it easy to navigate around all things "Palestine". By this I mean the historic land of Palestine (non-political, pre '48), and the Palestinian Territories (West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem) as I believe when most people talk about Palestine this is what they mean. I don't see the point in making a box called Palestinian Territories or West Bank & Gaza Strip & Jerusalem as these are geographical areas and this would exclude far too much Palestinian-related content. I want to include as much as possible about the people, culture, conflict, diaspora etc. so please help.
I decided not to put it on any of the relevant pages yet so it can be edited until people are pretty happy with it. Pockets23 13:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this template, from previous experience I know that it is time consuming and boring to start a new template. This is a template we need very much. I agree that the colors are not very inviting, using the red, green, black in a nice way will be a good idea. --Thameen 17:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, wasn't sure whether, red green black would invite accusations of POV but I seeing as it was officially adopted as the flag of the Palestinian people in 1964 then I'll assume it's okay. I'll get working on it. Anything's better than what it's like now.

my first suggestion is that we add a section for Environment and ecosystem. I made a nice article about this subject. Biodiversity in Israel and Palestine --Thameen 17:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll add that under "Land of Palestine" At the moment, there's not enough to give it it's own section?

Nice work! I would just suggest that the font for text be changed to black or green if possible since the blue seems to be not so pretty. I don't know if that's possible or even how to do it myself. But excellent work! Tiamut 09:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Pockets23, I haven't bothered to go back and look at how you originally designed the template, nor what its original contents were, but its contents as of this writing demonstrate what's fundamentally wrong with it... namely, that your stated goal has been completely abbrogated by [I assume, subsequent, and not by you] additions which have turned a noble goal into a vehicle for POV-pushing. By way of example, let me just point out that the present template, at this time, contains links to "First Intifada", "Second Intifada" and "Barrier"...and there is no mention whatsoever of Idumea, Siege of Jerusalem (70), Syria Palaestina, Aelia Capitolina, etc. This template has a noble goal, but one that will forever attract destructive editors, and ultimately, at least with its present name, never accomplish the goal you set out to achieve. Brushing aside all history, the current template makes history begin with Balfour. Sadly, that's how "Palestinian" textbooks like to read, but that kind of "history" is patently unencyclopedic, and has, therefore, no place here. Tom e r ^talk 08:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no-one ever said it was going to be easy... Even the most contentious issues can be resolved. You should have added those articles yourself if you feel they should be included, this is how wikipedia works is it not? Pockets23 17:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The fact that I had not come accross Idumea, Siege of Jerusalem (70), Syria Palaestina, Aelia Capitolina just goes to show how needed this is.

[edit] More Suggestions

I agree that more suggestions need be done in various sections. For example in history we need to start from pre-history and there are good articles about that. In political section we need to include all relevant articles mentioned above by by Tom.

However I do not agree that this template is inherentaly problematic. This has been said about every thing related to Palestine in wiki. some people just want to se Palestine disappear from wiki pages. We should not listen to this POV. There is a land called Palestine. This land has people called Palestinians. They have history. They have present. there are many wiki articles about the land and people in Palestine. So obviously we need a template. --Thameen 13:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title of Template

I personally think the current title is appropriate to cover all the topics with the link leading to Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian Do people think it needs to change? Suggestions? Reasons?

I think the current title is fine. People often come by Wikipedia looking for information about Palestine, even if it is not a country. Some are looking for historical info, some for political info, some for cultural info. I have added some things, but my formatting skills are zero. So if someone can fix the code, that would be great. Tiamut 14:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I really think that it is going to get deleted because of the pro-Israel Wikipedia faction if you don't clarify the name a bit. If you can modify the name slightly to avoid looking like you want to refer to the region of Israel and Gaza Strip and the West Bank, then their issues will be addressed or easily refuted as invalid. I recommend the renaming occurs ASAP. --Ben 12:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Will change the name to Palestinians, I think Palestine is the most direct and straightforward way to title it but Palestinians is also good. Pockets23 04:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a wrong thing to change the title. To name the template Palestinians is wrong cuz this template is about Palestine and not Palestinians. I do not see the need for the name change. This template was named for deletion and was voted to stay as template:Palestine, so the name was accepted as such. --Thameen 10:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People section?

