Talk:Palestinian people/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11 →

1 See here for genetics debate
2 pictures de jour
3 Section to be removed
- 3.1 The concept of "Palestinian people"
4 We've heard this before: Palestinian Arabs are somehow not native to Palestine.
5 Explaining changes
6 We need to fix the refs
7 non-Arab Palestinians
8 Claim that Palestinians are descendants of the Canaanites
- 8.1 Arbitrary section break 1
9 Antonio Arnaiz-Villena article
10 Scholarly evidence that Palestinians are descendants of earlier Semitic peoples in the region
11 Palestinian culture
12 Golda Meir quote
- 12.1 Excerpt in the Washington Post
13 about representive family picture of palestinians
14 Invitation for Almaqdisi to discuss desired changes
- 14.1 Discussion of historical record
15 Two Palestines
16 Aramaic , and Arabic
17 In addition to being Canaanites, Palestinians are also Philistines
18 Canaanite descent predicament
19 The Nine Bows
20 Arabs and Palestine
21 Question
22 Folklore
23 Please engage in discussion over intro
- 23.1 Let's rename the article before we discuss the introduction
24 Request for Comment
25 Reversion without an explanation is unacceptable
- 25.1 Requested move
  - 25.1.1 Consensus building

See here for genetics debate

Talk:Palestinian people/Archive 9

pictures de jour

this article is still a riiculous mess regarding the imagery chosen. i don't mind too much the weird avoidance from important figures on the template... but images of a few people sitting in an ally as representative of the palestinian family cell?? ridiculous. Jaakobou 10:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well What can you say. The jews the enemies of Palestinians are dictating this page. Obviously this page is off limit to Palestinians and Gentiles and Goim, it is hijacked by the people of God the Maggogite Khazars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.185.78 (talk • contribs) 03:11, May 15, 2007

what you just said is defamatory, hysterical BS and i hope you get your account suspended. Jaakobou 08:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC). What is defamatory is the insult of Palestinians in this page written by anti palestinian jews.I hope their account be suspended some day08:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Section to be removed

heads-up. This ection has nothing to do with the subject of the article and I plan to remove it unles I get sources that show it needs to be included:

Canaanites are considered to be among the earliest inhabitants of the region today known as Palestine/Israel,^[1]^[2] Canaan being its earliest known denomination. Some of the Canaanites are believed to have migrated in the 3rd millennium BC from the inner Arabian Peninsula.^[3] Later, Hebrews (Israelites), Philistines, Romans, Arab Nabateans, Arab Ghassanids, Arabs, Crusaders, and other people have all passed through or settled in the region, and some intermarried.^[4]^[5] Some of their descendants systematically converted from earlier beliefs to newer introduced ones, including Judaism, Christianity, and later most predominantly to Islam. Different languages have been spoken maternally depending on the lingua franca of the time.^[6]^[7]

Zeq 08:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

if there is no good argument to keep I will remove this section. It is not about the Palestinian people. Zeq 15:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It clearly is about the Palestinian people, whose name derives from the Egyptian for the Peleset who were living there in Egypts 18th Dynasty. Many here seem to know that, why not leave it alone and just add the sources you feel add to the encyclopedia Rktect 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This section is telling about the history of the Palestinians ( Canaanites, Nabataeans, Gassanites, all of whome were known to inhabited Palestine and part of Jordan. The Gassaanites were an Adnanite Arabic tribeof great reputation who remained christians till now. The Nabataeans are known like Herod the Great and his people who ruled Palestine and Syria during the Roman Empire.07:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that the history section if relevant to this article. Zeq, I would ask that you do not remove it. I don't want to have to revert such an edit. Tiamut 10:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, do we have RSs which state that Palestinians descend or are primarily descended from the Canaanites? If so, we should state it explicitly. If not, the Canaanites are less relevant to modern Palestinians than many other waves of migrants/conquerors which left their cultural mark and genes, and we should therefore delete the section because it implies a dubious relationship. For example, Picts may have become Scots, but black or white North Americans are not descended culturally or genetically from the Indigenous peoples of the Americas. <<-armon->> 12:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm I've checked the cites and they're poor for attributing descent. Also, one of the cites led here which states "By the end of the reign of Solomon, king of Israel, the Canaanites had virtually been assimilated into the Hebrew people, among whom they appear to have exerted a reactionary religious influence." and "Biblical scholars now believe that the Hebrew language was derived from Canaanite sources and that the Phoenician language was an early form of Hebrew. Recent discoveries indicate that, before the Hebrew conquest of the south of Canaan, the Canaanites and the Phoenicians constituted a single nation, and that the people now known as the Phoenicians subsequently developed as a separate nation." So I'm removing it. <<-armon->> 12:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You could look at the Cambridge Atlas of Mesopotamia, Michael Roaf, Ancient Egypt,Baines and Ma'lek, The Atlas of the Crusades ES Books, The Times Atlas of World History, Hammond, and follow the history of the Palestinians Gene Oinkos and Phratre through their dominence by the Egyptians, Libyans, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Crusaders, British and Israelis right up into the present day.Rktect 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Armon, this is what you removed:

Canaanites are considered to be among the earliest inhabitants of the region today known as Palestine/Israel,[1] [2] Canaan being its earliest known denomination. Some of the Canaanites are believed to have migrated in the 3rd millennium BC from the inner Arabian Peninsula.(Bernard Lewis (2002), The Arabs in History, Oxford University Press, USA; 6New Ed edition, page 17) Later, Hebrews (Israelites), Philistines, Romans, Arab Nabateans, Arab Ghassanids, Arabs, Crusaders, and other people have all passed through or settled in the region, and some intermarried.[3] [4] Some of their descendants systematically converted from earlier beliefs to newer introduced ones, including Judaism, Christianity, and later most predominantly to Islam. Different languages have been spoken maternally depending on the lingua franca of the time. [The Arabs and the West: The Contributions and the Inflictions, Daring Press; 1st ed edition (October 10, 1999)http://www.apomie.com/arabhistory.htm] (Hoyland, Robert G. Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam. London, 2001.)

Can you explain to me what is not properly sourced here? Tiamut 13:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no RS cites here which state that the Canaanites became the Palestinians, in fact, I've given you one which suggests they became Jews. It is therefore WP:SYNT. <<-armon->> 14:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And which sentence claims that all Canaanites became Palestinians? This provides a historical description of the groups that were in historic Palestine and their evolution and identity over time. Every sentence is supported by its source. Tiamut 14:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's dubious that there is any sort of significant relationship between the two. If I'm wrong, please provide the evidence, rather than attempting to imply one via SYTH. <<-armon->> 14:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Armon, you claim to have the read sources. So far, two of them directly make the connection between Canaanites and Palestinians:

"and the Palestinian Canaanite civilization" [5]

"The Palestinian people are residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, areas which have been under Israeli occupation ever since the end of the 1967 war with its Arab neighbors. They trace their ancestry to the Canaanites and other Semitic peoples who moved into ancient Palestine some 2000 years ago." [6]