Hi. I just wanted to ask people's thoughts on how to include Arab citizens of Israel in this list. Should we make a Palestinian people section? Also, I put A list of Arab localities in Palestine 1948 under Land of Palestine, but I am not sure if that is the right place for it. Should it be moved to History of Palestine? Lastly, I tried to make a Religion & Religious Sites section, but I don't know of an existing page that cover the religions of Palestine so I don't know how to title it. Any thoughts on these issues would be great. Good work so far everyone! Tiamut 14:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename to: Palestinian Territories

Would it be possible to rename the template to Palestinian Territories? This way, the main objection in the AfD is addressed. The problem is there is no formal palestinian state and the historic name of the region of Israel and the Palestinian Territories is Palestine -- thus it is confusing as to what exactly the template refers to. If you rename it Palestinian Territories it make clear that it does not refer to Israel and thus it does not overlap with that territory. The contents can still remain virtually the same -- especially the politics and nationalist aspirations. I would very much like to do this rename in the near future. --Ben 12:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't rename it to Palestinian Territories and the template is kept it is likely to be transformed away from just focusing on the territories and instead it will end up overlapping significantly with the Israel template. This will reduce its value -- we don't need more templates on the same topic. I could not more strongly recommend that you rename this template to PalestinianTerritories ASAP. --Ben 12:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ben, I know your suggestion is a good faith one, but unfortunately "Palestinian territories" will not meet the need for a template that covers all things Palestinian. For example, will I be able to include information on Palestinian refugees outside of the Palestinian territories in such a template? Will I be able to include diaspora writers like Edward Said? Will such a template be able to include information on Arab citizens of Israel, who consider themselves Palestinians with Israeli citizenship? The title "Palestine" allows us to put a broad range of topics related to the issue of Palestine without claiming lands or borders to a country in that name. In fact, if you look at the section on Land of Palestine as it is currently, it gives a good overview of the territories that are to form part of a Palestinian state to be, if it ever comes into existence. Not everything to do with Palestine and its people is related to the Palestiniant territories themselves and that is actually the crux of the issue/conflict; i.e. the lack of a homeland for Palestinians. It would be misleading to pretend that all Palestinians view only the Palestinian territories as their home. I live in Nazareth. I identify myself as Palestinian. I carry Israeli citizenship. When I advocate for a template on Palestine it is not so that I can claim that I live in Palestine, it is so I can adequately represent the realities of identity, nationality, history and the present-day issues surrounding the issue of Palestine. I know I've rambled, but do you see what I'm trying to say? Thanks. Tiamut 11:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be extremely unfortunate if this template was deleted because of a simple naming issue, which would just mean that the whole process of creation and discussion would be repeated later anyways. If we wanted to meet the standard of all the other "country templates," then the points you mention wouldn't be an issue. If the analogue to Edward Said would be included in template:Israel (or Botswana, for that matter), then it would be included in template:Palestinian territories/Palestinian National Authority/whatever compromise is worked out. If not, then it would be included in the relevant category or whatever other organisational strategy may be utilised by for the analogous purpose for Israel or Botswana. I too consider myself a Palestinian, but remember that the template isn't supposed to make a point, but rather it should fulfil a very specific function. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 01:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tewfik. I feel that the threat of deletion is insufficient grounds to change the name of the template. This is not about trying to create a "country template". It is a template on the issue of Palestine, a contentious issue to be sure, but one that includes people, some territory, culture, history, language, and a conflict over something that was once and still is called Palestine by some, and Israel by others. Keeping the name as Palestine is not designed to score political points, or make it more of country. It is rather to be faithful to the correct naming of the issue at hand. The Palestinian National Authority (PNA) is not the issue. Nor are the "Palestinian territories" the issue. The issue is something called Palestine. Please look at the content of the template more closely and tell me how the history section can be included under PNA or Palestinian territories. And how about Arab citizens of Israel who mostly identify as Palestinian? Can we put them under a template named as you have suggested? Seriously? Tiamut 01:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not any collection of articles in a template is necessarily legitimate. I tried to convey the point that this template should exist as any "country template" would, with the reservation that it would be called something other than "Palestine." I'm sure you would agree that if there was now a State of Palestine and Israelis identifying with it were included in its template, then we should do so here, and that if there was an argument against including them there, then we shouldn't include them here. However there is no need to include a central directory of all things with the word "Palestine" in them - that is what disambiguation is for. The history of whatever areas are currently under Palestinian control [in terms of the greater pre-1948 Palestine] could be written in much the same way as the history of the areas under Israeli control. But I feel that making a template about someplace "called Palestine by some, and Israel by others" would be needlessly controversial, wouldn't fit within the convention of other such templates, and would unfairly create a nonexistent alternative to the current Israeli state. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been changed to "Palestinians" by the template creator, which you should put to rest both your and my concerns. I definitely don't think the template should include only areas under Palestinian control or ignore the history of our people and its connection to all of Palestine, which is why I reject the name Palestinian territories. But throughout our entire history, nowhere we have lived has been under our control. Either we have been imperial subjects or now, refugees or diaspora people. Geographically circumscribing the area under discussion is not right considering more than 50% of Palestinians are refugees living outside the geographic region of British Mandate Palestine, our last solidified borders before Israel's establishment. Cheers! Tiamut 21:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reticence to be limited to the "Palestine," but this reasoning could be easily used to justify a "greater Israel" to which Jews feel a connection. In any event, I'm still not thrilled with the name, for if it now avoids the POV issues, it also doesn't really make much sense - it isn't about "Palestinians," but the Palestinian culture, geography, etc. Perhaps we can come up with a better name? Let me know what you think, Tewfik^Talk 04:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What about Palestine and Palestinians? Or The Issue of Palestine? Or The Palestinian Nation? "Nation" does not necessarily imply state, but rather a people. For a people of whom half live in exile, this may be ideal. These are just a few ideas. Let me know what you think. Tiamut 10:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been meaning to get back to you here for a while - sorry for the delay. I think the general model we use should be that of any other "state," and thus I'm predisposed to organising it around the Palestinian Authority name. I understand the argument that wants to not directly use the government's name, but due to its complicated history, the place doesn't have a "short name," and in any event, the convention for dealing with culture etc. in nation states seems to be to use the state's name, even though culture etc. isn't directly related to the government. Let me know what your thoughts might be. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As the original person that suggested the change in name to "Palestinian Territories", I think the current solution of "Palestinians" is adequate. It is descriptive and simple. --Ben 18:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The name Palestinians is worse than Palestine. This template is supposed to link to every thing related to Palestine the land, the people and culture. By changing it to Palestinians we made it worse. --Thameen 11:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Marhaba Thameen. Eid Mubarak! I totally feel with you and was kind of surprised when Pockets changed the name. We can still discuss other options. Did you see what I suggested above as compromise positions? I like 'Palestine and Palestinians' or 'The Palestinian Nation' too. But I don't know about your thoughts and those of others. Tiamut 11:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The nature of this template's construction is very confusing which has lead to problems in its inclusion on certain pages. We really must clarify whether it deals with Palestine as a historical region, or with the ethno-political Palestinian people. It certainly shouldn't be the address for all things named "Palestine" - that is the task of the Palestine (disambiguation) page. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the ancient history of the historical region "Palestine," since this template is scoped for the modern national idea ala State of Palestine. The same structure is followed on Template:Israelis, which does not include ancient Israelite history. A template for the academic definition would include Jews & Arabs (& everyone else who lived there), & not the modern PA, PLO, and people like Rashid Khalidi. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with this removal. The history section is informative and complete, including even references to Israelite rule in the area. It illuminates for the reader the complex history of the region that Palestinians claim as their home. It is not POV or irrelevant. This is not the template for the State of Palestine, it is about the Palestinian people, who claim cultural and ethnic influences from among the empires listed in the history section. I am therefore going to reinsert it. Tiamut 10:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Tewfik is correct, none of that belongs here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