The second one, in which Palestinians themselves are said to trace their ancestry to the Canaanites, suffice in itself for the inclusion of the paragraph above. Self-identification with Canaanite civilization allows for this material to be included without in any way constituting WP:SYNTH. You are creating a debate over nothing really. If anything, the paragraph understates the directness of the connection made between Palestinians and Canaanites. Your deletions are totally unwarranted. Tiamut 14:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither of these cites are WP:RS. Abdullah Mohammad Sindi is not a historian and his piece is more about ethnic pride than anything else. A blurb from the activist "United Nations Volunteer Programme in The Occupied Palestinian Territories", isn't an RS either. The most you could say is that the relationship is asserted (presumably as a counter to Jewish claims, which seems to be the likely situation). <<-armon->> 14:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC) It would still need better sourcing though. <<-armon->> 14:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The information is about Canaanites and other peoples, not about the "Palestinian people". The concept of a "Palestinian people" is a mid to late twentieth century one, and this kind of historical revisionism and identity theft based on sources that are dubious at best, and clearly polemical, is inappropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not state your own thesis and provide sources in support of that? Most of those commenting here probably know that there were people living in the region when the people who established modern Israel arrived. Their land deeds show hereditary ownership of the land going back into prehistory. Rktect 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop using your POV as a starting point for your argument. Examine the sources and what the paragraph actually says. It is not polemical in any way. It's a historical background of the region of Palestine, the peoples that were there. Since Palestinians claim themselves to trace their ancestry back to the Canaanites as shown in the sources above, this is certainly relevant information to the article. Tiamut 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an article on "Palestinian people", not the region of Palestine. All claims must come from reliable sources, and be stated as such, claims, not statements of facts. As for the claim, it's part and parcel of a pattern of revisionism and identity theft that includes other such appropriations. Under this a-historical world-view people like Jesus also become Palestinians. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Archaeologists like Ken Kitchen have found the form of the Palestinians land deeds datable and tracable going back into the early bronze age Rktect 15:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please indicate precisely where in the paragraph you have deleted it is claimed that Jesus was a Palestinian? Or that Palestinian are Canaanites? The paragraph soberly described the migrations of peoples and historical identity developments in the region known as Palestine, which Palestinians claim as their home. Palestinian also alims Canaanite ancestry. Whether you believe they are correct to do or not is really besides the point. It is a fact that they do. Your removal of this material (twice now) is wholly unjustified. Tiamut 18:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians may claim Canaanite history, but that religio-political and a-historical view is propaganda, unsupported by reliable sources. This article is about the Palestinian people, not about Canaanites; nor is it about fairy tales repeated ad nauseam in UNWRA classrooms, in political manifestos, and on polemic websites. See below. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do see the section below, read it all the way through, and note the evidence put forward that the DNA study cited actually does support Canaanite provenance for some Palestinians. Tiamut 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why some Palestinians; ALL Palestinians. I am sure that at least one Canaanite was a rapist (sorry, I don't mean to offend the ancestors of the Palestinians); and that was at least 3000 years ago; so according to the mathamatical Laws of Probability every human being now alive is a descendant of that rapist or pardon me that Canaanite. So now in addition to being a Jew, a Palestinian, I am now finally a Cnaanite. I therefore now claim all of Palestine for me and my descendants because after all, I fit all criterias. If the fool wasn't mine I would laugh too.

BTW I am ready to go for a scientific (you could have fooled me) DNA test; to prove that Palestine is mine. Where do I go? Itzse 18:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources smources; is this for real? Itzse 19:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The concept of "Palestinian people"

With regard to Jay's comments above the standard work is probably Porath's The Emergence of the Palestinian-Arab National Movement 1918-1929 (Frank Cass, 1974). Porath maps the development of Palestinian nationalism after World War I:

Two major forces influenced this development and reacted with it: Zionism, with its ambitious schemes for settling Jews in Palestine and creating a National Home for them there, and Arab nationalism on a wider scale, which was emerging spontaneously with the with the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire and the spreading of ideas of democracy and self-determination. The growing threat posed by Zionism awoke the Palestinian population to the need for organization and the establishment of their own identity to oppose it, while the focus of their national aspirations widened or narrowed according to the ability which they felt at any given time to confront Zionism and achieve self-expression within a Palestinian rather than an all-Syrian national movement.

The Zionist leaders actually made an early decision (i.e., before World War I) to favour direct negotiations with non-Palestinian Arabs over Palestinian representatives because the latter were implacably opposed to Zionist plans, being prepared only to accommodate limited Jewish immigration provided that no fellahin were dispossessed. In the 1920s the Palestine Zionist Executive financed a number of political parties, including the Palestine Arab National Party as a means of bypassing local leaders who, by 1920, were boycotting the Zionists and had officially called for the annulment of the Balfour Declaration and the creation of a representative national government for Palestine - see Neil Caplan's Futile Diplomacy: Early Arab-Zionist Negotiation Attempts 1913-1931 (Frank Cass, 1983). --Ian Pitchford 15:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In other words, the concept of a "Palestinian people" is a 20th century one, and a reaction in large part to Zionism. Pan-Arabists, Syrians, etc. were certainly denying any concept of a Palestinian people until the 1970s or later. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Palestinans (Peleset) are mentioned in the Egyptian excreation texts. Rktect 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words: "...one of the great successes of Zionism has been 'the absence of a major history of Arab Palestine and its people. It is as if the Zionist web of detail and its drama, choked off the Palestinians, screening them not only from the world, but from themselves as well." [7] Tiamut 17:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, pro-Palestinian political analyses have tried to assert these a-historical claims. Much like Marxist analyses, it's all about politics (and an essentially religious view, couched in the rhetoric of science), and not at all about history. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Whitelam's book has several obvious flaws, which undercut to some degree the valuable point he is making. The Canaanites of the Bronze Age were not "Palestinians." The name Palestine comes from the Philistines, who were no more indigenous than the biblical Israelites (and probably less so than the historical Israelites). The modern Palestinians are descended neither from Canaanites nor from the Philistines, but are Arabs, who emerged as a people of this land well into the Common Era. To speak of the history of the ancient Canaanites as "Palestinian history," then, is misleading, and offers too facile a continuum between the ancient story and modern situation. Neither is it fair to accuse Biblical scholarship of silencing Palestinian history, or even Canaanite history... Finally Whitelam risks reducing his thesis ad absurdum when he tries to explain all modern theories of the origin of Israel by Zionist sympathies... Whitelam's implication of a vast web of Zionist sympathy, embracing everyone from Albright to Finkelstein, smacks of paranoia." John Joseph Collins, The Bible After Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age, page 66.

"There need be no doubt, of course, of Whitelam's own values. They are indicated repeatedly by his identification of the Canaanites of the Late Bronze Age as Palestinians. This identification is problematic in several respects. It is anachronistic, and the sense that the land was not called Palestine in the Late Bronze Age - the name in fact come from the Philistines, who were invading the land at approximately the same time as the Israelites (if the Israelites were indeed invading). The modern Arab Palestinians only emerged as the people of this land well into the Common Era. The ancient Canaanites are of no genetic relevance to the modern Palestinians; at most they provide a historical analogy." John Joseph Collins, "The Politics of Biblical Interpretation", Encounter with Biblical Theology, p. 42.

"...in 1996 Keith W. Whitelam... published a much more radical and provocative statement: The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History. In this manifesto, the overtly ideological and political agenda of the revisionist was made explicit. Not only had modern scholars, especially pious Christians and Zionist Israelis, "invented" their Israels, but in the process they had dispossessed the Palestinians, the real native people of the region, of their history... But even those sympathetic with his anti-Israel rhetoric have pointed out that the Palestinians of the present conflict were not present in ancient Palestine. They did not emerge as a "people" at all until relatively modern times. Not only is this bad historical method, it is dishonest scholarship. And it unnecessarily drags politics into Near Eastern archaeology..." William G. Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, pp. 138-139.

--Any other questions? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it your position that at somepoint Palestine was uninhabited because the jews who lived there left in a dispora and then suddenly as it occured to some jews to go there and establish a homeland a number of Arab ursurpers moved in and encroached upon this promised land? Rktect 14:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Even supposing your source is right about his claims (which are no more or less credible than Whitelam'c claims), why is it not relevant to include the paragraph you keep deleting? If Palestinians claim they have Canaanite ancestry, that is certainly relevant to an article on the Palestinian people. Further, even if it is only a historical analogy, as your source alleges, it is qjuite undisputably a historical analogy used by Palestinian people, and so, once again the paragraph is relevant to this article. Any more objections? Tiamut 19:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's more than one source who states this, and Whitelam is not an archeologist, though he presumes to comment on archeological finds. Historical analogies used in political rhetoric belong in sections on "Political rhetoric used by Palestinians to bolster their claims", not in sections on the actual history of the "Palestinian people", an identity which arose in the 20th century in response to Zionism, and which has neither cultural nor genetic links to the ancient Canaanites. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The consensus here is that your reverts and deletions are counterproductive and that it would be better if you disagree with something to add your own sources rather than delete someone elsesRktect 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not conceded the point that Palestinians are not descended from Canaanites, as you and some other fringe sources claim. Some most certainly are. There is more than source above that makes that claim. None of them (once again) meet your idea of a reliable source. This is unsurprising considering how strongly you feel about this claim. Your initial talk comment [8] where you wrote: This article is about the Palestinian people, not about Canaanites; nor is it about fairy tales repeated ad nauseam in UNWRA classrooms, in political manifestos, and on polemic websites, was quite disgusting actually and reveals your general contempt for "Palestinian people" and your devoted interest in deleting sourced information regarding their genetic and historical links to other indigenous Semitic tribes. Tiamut 19:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

William G. Dever is now a "fringe source"? I guess I've heard everything. I have no doubt that there are several hundred million people descended in one way or another from at least one Canaanite; however, you have yet to provide even one reliable source documenting "the [Palestinians] genetic and historical links" to the aforementioned Canaanites. And this is an important point: Please don't make uncivil and blatantly false claims about my beliefs; yes, I'm unimpressed with a-historical propaganda, polemics, and fairy-tales, and attempts to appropriate Canaanite history to Palestinians is just one egregious example. Attempts to claim Jesus as "the first Palestinian revolutionary" are another. I appreciate why people do this, as part of their political and quasi-religious agenda, but that doesn't mean I have to approve of it. However, that in no way indicates that I have a general contempt for any people, including Palestinians. If anything it is the latter claim of yours that is "quite disgusting actually". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the forgoing evidence confirms my suspicions re: "Canaanite origins" as a counterclaim. Assuming we can cite Palestinians making the claim directly, as well as Whitelam, it's probably notable, but we need to make it clear that it has no basis in any historical fact. <<-armon->> 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In the DNA section below, evidence is provided linking Palestinians to Canaanites. The genetic realities and controversies are discussed at length there (though rather inadequately due to Jayjg's resistance to any changes - see RfC section above). The paragraph in question here, makes no claim regarding a direct Palestinian descent from Canaanites. Every sentence is sourced. Those that are not adequately sourced should be fact tagged, not deleted. The attempt to deny the reader access to historical facts about Palestine, the region Palestinian people claim ancestry from, is both offensive and ridiculous. Tiamut 23:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg was resisting poor sources and OR, as we all should. <<-armon->> 00:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR does not advocate the outright deletion of poorly sourced material (if this is indeed the case here, which hasn't even been proven. My suggestion to go through the sentences one by one has not been taken up by either you or Jayjg.) WP:CITE does provide some guidelines per what to do when faced with unsourced or poorly sourced material:

If an article has no references, and you are unable to find them yourself, you can tag the article with the template {{Unreferenced}}. Note that it is more helpful to tag individual sentences with the {{fact}} template.

If a particular claim in an article lacks citation and is doubtful, consider placing {{fact}} after the sentence or removing the claim. Consider the following in deciding which action to take:

If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the {{fact}} tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.
If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense. Do not be inappropriately cautious about removing unsourced material; it is better for Wikipedia to say nothing on an issue than to present false or misleading material.

While I realize this is a mere guideline, there is nothing in Wiki policy that necessarily supports Jayjg's (and your) deletion of this material. Tiamut 00:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC) In fact, per WP:NPOV, what Palestinians think of their identity is certainly relevant, as are the views of others like Arnaiz-Villena study already cited in the DNA section (but oddly, only to discuss the controversy surrounding) which finds support for a common ancient Canaanite origin for both Palestinians and Jews, among others that can be found among the over 1,000 entries that return from a Google scholar search for Canaanite + Palestinian. Tiamut 00:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be taken seriously, it's a bad idea to source stuff off a guy who rails against the "Nizkooks" and the "holohuggers". I also don't see what the point of the DNA section is. AFAIK, there's no dispute that the area is inhabited by Semites. <<-armon->> 01:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be taken seriously its a bad idea to delete material rather than comment with sourcesRktect 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The link to that article at that site came up in a google scholar search. I wasn't aware of the content of the broader site. The same article is sourced to pay-per-view journals. It's sad that one of the only free copies is located at that site, but I don't see how that lessens the validity of the studies conclusions. This sounds like an attempt at poisoning the well. The study itself is already referred to in the article DNA section. Tiamut 01:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish we could back on topic here. Is anyone willing to go through the paragraph sentence by sentence and discuss the meat of their objections in light of policies? Or is the discussion to be relegated to "polemics" as Jayjg put it? Ti<;;/font>amut 01:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your google search turns up a bunch of cites not germane to the issue, as well as others which explicitly dispute "Canaanite origins" such as "The Myth of Palestinian Society’s Canaanite Origin". Anyway, I'll read the Arnaiz-Villena study completely. <<-armon->> 01:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK well, what the Arnaiz-Villena study supports, (cribbed directly from the abstract) is that: Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian and Anatolian peoples in ancient times. Thus, Palestinian-Jewish rivalry is based in cultural and religious, but not in genetic, differences. The relatively close relatedness of both Jews and Palestinians to western Mediterranean populations reflects the continuous circum-Mediterranean cultural and gene flow that have occurred in prehistoric and historic times. This is not exactly proof of direct descent, and Palestinians certainly can't claim any exclusivity of descent vs. Jewish Israelis. I guess the next question is if this is representative of the consensus view, because it looks like there's some debate. <<-armon->> 03:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, see here:

According to historical records part, or perhaps the majority, of the Moslem Arabs in this country descended from local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD (Shaban 1971; Mc Graw Donner 1981). These local inhabitants, in turn, were descendants of the core population that had lived in the area for several centuries, some even since prehistorical times (Gil 1992). On the other hand, the ancestors of the great majority of present-day Jews lived outside this region for almost two millennia. Thus, our findings are in good agreement with historical evidence and suggest genetic continuity in both populations despite their long separation and the wide geographic dispersal of Jews. ^{Almut Nebel, Dvora Filon, Deborah A. Weiss, Michael Weale, Marina Faerman, Ariella Oppenheim and Mark G. Thomas High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews, Human Genetics, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, Volume 107, Number 6 / December, 2000}

I guess the claim of descent from the Canaanites works in the sense that a percentage of Palestinians were Jews who converted. <<-armon->> 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The point relevant to this article and the debate you and others started by deleting the paragraph in question is that it is not a minority view to say that some Palestinians have Canaanite descent. The paragraph as it is now does not even explicitly make that claim but merely describes the sucession of peoples, religions, and languages to be represented in historical Palestine, which Palestinians claim as part of their heritage. As a Christian-Palestinian who traces her ancestry in written church records back some 1400 years and whose family name is shared by Muslims and Christians alike (meaning that some of our family converted with the introduction of Islam some time ago) I am not surprised that genetic studies would find a continuity between some Palestinians and earlier Semitic tribes like Canaanites and even Hebrews. The question now is, how do we proceed to reinsert the article you and Jayjg have deleted? The information is clearly relevant to an article on Palestinians. Should I just be bold and reinsert it? Tiamut 10:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tis succession of peoples was carefully constructed to give an impression that they all were ancestors of Palestinian Arabs; it is a thinly veiled original research. The idea of Palestinians being of the Canaanite descent is so risible that no serious scholar subscribes to it. Beit Or 20:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I fully disagree. And neither you, nor Armon, nor Jayjg has taken me up on my request to go through the sentences one by one to determine what is improperly sourced or objectionable. Until someone does this, the paragraph stays where it is. To deny its inclusion violates WP:NPOV whereby all relevant POVs should be represented. Tiamut 08:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Seconded Tiamut. Rktect 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm also against reinserting the passage -it was poorly sourced and still OR. Taimut, if you look at what's there in the "The Ancestry of the Palestinians" section at the moment, what's actually missing? Specfically, this paragraph:

Palestinians, like most other Arabic-speakers, thus combine ancestries from all the pre-Arab peoples and Arab tribes who have come to settle the region throughout history; the precise mixture is a matter of debate, on which genetic evidence (see below) has begun to shed some light. The findings apparently confirm Ibn Khaldun's argument that most Arabic-speakers throughout the Arab world descend mainly from culturally assimilated non-Arabs who are indigenous to their own regions. This process can still be witnessed today in some areas, as with the continued Arabization of Berber-identified North Africans in countries such as Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya.

I think it's good as it is. <<-armon->> 00:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd drop the last sentence. It's unnecessary (because of course it still happening -cultures never stop changing) and the Berbers are off topic. <<-armon->> 00:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't deleteRktect 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That paragraph and the one you tried to delete have both been reinserted by another editor. Tiamut 08:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, I reverted it back. It must have been a mistake. <<-armon->> 10:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a mistake. You have not made your case as to why this paragraph should be deleted. And others can clearly see that. Tiamut 10:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course he has; it was dubious a-historical propagandistic original research, and the sources used were unreliable or improperly cited or not cited at all. This source does not mention Canaanites, and is about Arabia. Same with this source. Yet both are used as citations for claims about Canaanites. This is a polemic written by a priest, not a historian. This is an unsourced website written for a "Volunteers program". The other alleged sources don't even list page numbers for their claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not leave the material and write a counterpoint explaining why the Peleset either never existed or weren't related to the Phillistines, Phoenicians, People of Pel etc; You might take the inscriptians which refer to them and show how they are all forgeries or otherwise construct a well sourced antithesis Rktect 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have asked to go through this sentence by sentence because you don't seem to understand that the paragraph doesn't even yet claim that Palestinians are descendants of Canaanites, even though the DNA study by Arnaiz-Villena does. Here is the paragraph:

[Canaanites]] are considered to be among the earliest inhabitants of the region today known as Palestine/Israel,[9] [10] Canaan being its earliest known denomination.