On what basis? Palestinians as a people recognize the contributions of the many empires to the cultural traditions and ethnic makeup of the people of Palestine. This includes the region's connections to Israelites - a historical fact that also helps illuminate to the reader the imperial and religious historical background that foreshadows the current conflict over identity and land that the Palestinians are engaged in with Israelis. Why is it a problem to provide access to these historical references? Tiamut 12:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me a template of this form is perfectly right and proper - Palestinians (as a people) deserve an overview category. I'm not sure what the Kurds are getting, they've never had a state either, but nobody would deny their self-identification as a nation.

Consider "Palestine and Palestinians", or possibly "Palestinian Nation".

PalestineRemembered 18:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem, which is apparent in your reply, is that inclusion of the History of Palestine on the template for Palestinian people mixes two separate concepts based on a similarity of name. As I noted above we must be careful to avoid glossing over the difference between academic and national usages of "Palestinian." As this is scoped towards the modern national usage, like Template:Israelis, it should also not attempt to draw a connection to the academic definition. Tewfik^Talk 18:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The distinction you are making is a moot one as regards this issue. Both academic and national definitions of Palestinians include a cognizance of the imperial and cultural history that have contributed to the culture, language and history of the people known as Palestinians today. See Palestinian People right here on Wikipedia for example. Identity is also self-defined, and as Palestinians recognize the multiplicity of cultural influences and ethnic stock incorporated into the region from successive imperial adventures, this information is completely relevant to the template and also enriches the reader's knowledge of the history of contestation that foregrounds the current conflict. Your argument is a straw man I'm afraid. Reverting once again. Tiamut 16:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a straw man in Tewfik's argument, but I do see nothing but POV in your argument. I would like to avoid making a WP:POINT, but imagine the same (expanded) set of links in Template:Israelis. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think that such information is relevant to the template "Israelis", by all meanbs include it. Though I believe the identity of Israelis as commonly espoused by them only gives credence to the Jewish historical legacy in the region, rather than all the influences listed in this template. This is not about POV pushing and Tewfik's argument is a straw man. From day one with this template, all good faith attempts at editing have been characterized as POV pushing by those opposing this template's very existence. Unforunately, it seems that some people are unable to distinguish between providing the reader with information that reflects Palestinians and their identity as articulated by them and others, with the pursuit of some sort of political agenda. This is normal since some people view the very assertion of a Palestinian identity as threatening; however, faithful representation of this identity should include a mention of the historical background that foregrounds it. Tiamut 11:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Canaanites and Philistines are a part of the Palestinian identity? Proof please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The national identity of Palestinians is connected to the history of a land called Palestine. The history of the land Palestine is well-known and documented as having hosted all the different historical groups listed in the history section. [encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761558705/Palestine.html] Palestinians themselves refer to their Canaanite, Philistine and even Israelite ancestry and history repeatedly. See: [1] for just one example. Each group listed in the history section has a page where the nature of the connection to Palestine or Palestinians is further elucidated. Why can't readers know what Palestinians view their history to be composed of? Why are we limited to existing only as an adjunct of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? We are a people, with a long history. We have a right to have that history represented in our people template. Tiamut 16:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Like "Israeli", Palestinian is in this context a modern national construct. Mixing it together with the historical concept is not factual and confusing. Tewfik^Talk 05:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