Some of the Canaanites are believed to have migrated in the 3rd millennium BC from the inner Arabian Peninsula.(Bernard Lewis (2002), The Arabs in History, Oxford University Press, USA; 6New Ed edition, page 17)

You could add Juris Zahrins studies from interior Arabia, and the pre and protohistory of the Arabian Peninsula by Mohammed Abdul Nayeem.Rktect 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Later, Hebrews (Israelites), Philistines, Romans, Arab Nabateans, Arab Ghassanids, Arabs, Crusaders, and other people have all passed through or settled in the region, and some intermarried.[11] [12] (I would add here too, Mariam Shahin: A Guide to Palestine, see also the Palestine article).

Some of their descendants systematically converted from earlier beliefs to newer introduced ones, including Judaism, Christianity, and later most predominantly to Islam. Different languages have been spoken maternally depending on the lingua franca of the time. [The Arabs and the West: The Contributions and the Inflictions, Daring Press; 1st ed edition (October 10, 1999)) [13] (Hoyland, Robert G. Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam. London, 2001.)

Now, where is the problem? One by one. Tiamut 19:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

O.K.

1. Canaanites are considered to be among the earliest inhabitants of the region today known as Palestine/Israel,[14] [15] Canaan being its earliest known denomination.

--Neither source mentions Canaanites, and obviously neither source explains why Canaanites would be relevant to an article on "Palestinian people".

2. Later, Hebrews (Israelites), Philistines, Romans, Arab Nabateans, Arab Ghassanids, Arabs, Crusaders, and other people have all passed through or settled in the region, and some intermarried.[16] [17]

--Neither source is reliable; the first is some sort of original research allegedly written by an otherwise unknown priest "John W. Mulhall"; a polemic work entitled "America and the founding of Israel: An Investigation of the Morality of the America's Role" and published posthumously by "Deshon Press", a vanity press that apparently only published this single work. The purpose of the website/work is to give "all the needed EDUCATION to know all about the American Moral and Physical RESPONSABILITY [sic] on the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." The second is simply an anonymously authored claim on the website of a volunteer organization. The article is about the "Palestinian people", not the history of the region known as "Palestine", and you need to provide reliable sources which link these various peoples to the "Palestinian people".

3. Some of their descendants systematically converted from earlier beliefs to newer introduced ones, including Judaism, Christianity, and later most predominantly to Islam. Different languages have been spoken maternally depending on the lingua franca of the time. [The Arabs and the West: The Contributions and the Inflictions, Daring Press; 1st ed edition (October 10, 1999)) [18] (Hoyland, Robert G. Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam. London, 2001.)''

--The first source given here is a polemic work written by a political scientist, not a historian, and not published by an academic press. The online version uses as all of its references broken links to www.abbc.com, the former location of the notorious and viciously antisemitic Radio Islam website. Nothing more need be said about that. The second source is not properly cited; what is the page, and exactly what does it say? Does it directly link the "Palestinian people" to these ancient groups?

As I said, pure original research, unsupported by even one decent citation. This has all been explained before; the information is harmful to Wikipedia because it consists of dubious polemical original research, and unverified. Please justify its inclusion. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on your concerns, here are some new sources and some changes to the text:

Archaeologic and genetic data support that some Jews and Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian and Anatolian peoples in ancient times. The Arnaiz-Villena DNA study

Canaanites are considered to be among the earliest inhabitants of the region today known as Palestine/Israel. The Encyclopedia of the Orient

Some of the Canaanites are believed to have migrated in the 3rd millennium BC from the inner Arabian Peninsula. (Bernard Lewis (2002), The Arabs in History, Oxford University Press, USA; 6New Ed edition, page 17)

Later, Philistines, Hebrews (Israelites), Greeks, Romans, Arab Nabateans, Byzantines, Arab Ghassanids, Arabs, Crusaders, Ottomans, and other people passed through or settled in the region, and some intermarried. (Mariam Shahin (2005), Palestine: A Guide, Interlink Books, pages 3- 16) See also: the Palestine article

The Arabs of Palestine are credited with the preservation of the indigenous Semitic place names for many sites mentioned in the Bible, and these were documented by American archaeologist Edward Robinson in the early 20th century. Meron Benvinisti, an Israeli political scientist and former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, commented that, "Paradoxically enough, the skeleton of the Hebrew map of Israel was immortalized and preserved by the same people whose own place names we sought to erase."Giving Voice to Stones Place and Identity in Palestinian Literature, (1994) Barbara McKean Parmenter, University of Texas Press, page 11

Now, what problems remain (if any)? Tiamut 08:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR. If you want to claim the modern "Palestinian people" are descended from ancient Canaanites, then provide reliable sources that explicitly do so. Don't make up your own complex thesis based on several different sources. And by the way, travel guides (such as the one written by Shahin) don't count as reliable sources for these kinds of dubious claims. Use proper works, written by academics. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

E.A. Finn on page 94 of her book Palestine Peasantry (1923), as quoted by Aamiry is his book Jerusalem: Arab Origin and Heritage (1978) on page 51, states:

In the foregoing pages we argues in favour of the probability that the present rural population of Palestine, the Arab fellaheen, are descendants of the ancient Canaanite nations. First, because five of those nations continued to exist in the land until the Christian era, and cannot have been annihilated or driven out since. Secondly, because the fellaheen are apparently aboriginal people and there is no tradition or record to show that they are anything else. Thirdly, because many customs of the Canaanites prohibited in the law of Moses still exist as customs of the fellaheen. Fourthly, because they have preserved the ancient geographical names. And lastly, because there appear to be customs among them derived from the Israelites.

Now, do I have your permission to proceed Jayjg? Tiamut 10:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added new material to the section. Every sentence I have added is sourced and attributed. Those who feel other views should be added for WP:NPOV are encouraged to add them. The reader should be left to make their own conclusions. Tiamut 12:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Finn was an amateur, writing in the 1920s. Your latest material uses the same kinds of shoddy sources as before, including travel guides, and then mixes it all together using original research. You're not finding any reliable sources for the Palestinians are Canaanites theory because modern researchers don't take that a-historical invention seriously. And please don't try to base your arguments on Aamiry's slim propaganda tract from the 1970s either; we're already aware of how he has abused Kenyon as a source. Exactly who was Aamiry again, and what was his expertise? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably the best reference for this would be the BAR whose articles are primarily based on archaeological research studying settlement patterns from the present going back into the aceramic neolithic. Almost every settlement site in the fertile crescent has been laboriously documented pot shard by pot shard from bedrock up to the present and new discoveries are regularly reported. Among the best reports would be those of the Dothans whose coverage from year to year has made clear that modern day Palestinians are living on the same land today that ther ancestors lived on 4000 or more years ago. Rktect 15:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

We've heard this before: Palestinian Arabs are somehow not native to Palestine.

In the opening paragraph, we read:

"Prior to 1948, they were immigrants of Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon. After 1948, those Arab countries refused to allow them to return forcing them into lives as refugees."

This is outrageous on its face, and contradicted by everything that follows in the article. I protest strongly and ask for this and all similar sentiments to be removed by a monitor.70.95.168.25 08:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I will look into what can be done about this. Tiamut 10:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ian Pitchford (talk · contribs) removed that unsourced and false claim in this edit: [19]. Thanks for your comments. Tiamut 10:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Some palestinians are native or at least have been in paletine for hundreds of years. Others clearly came from other areas. Just go and ask them. Issayia near Tapuah junction wa founded by a merchant from Maroco. The large Humala called al-masri orginated from maser (egypt) but what difference does it make ? they are here now. They are palestinas and have aright to,live in palestine. can't understand why you are pushing away data just to justify your political POV Zeq 19:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Explaining changes

I think I've explained quite clearly my changes in the Edit Summaries; but if that's not enough; here is a complete explanation.

I've changed "The term Palestinians refers to people with family origins in Palestine. Their religion is primarily Islam, with Christianity, Judaism, Druze, and other minorities. Today, they are mainly Arabic-speaking."

To "The term Palestinians today, mainly refers to Arabs who have family origins in Palestine. The religion of Palestinians is primarily Islam, but there are others who consider themselves Palestinians including Christians, Jews, Druze, and others."

I added the word "today" to explain that this is the term as of today as opposed to how this term was used between 1917-1948 which is dealt in the next paragraph.

I removed the words that "Today, they are mainly Arabic-speaking" because it is self understood that Arabs are mainly Arabic-speaking; the lead paragraph doesn't have to tell us that.

Based on the above I rewrote the first paragraph to be crisp and factual.

There are two problems with your changes. 1) Not all who call themselves Palestinians are Arabs. Armenians [20] and Bosnians [21] who have lived in historic Palestine and continue to live in what is now Israel/Palestine also call themselves Palestinian. 2) It is weasal wording to say that "there are others who consider themselves Palestinians" like Christians, Druze, etc. It implies that they are somehow not really Palestinian or that others do not consider them to be Palestinian. In other words, I do not support these changes to the first paragraph.

Problem #1 is not a problem as my edit contains the word "mainly" exactly for the reason you describe that Armenians and Bosnians are not Arabs. Problem #2 two isn't either a problem as it is NOT weasel wording to say that there are others who consider themselves Palestinians; for example, I am not an Arab but I am a Palestinian; and because you say that it's weasel words, it still doesn't make it so; and NO it doesn't imply that they are somehow not Palestinian or others do not consider them Palestinian; it only states the truth that others from Palestine are also Palestinians. Do you disagree with that?

And lastly, you ignored the word I added "today" by giving a general statement that "In other words, I do not support these changes to the first paragraph". Sorry but saying that you don't support the changes isn't good enough; you need to explain why you do not support the specific changes including the word "today". Itzse 15:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem #1 is a problem. The source I gave you say that some Armenians and Bosnians do call themselves Palestinian. Therefore you edit which claims that Palestinians are Arabs with family origins is incorrect. Problem #2 isn't articulated at all clearly, and I'm not even going to bother answering it. I suspect that you are just wasting time. Tiamut 20:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You complained twice on this page that you painstakingly went through point by point and disassembled as inaccurate my arguments. So here I'm back to address whatever needs to be adressed.

Problem #1 I clearly explained why it is not a problem, because the way the article is now, Armenians and Bosnians and even Chinese if they lived in Palestine are included as Palestinian people.

Problem #2 You say that I didn't articulate it clearly and you're not even going to bother answering it. Here let me explain it again. You say it is Weasel wording, I say it is not. You don't want to tell me why it is weasel wording so the best I can do is as I explained it above. Itzse 21:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In the second paragraph I changed "During the British mandate of Palestine from 1918 to 1948, the term "Palestinian" referred to anyone native to the region, regardless of religion; Muslim, Christian, Jew, or Druze."

to "During the British mandate of Palestine from 1918 to 1948, the term "Palestinian" referred to all people residing there, regardless of religion."

Here I removed the redundant naming of all types of people residing there which is already mentioned in the first paragraph, to "all people residing there" which includes everybody, which makes the statement again factual and crisp.

We should find a source that explains this better. There is a difference between the two that is quite large and it would be good to find a reliable source that explains its application. Tiamut 08:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I found this source: [22] which refers to Jews, Muslims and Christians and others as "Palestinians". Citizenship at the time of the British Mandate was "Palestinian", even when granted by the Mandatory Authority to Jews. So I support this change but perhaps it should be phrased to reflect these facts more clearly. For example:

In British Mandate Palestine, all those granted citizenship by the Mandatory authorities were granted "Palestinian citizenship," including the newly arriving Jewish immigrants. The term "Palestinian" as used by the Mandatory authorities referred to Muslims, Christians, Druze, and Jews without differentiation.

Tiamut 10:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Elementary Sir Watson. You need a source to support the obvious? If there is a big difference between the two then please state what it is; words like "difference", "large" and "reliable" have no substance without explaining what you mean. Itzse 16:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you pretty much always need a source on pages to do with the Middle East. What is obvious to me is not to you and vice versa. Please read WP:RS, WP:CITE and other guidelines and policies on sourcing. Tiamut 20:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The wording as it is now, isn't correct. The words "were granted Palestinian citizenship, including the newly arriving Jewish immigrants" makes it sound as if the only Jews in Palestine were newly arriving Jewish immigrants. The wording has to be revised accordingly. I don't think that every word needs to be sourced unless it's not obvious or challenged. Itzse 21:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed the words "Following the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people, the use and application of "Palestine" and "Palestinian" by and to non-Arab Palestinians abated."

to "Following the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people, the use and application of "Palestine" and "Palestinian" by and to non-Arab Palestinians dropped from use; and its use was again taken up by its Arabs after the establishment of the PLO in 1964."

This edit was again done to make this statement more factual; as the statement made it sound as if the native Arabs used the term "Palestinian" any more then the native Jews. which is not true; as many native Arabs despised the term "Palestinian" as much as the native Jews called it Eretz Yisroel (Land of Israel) or Eretz Hakoidesh (Holy Land). The actual political use of the term "Palestinian People" came into use after the establishment of the PLO.

This is factually incorrect as borne out by sources listed throughout the article. Please read Rashid Khalidi's book on Palestinian identity. Though you might be unaware of it, you are espousing standard Zionist propaganda in you changes here. Tiamut 08:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am an independent thinker, and I am not a Zionist. Why do you prefer "Palestinian propoganda" over "Zionist propoganda"? I take the truth from where I find it.

What Palestinian propaganda do I prefer exactly? Could you cite an example?Tiamut 20:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Again saying that my edit isn't correct, because a book you found, actually has your understanding printed black on white; isn't good enough. Please tell me what exactly isn't factual. Itzse 16:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I already have.

What is it? Itzse 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed the words "The more precise terminology Palestinian Arab which was in wide use until the 1960s is often contracted/abbreviated - at the expense of some linguistic clarity - to the now commonly used Palestinian."

To "The more precise terminology Palestinian Arab which was in wide use until the 1960s is often contracted/abbreviated - at the expense of some linguistic clarity, or for political purposes - to the now commonly used Palestinian."

The previous version was false and misleading, making it sound as if it is linguistic clarity that they are after. If we want an article that is truthful then we should remove that line; but after all we need to pretend here on Wikipedia that "all else being equal"; therefore I left the false reason given, but added the real reason. Shouldn't the truth have at least equal footing to a farce?

What source do you have to support your claim that the contraction was for "political purposes" ?Tiamut 08:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that you are asking for a source on something that you know full well to be true. But technically you are actually entitled to get a source. So I'll need to look for one; but as it is now Erev Shvuess and I don't have much time; I would ask if any other Wikipedian can please find a source for our collegue? Thanks in advance.

I found one quickly, it is not exactly what I'm looking for but close enough. This is what it states: "So, if forty years after the word "Palestinian" entered the international lexicon - in its new, twisted and widely circulated meaning - we are still in search of their history, we may conclude it is because there has never been such a people. The "Palestinian people" was a late creation for political purposes aimed only at destroying [2] the national aspirations of a real people - the Jews - rather than building a peaceful society."Palestinian History: Create It, If You Can't Remember It

Palestinian people and Palestinian for short have the same meaning. It was created and shortened for the express purpose of not saying "Palestinian Arab" which implies that there is also a "Palestinian Jew". Itzse 17:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The source you provided me is authored by Rachel Neuwirth, a self-declared "expert" in "Middle Eastern Affairs with particular emphasis on Militant Islam and Israeli foreign policy." [23] WP:BLP violating material removed Do you really think she constitutes a reliable source on the ethnic identity of Palestinians? Tiamut 19:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I would like to state emphatically, that if we should have a truthful Encyclopedia then Wikipedia shouldn’t pander to Israeli or Palestinian; Arab or Jew. I am only concerned for the truth no matter where the chips may fall. Itzse 20:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the truth. A sentence could be included that says: "Rachel Neuwirth, who sits on the board of the American Jewish Congress WP:BLP violating material removed claims that Palestinians don't really exist and that they have adopted the name Palestinians for political reasons." What do you think? Tiamut 19:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Then please do some research to support your changes before tweaking language in the introduction that introduces ideas not supported by the article's body. Tiamut 08:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not need to do any research about a subject I know personally. My family has been living in Palestine/Land of Israel/Holyland for hundreds of years. Before sixteen hundred years ago I had thousands, rather millions of ancestors living in Palestine/Judaea. In between those years I also had ancestors living there.