People are not idiots. They can explore each link and determine for themselves what the connection is to Palestinians. I have provided examples of how the history is relevant to Palestinian identity. Stop trying to reduce an entire people into a mere faction of an intractable conflict. There is more to us than the conflict. We have a rich history and we didn't come from the moon. Tiamut 10:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That was pretty rude, Tiamut. Speaking of the moon, I've heard many arguments that Jews should go back where they came from: Europe, America or the moon. Arabs must have come from Arabia and Jews from Judea, but it is all irrelevant here because the national identity of the Palestinians is as modern as of the Israelis. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Did I say that Jews should go back to where they came from anywhere on this talk page? What's the relevance of that comment, or is it just a intimidation designed to make me feel like defending the inclusion of my people's history is somehow akin to advocating Jewish transfer. My point stands. Regardless of whether "Palestinian" or "Israeli" are modern identities, the people that claim these modern-day identities have a historical narrative that underpins it. Whether or not you think that historical narrative is accurate is really irrelvant. Identity is self-defined. I've provided examples of Palestinian recognition of their Canaanite and Philistine ancestry. There are gneetic studies available for reivew at the Palestinian people page. This information is entirely relevant. Your comment, quite unfortunately, is not. Tiamut 11:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That you believe a specific historical narrative is relevant is fine, but this is an encyclopaedia that attempts to be neutral. If there are truly widespread sources that say that the Palestinian people believe that they descend from [Canaanites, whatever that means, then make a not of it there, but barring objective academic research confirming such a link, it is not Wikipedia's place to adopt that position. Tewfik^Talk 17:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Classic straw man argument. My POV is irrelevant here. Including the links to historical information related to the land of Palestine, where Palestnians claim to come from, neirches the reader's experience. Including this information does not mean an endorsement of a direct ancestral lineage between every living personal claiming to be Palestinian today and every imperial and indigenous ancestor. That Palestinians regularly refer to these historical periods and peoples in a way that indicates they view them as ancestral is certainly notable and relevant as well - whether or not it is true. We cover all POVs and the POV of the identity group under question is most relevant to how the template should be constructed, since identity is constructed by all groups themselves. No? Tiamut 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The section isn't titled "historical periods that Palestinians identify with and regularly refer to", but rather "history". It is about the objective history of those identified as the Palestinian people. Tewfik^Talk 19:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't play games Tewfik. You know as well as I do that there is no such thing as the objective history of a people, particularly not when identity forms the core of an ongoing political dispute. I will not let you censor out access to information that Palestinian view the history of the land of Palestine as part and parcel of their present-day identity. There is no reason to dissuade people from exploring to what degree that it or is not true. The articles for each historical era will make their cases for and against. But to deny their inclusion here simply because you want to promote the idea that Palestinians do not exist, come from nowhere, have no history, will not fly. I have church records that prove my family's existence here back as far as 500 AD and I'm sure we have all kinds of mixes in our blood and that is part of my Palestinian identity, as it is for many others. Stop negating our right to an identity and history. Tiamut 19:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Palestinian" is a twentieth century idea; Palestinians have nothing to do with ancient Jewish kingdoms, except in revisionist propaganda of the worst kind. Identity appropriation is a bad idea, and particularly in a template that is already very large. Please stick to topics that are actually directly relevant to Palestinians. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, I didn't add the Israelite kingdoms. Amoruso did, apparently for purposes of NPOV in presenting a complete picture of the history of Palestine, the land that Palestinian identity is intimately connected to. That said, considering that Palestainians like myself can trace our ancestry here back hundreds of years (in my case, 1,500 years as recorded in church registers) So it is not fiction for me (or others) to see our ancestry as connected to the Babylonian, Persian, Abbasid empires. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. I am certainly not alone among Palestinians in having this kind of registered familial history here spanning over many empires. Whose to say that my ancestors were not Jews who converted to Eastern Orthodox Christianity? It is not identity appropriation for me believe that to be so. Again, however, this is a straw-man argument. Including this historical information allows the reader to explore the complex history of the land of Palestine that Palestinians claim as part of their identity. This information is all relevant. Your opposition and that of others like Beit Or, Tewfik, and Humus Sapiens POV based, and certainly not about making this encyclopedia more encyclopedia, interactive, or enriching an experience for this reader. And A full historical timeline to the imperial history of Palestine is very much needed so that readers can get a global picture of issues under discussion and the complex historical and political background and narratives. Tiamut 12:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You can trace your ancestry to Adam and Eve, but that is not what is being discussed here. Palestinians and Israelis are modern concepts. We could add Kingdom of Israel to {{Israelis}} but I hope we don't have to make this WP:POINT. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, if you want to keep this template about Palestinian people, then please stick to this subject. Beit Or 09:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Personalities

Is anyone aware of the reasoning behind the choice of notable personalities? I can think of quite a few names significantly more famous than many of those chosen....

Feel free to provide a listing - you may want to look to other national groups' templates to see what kind of people are generally included. It seems that artists and scientists are popular (I suppose it is an attempt to highlight some of the less vocal members of the group). Tewfik^Talk 19:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size and relevance

In view of the recent revert-warring by Ramallite and Abu ali, I am requesting explanations as to why the following links must be included into the template about the Palestinian people:

While it can be argued that Israeli West Bank barrier and West Bank Closures are relevant to the subject, there is already a link to Al-Aqsa intifada. Selecting Israeli West Bank barrier and West Bank Closures instead of, say, terror attacks only serves the purpose of advancing the Palestinian victimhood narrative. Palestinian Jew are Jews, not Palestinian Arabs; you need to completely redefine the concept of Palestinian people to make this link relevant. The links to famous religious buildings and sites (Al-Aqsa Mosque, Church of the Nativity, Dome of the Rock, Rachel's Tomb, Church of the Holy Sepulchre) are an example of appropriation of history. None of them was built by Palestinians; and of course, it's unprecedent to include links to buildings into a template on an ethnic group. I am at a loss about the reasons for including the rest of the links, like Israel, Religion, Druze, Sunni Muslim etc. This template is by far the largest in and needs significant cleanup, well beyond anything that has been attempted so far. Beit Or 16:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)