All my changes are an honest attempt to have Wikipedia state the facts correctly. We can debate how it should be written, but not what should be written. If we have two opposing views then both should be here. Having only IMO the false wishful thinking at its best, without the true facts included, is unacceptable. Itzse 16:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Try harder. You haven't provided any sources for your position besides that of WP:BLP violating material removed Rachel Neuwirth. Tiamut 20:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have given clear explanations for my edits, first in the edit summaries, then on the talk page. I think I am entitled to clear explanations why you choose to revert my edits; with specific explanations not general declarations that my changes aren't correct. I gave you what you are entitled, now it's time to give me and all other Wikipedians what we are entitled to. Itzse 16:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I've given your edits more than enough attention. I'm sorry if you feel differently. Tiamut 20:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is outrageous; you insert the claims of polemics written by priests, but suddenly seem excited about WP:RS when it comes to Rachel Neuwirth. According to what reliable source is she a member of the group you claim she is? I advise you to think very carefully about this, with WP:BLP in mind. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Richard Silverstein, WP:BLP violating material removed Neuwirth writes at notoriously radical and extremist Zionist websites like that of the Betar movement [24] and she also writes for the far right-wing newspaper Arutz Sheva. In one article about Jewish anti-Semites, among the defining characteristics she listed were: "Minimal personal involvement with traditional Jewish religious observance." ?!? [25] WP:BLP violating material removed But please don't try to make it sound like it's coming out of left field. She writes for all the most notorious far right-wing Zionist establishments, and for that reason alone, she is not an reliable source on Palestinian identity, unless, as I mentioned previously, her ideological and political views are properly qualified. Tiamut 09:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. Blogs are not reliable sources for anything, and WP:BLP forbids you from repeating these scurrilous charges. I've removed the information from this Talk: page. Regarding your other claims, they are dubious at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

When I brought as a source Rachel Neuwirth, I had no idea who she was. I had asked if anybody can bring a source that the term "Palestinians" is short for "Palestinian people" not for "Palestinian Arab", and its creation/shortening was solely for political purposes; but I quickly checked GOOGLE and this one came out of the hat. I happen to agree with Neuwirth, and only because she writes the truth. Being a Zionist or even a Kahanist doesn't disqalify somene with the proper credentials, and she has the credentials. It is ridiculous that grown men are arguing about stupidity, and with "righteous indignation" asking for sources. The political use of "Palestinians" is hardly forty years old; yet we hear that we need "smources" to prove it!!! Give me a break. Itzse 18:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that Palestinian nationalism and the use of the word "Palestinians" in its present meaning got a boast from the establishment of the PLO, it is simply not true that it originated then. There are plenty of examples of such uses dating from the 1920s. You can also see the Palestine Post beginning to adopt it in reference to Arab refugees during 1949-1950. By the way, if Rachel Neuwirth is an acceptable source then we should just give up on the idea of having reliable sources altogether. --Zero^talk 14:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea who Rachel Neuwirth; it is the truth I'm after. If she is not credible then so be it. But the issue is credible. I didn't say that the words, Palestinian, Palestine or Palestinian people was invented in 1964; I know that these words had been used before then. What I am trying to point out is the obvious to which anyone above a certain age can attest to; that the usage of these words have been harnassed for political purposes and before our eyes Abracadabracadoo a people were invented, called the Palestinian people. Itzse 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We need to fix the refs

...but I can't find some of them. Check out notes 10, 11, 33 and 34 especially. Cheers. <<-armon->> 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please tell us the text of the refs you want to check. The numbers keep changing as people insert and delete stuff. --Zero^talk 12:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Well, the blank refs in the notes section for starters. <<-armon->> 12:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Like these ones:

Drummond, 2004, p. 50. -what's the full citation?

[30] Guzmán, 2000, p. 85.

Hope that's clear. <<-armon->> 12:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Armon - the notes refer to volumes in the bibliography. This is standard practice. --Ian Pitchford 17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

True about the Drummond cite -but others are still missing -like Lewis. Anyway, I think they should still be cited fully in the ref tags. <<-armon->> 00:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed this cite: http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=66302 because the link was dead, but if anyone knows what it was pointing to and can update the link, please do. <<-armon->> 00:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know what <ref name = "UNWRA"/ refers to? <<-armon->> 00:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

These have been deleted, either accidentally or deliberately, during the edit warring. Full references aren't usually provided in footnotes. --Ian Pitchford 22:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

non-Arab Palestinians

They do exist. See here: In practice, therefore, the question is to determine the status of a small non-Arab minority which in the 1931 census was placed in the category of "Others", as opposed to the category of "Arabs", in which all Arabs belonging to the Palestine Arab community, or who considered themselves as belonging to that community, were placed. [31] The Armenians#Diaspora spring to mind. <<-armon->> 13:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is how the term was used in that sentence. The non-Arab Palestinians did not all stop using the word Palestinian to describe themselves (per the sources I have already provided). Only Jews did. That is why I replaced the term with Jews. Tiamut 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

With their main journal named Palestine Post ? I wonder if they really stopped calling themselves Palestinians ? They would have chosen the Yishuv Daily or why not the Jerusalem Post as they did far later... Alithien 11:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Claim that Palestinians are descendants of the Canaanites

You keep reverting the work of editors and restoring material to the intro that is unsupported as per the talk above. Further, you keep deleting the sourced paragraph we discussed. Finally, the rense.com link is to the Arnaiz-Villena study. It is one of the only places the study is available in full. If you prefer, we can link to the scholarly pay per view version. But that is not a reason to undo everyone else's work. Finally, please fix the citations you wish to see retained in a separate edit so that they don't get reverted when you delete over 4,000 bytes of material in the same edit. Thank you. Tiamut 13:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It was dubious a-historical propagandistic original research, and the sources used were unreliable or improperly cited or not cited at all. This source does not mention Canaanites, and is about Arabia. Same with this source. Yet both are used as citations for claims about Canaanites. This is a polemic written by a priest, not a historian. This is an unsourced website written for a "Volunteers program". The other alleged sources don't even list page numbers for their claims. Finally, rense.com is an antisemitic website not reliable for anything; please don't link to it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to my comments above. Treat the paragraph in dispute sentence by sentence. You are confusing the issues completely. The paragraph does not even claim that Palestinians are Canaanites. That's your misrepresentative summary of its contents. Two, the rense.com site may be anti-Semitic, I wouldn't know not being a reader of it. It comes up in a google scholar search Arnaiz-Villena's DNA study: [32] and offers a free version of study whereas the other websites are pay-per view. I have no objection to removing the rense link as long as we can still quote Arnaiz-Villena's study and represent its contents faithfully. The DNA section changes introduced by al-Maqdisi that Armon deleted attempted to do that. Please stop soapboxing and wikilawyering and deal with the question I have posed above [33] substantively. Thank you. Tiamut 19:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have treated the paragraph sentence by sentence, and pointed out why none of the references or claims are appropriate. Now, please respond to that. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No you have not Jayjg. I have separated the sentences with their respective sources in the section above. I want a line by line breakdown of how each source does not support the sentence it is attached to. You have claimed the paragraph states something that it most emphatically does not. I don't like being pedantic, but when I am dealing with pure obstinacy that refuses to admit POVs it doesn't want to hear, it sometimes has to come to that. Tiamut 20:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The onus is, actually, on you to demonstrate that the claims enjoy scholarly consensus if you are to present the claim as such. El_C 20:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

El C, with respect, I have been attempting to do just that. Note that the paragraph in question was not added by me. It was there already for many months before being summarily deleted. All I wanted from Jayjg (and what he has now finally done) was a line by line breakdown so that I could understand which sources exactly were problematic in relation to which sentences. Now that he has done that, we can proceed. Tiamut 09:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What we're actually dealing with here is contempt for WP:NOR and WP:V; you've been told before that you must use reliable sources for your claims, but somehow you still think that if someone is able to put up a website, it magically makes the contents reliable. I've gone through the issues sentence by sentence now. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have finally acknowledged my request to go through the sentences one by one. As per your other claims regarding my "contempt for WP:NOR and WP:V, that's just frankly BS. Yes, we have many debates over content but my arguments are almost always rooted in policy and I am largely consistent in its application. If you feel otherwise, by all means open an RfC. I'd be happy to have someone scrutinize both my behavior and your own. Tiamut 09:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would further note that while you show such concern over my editing, in the case Itzse (talk · contribs) above who says and I quote "Sources, smources ..." and fails to provide anything in the way of sources for his proposed changes (except of course, Rachel Neuwirth - see above), you have nothing to say. Why so focused on me Jayjg? Could it be that when an editor doesn't share your views they are held to a higher standard while those who do share your views get something of a carte blanche? And don't tell me you are not aware of Itzse's statements. You commented in the section where the discussion over his edits was being made above. Funnily enough though, only to berate me for taking issue with his use of Rachel Neuwirth as a source. So polemical priests are not allowed, but far right wing Zionist polemicist are? As usual, the hypocrisy is sickening. Tiamut 09:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I do not like to get into pointless discussions about this subject, because I have been discussing this with many other editors 8 months back. I would like to ask those editors who blank some information here to read these sources.

4 Die Keilinschriften and das Alte Testament, p. 181.

These explanations are endorsed by Driver (Genesis,on Gen. x.). 6 See the relevant articles in Ency. Bib. and Cheyne's Genesis and Exodus. from about 4000 B.C. 1 a wave of Semitic migration poured out of Arabia, and flooded Babylonia certainly, and possibly, more or less, Syria and Palestine also. Also that between 2800 and 2600 B.C. a second wave from Arabia took the same course, covering not only Babylonia, but also Syria and Palestine and probably also Egypt (the Hyksos). It is soon after this that we meet with the great empire-builder and civilizer, Khammurabi (2267-2213), the first king of a united Babylonia. It is noteworthy that the first part of his name is identical with the name of the father of Canaan in Genesis (Ham or Kham), indicating his Arabian origin. 2 It was he, too, who restored the ancient supremacy of Babylonia over Syria and Palestine, and so prevented the Babylonizing of these countries from coming to an abrupt end. [34]

From Bernard Lewis book:

"According to this, Arabia was originally a land of great fertility and the first home of the Semitic peoples. Through the millennia it has been undergoing a process of steady desiccation, a drying up of wealth and waterways and a spread of the desert at the expense of the cultivable land. The declining productivity of the peninsula, together with the increase in the number of the inhabitants, led to a series of crises of overpopulation and consequently to a recurring cycle of invasions of the neighboring countries by the Semitic peoples of the peninsula. It was these crises that carried the Assyrians, Aramaeans, Canaanites (including the Phoenicians and Hebrews), and finally the Arabs themselves into the Fertile Crescent."

From History Channel[35]:

"The earliest known events in Arabian history are migrations from the peninsula into neighbouring areas. About 3500 bc, Semitic-speaking peoples of Arabian origin migrated into the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia, supplanted the Sumerians, and became the Assyro-Babylonians. Another group of Semites left Arabia about 2500 bc and settled along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea; some of these migrants became the Amorites and Canaanites of later times."

From MSN Encarta[36]:

"The earliest known events in Arabian history are migrations from the peninsula into neighbouring areas. About 3500 bc, Semitic-speaking peoples of Arabian origin migrated into the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia, supplanted the Sumerians, and became the Assyro-Babylonians (see Sumer). Another group of Semites left Arabia about 2500 bc and settled along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea; some of these migrants became the Amorites and Canaanites of later times."

The existence of Arabs/Arabians in the Levant area is very ancient and surely has nothing to do with Islam at all. Even the Qur'an talks about Arabs of Mecca trading with their Arab peers in Yemen and Levant every years, etc.... The Arab Ghassanid kingdom that ruled under the Roman rule was 700 years before Islam spread from Arabia. Finally, Palestine, Jordan, and the Syrian desert, itself was considered by the Greeks to be part of Arabia itself. There is no point removing these relevant information that appear also in Arabic history books long before the establishment of Israel. Please do not make this historical data subject to pointless political debate that will only blind the truth. There is no question that many Palestinian families were Christian at one point, who were Jewish at another. According to the Umaayid sources, most Palestinians were Christian until the beginning of the Abbasid rule. The Muslim Arab who came from Arabia did not ethnically cleanse the population existing in the Levant, or to this matter in Egypt, etc... Just like people in Arabia itself converted to Islam, so did the majority in the Levant, Egypt, and Mesopotamia.

Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 17:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What do any of these sources have to do with the claim that Palestinians are actually ancient Canaanites? Those are the claims that must be supported, using high-quality sources, not original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll go a step further. How do we know that Canaanites ever existed? The source of it is the Bible. So what else does the Bible tell us? I guess we can call it political selection as opposed to natural selection; choosing to believe what suits and ignoring the rest. Claiming a bogus Canaanite ancestry and at the same time denying the Jews their Biblical heritage. Hypocrisy also has a limit.

So at least find us some academic source to include this nonsense. Itzse 18:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You have already been provided with far more than one strictly academic source. See the sections above referring to Arnaiz-Villena's DNA study among others. Here is another:

E.A. Finn on page 94 of her book Palestine Peasantry (1923), as quoted by Aamiry is his book Jerusalem: Arab Origin and Heritage (1978) on page 51, states:

In the foregoing pages we argues in favour of the probability that the present rural population of Palestine, the Arab fellaheen, are descendants of the ancient Canaanite nations. First, because five of those nations continued to exist in the land until the Christian era, and cannot have been annihilated or driven out since. Secondly, because the fellaheen are apparently aboriginal people and there is no tradition or record to show that they are anything else. Thirdly, because many customs of the Canaanites prohibited in the law of Moses still exist as customs of the fellaheen. Fourthly, because they have preserved the ancient geographical names. And lastly, because there appear to be customs among them derived from the Israelites.

It's pretty clear that this is something of a mainstream view in expert circles. I'm sorry you see it fit to call it nonsense and on the basis of your opinion, advocate against inclusion of this kind of information in the article. But your opinion is really irrelevant. WP:NPOV requires we include this information when attributed to a reliable source. The evidence throughout this page suggests this information is relevant and worthy of inclusion. Tiamut 10:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am an open minded person, but the claim that the fellaheen are direct descendants from the Canaanites sounds completely pseudoscientific to me. You cannot conclude that there is any scientific consensus on this matter [37]

It is more likely that modern day Palestinians are the descendants of the large majority of Christians (and minority of Jews) that lived in Palestine up until the Arab conquest, or of the Arab conquerers themselves. nadav (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I read the source you provided and could not find the connection to the material presented above. If you have a source that says E.A. Finn's work is pseudo-science, you are free to add it to the article per WP:NPOV. Otherwise, your opinion is largely irrelevant. Tiamut 12:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the relevant sentence: "The modern Palestinians are descended neither from the Canaanites nor from the Philistines, but are Arabs, who emerged as the people of this land well into the Common Era." I'll look for other sources about this now. nadav (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Balter, "Palestinians Inherit Riches, but Struggle to Make a Mark" Science, New Series, Vol. 287, No. 5450. (Jan. 7, 2000), pp. 33-34. :

...many Palestinian archaeologists express a strong desire to keep ideological and religious issues out of their nascent archaeological endeavors. This may prove difficult, because there is considerable evidence that the Palestinian general public -which is well aware that Israeli archaeology has often been linked with the search for Jewish roots in palestine - appears hungry for archaeological discoveries that would prove that the Palestinians were here first. Over the past few years, a number of articles have appeared in Palestinian newspapers and magazines claiming that Palestinians were descended frin the Canaanites or other pre-Israelite residents of Palestine. In discussions with Science, most Palestinian archaeologists were quick to distance themselves from these ideas. 'We don't want to repeat the mistakes the Israelis made,' says Moain Sadek, head of the Department of Antiquities's operations in the Gaza Strip. Taha agrees: 'All these controversies about historical rights, who came first and who came second, this is all rooted in ideology. It has nothing to do with archaeology.'

This is interesting in that Palestinian archaeologists are less dogmatic, and more scientific than their Israeli counterparts. But where do you think such information should be included if at all? Tiamut 13:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The quote indicates that experts on the subject matter are unwilling to associate themselves with this popular Palestinian theory, and view it as ideologically rooted, i.e. not scientific. nadav (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerning E.A Finn herself, Gillian Webster's article in The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 48, No. 3. (Sep., 1985), pp. 181-185. makes it clear that she was merely a (learned) amateur who accompanied her husband in his role as British consul in Palestine in the mid 19th century. nadav (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You are free to add relevant information regarding Finn's expertise to the article per WP:ATT. Tiamut 13:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Naah, we'll just stick to using reliable sources instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, if you like, you may include the opinions of certain people like Said and Whitelam, who make the connection with the Canaanites. But I am trying to tell you that the majority of scholars, and especially archaeologists, will not make this connection and would deem it apocryphal. The relevant policy here is WP:UNDUE. nadav (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Nadav, the paragraphs I have added read as follows:

In his book, Palestinian Identity:The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, Rashid Khalidi noted how the archaeological strata that denote the history of Palestine - encompassing the biblical, Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Fatimid, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mamluk and Ottoman periods - form part of the identity of the modern-day Palestinian people, as they have come to understand it over the last century.^[8]

Canaanites are considered to be among the earliest inhabitants of the region today known as Palestine/Israel,^[9] and are believed to have migrated in the 3rd millennium BC from the inner Arabian Peninsula.^[10]

Barbara McKean Parmenter has also noted that the Arabs of Palestine have been credited with the preservation of the indigenous Semitic place names for many sites mentioned in the Bible which were documented by the American archaeologist Edward Robinson in the early 20th century.^[14]

Sir James Frazer, in his book Folklore in the Old Testament: Studies in Comparative Religion Legend and Law, mentioned:

"It is the opinion of competent judges that the modern fellaheen or Arabic-Speaking peasants of Palestine are descendants of the pagan tribes which dwelt there before the Israelite invasion and have clung to the soil ever since, being submerged but never destroyed by each successive wave of conquest which has swept over the land."^[15]

Where is the WP:UNDUE here or the WP:OR that Jayjg claims? Tiamut 14:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See the section above; you are still promoting your "Palestinians are Canaanites" claims using travel guides, books written by amateurs in the 20s, a slim propaganda tract written by an otherwise unknown in the 70s that has already been shown to have abused its sources, and tying it all together with a bunch of unrelated stuff. Propose your changes one at a time, for discussion, don't entirely re-write an article from an ahistorical POV, then challenge others not to "change the intro" and to "go slowly". Also, please try to write history using reliable sources, not alternate history using unreliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a simple question; which of your sources come from the 1980s or later, and were written by professional historians or archeologists, and assert that Palestinians are Canaanites? I'm not talking about works written by amateurs in the 1920s or even 1970s, or by works of folklore written by Frazer (a man who died in the 40s), or travel guides written for backpackers. Name the sources that are actually professional, timely, and relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The way I would handle this is to emphasize that most experts do not make this Canaanite connection to modern-day Palestinians, and then mention that certain people do, e.g. Said and Whitelam, who contend that mainstream scholars of the field have been marginalizing Palestinians' historical roots in the land. But we cannot pretend that this is the mainstream scientific view. nadav (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Said is not a historian or archeologist, he wrote political tracts, as did Whitelam for that matter; the flaws with the latter have already been illustrated above. Regardless, what we certainly cannot do is write a one-sided a-historical polemic based on bad sources and original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is astonishing. Jayjg has deleted material totally unrelated to this discussion (including scholarly material added to replace fact tags), restored an introduction that I picked apart sentence by sentence above, rearranged the entire article without discussion, deleted material that is sourced and credible. While there are legitimate objections regarding the need to express other POVs, this is possible by building upon what we have, not throwing out the views of those we don't agree with. Now, Avi has placed an "original research" tag on the article, even though everything Jayjg claims is original research and more has been deleted! What the hell is going on? This amounts to vandalism and harassment. I am fully willing to work towards a better representation of all the views but not by deleting those that are properly sourced and attributed. Further, the claim that these are sourcedto a travel book is false. Shahin's book is a historical guide that is positively reviewed by The Independent newspaper. Tiamut 14:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You've filled the article with original research based on bad sources. Shahin's book is a travel guide; what is her expertise? And please stop abusing the terms "vandalism" and "harassment". Jayjg ^(talk) 15:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I might further point out that while this article was protected, I worked to build consensus by finding more suitable sources. I was hardly engaged by Jayjg in these discussions at all and then he comes along and throws out everything (and more) that has been added. This is not the way that Wikipedia works. I find it appalling that adminsitrators can get away with this kind of disruptive editing behavior and that there seems to be no recourse. Tiamut 14:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And I worked with you; I engaged with you fully, and pointed out the issues with your claims and sources. You then went ahead and introduced all sorts of new material, equally bad if not worse, without any discussion. If find it appalling that you not only insist on revising the history of the Palestinians into some sort of political fairy-tale, but do the same regarding the history of this article. Please try to actually work within policy for a change, rather than the disruptive path you have taken up until now. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are flat out lying. I introduced the new material from E.A. Finn above for discussion. You didn't respond. Further, your earlier claim that Shahin's book is a "travel guide" is a false one for which you have provided no evidence. According to Amazon's editorial reviews, it was reviewed positively in UK-based The Independent: "Hugely impressive... deeply researched, written with flair and passion, and enriched... with Azar's beautiful photography." Further, you have deleted much material I added to other sections that is sourced to Rashid Khalidi who is a very reliable source on Palestinian identity, having written the authoritative work on the subject. And your restored Itzse (talk · contribs)'s introduction which I painstakingly went through point by point (a fact you are aware of, having participated in the discussion only to berate me while ignoring that he had no sources for his assertions). Your hypocrisy and your constant harassment of me has to stop. Now. Tiamut 15:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa...How bout we all take a break for a bit while we work on compiling good sources for this article? We can then discuss changes to the article here and iron out differences over the next few days. No need for this to become any more heated. nadav (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, according to books.google.com Palestine: A Traveller's Guide is an insider's look at where, and how, Palestinians live today. It's listed under Travel/Foreign. The purpose for writing this work, as with most you have used, is expressly political. Shahin is not an academic, she's a journalist, and the book itself does not contain one single footnote. It is a personal, impressionistic, political view of Palestinians, not a scholarly work. The problem with your research is you are bound and determined to connect Palestinians to Canaanites, and so are desperately searching for works which make that claim. Unsurprisingly, they turn out to be political in nature, and generally unreliable. You should be starting from reliable sources, and reporting what they say, rather than desperately searching for confirmation for your thesis. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Jayjg, but the Amazon entry you cite gets the title of the book wrong. Check out the cover picture and not the words "Traveller's" is nowhere in the title. The title of the book is Palestine:A Guide. A more detailed and scholarly review of its contents is available here: [38]. This is a reliable source for information on Palestinian identity and history. The bar you are setting is unreasonably high and constitutes an inconsistent application of policy. Further, since WP:NPOV lies at the top of the Wiki policy hierarchy and since this is a significant POV, it is worthy of representation and inclusion. Wikilawyering using WP:RS, a mere guideline, doesn't cut it here. Tiamut 08:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Charges of "Wikilawyering" is a double-edged sword. Don't get wraped up with what is a guideline and what is policy: I advise you to concentrate only on establishing that this claim enjoys scholarly consensus. El_C 08:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is policy, and it's not an "unreasonably high" bar to insist that for historical information we rely on what respected historians have said, rather than what journalists write in un-footnoted political works, even if the photographs in that book are beautiful and evocative. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

I think some editors here are more or less not interested in any sort of truth. They pick and choose when it comes to resources. Canaanites/Phoencians are predeceors of much of the Population in the Levant in genereal along with Arameans like the Nabateans and so on. This does not contradict DNA clues that are available too. I advise people who keep removing to read more about the subject before wasting their time, and others. Sources are plenty, I think what we have is a representative sample and enough. No need to blank information about Canaanites and others for not obvious reason. The bible also is not the only way we know about Canaanites... This is BS. This information concerns the whole Levant region, but it is particularly more true to Palestine, and Lebanon.

You are actually correct that Cannaan might be mentioned outside of the Bible; but it is not definitive. In the Amarna letters the exact translation from the cuneiform is ki-na-ha-a-a-u which might and might not refer to Canaan. The Egyption letters which we are told mentions Canaan actually gives some bounderies which again we are told that they are in sync with the Biblical bounderies; so it might very well refer to our Canaan. But with the furthest stretch of the imagination; without the Bible telling us clearly that VehaKenaani oz bo'oretz that the Cnaani was at that time in the Land (of Israel); based on a few vague mentions of a similiar sounding name; we wouldn't have a clue that they existed. But now that the Bible tells us this information, therefore when we find artifacts or idols from that time, we can safely assume that they are Cnaanite. So it is not BS after all. Itzse 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Genetic research using Y-chromosome haploid analysis has identified a Phoenician genetic marker (a so-to-speak "Canaanite gene") among modern Lebanese populations, including among Maronite Christians and Shiite Muslims, especially near the coast.^[16] Initial findings show that the modern Lebanese gene pools comprise indigenous Canaanites, followed by immigration waves from Arabs, Crusader Europeans, and Seljuk Turks. The American University of Beirut launched the Phoenician genographic project to precisely map the genetic makeup of the Lebanese population and even the Mediterranean populations where ancient Canaanites colonized. A high-frequency of the Canaanite gene has even been detected in the Iberian Peninsula as well as in Malta, an island that Phoenicians colonized.

Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 22:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What does this claim about Lebanese have to do with this article, why would we care what that personal website claims, and why would you revert based on it? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this not about me. Please abide by WP's content policies. <<-armon->> 00:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been only one "scientific" study that I know of that has linked modern-day Palestinians to the Canaanites. This is the paper "The origin of Palestinians and their genetic relatedness with other Mediterranean populations." (abstract at [39]). The paper was retracted from the respectable Human Immunology journal in the very next issue in the strongest of terms. The editor-in-chief and publisher wrote:

In the past it has been the tradition of the Editorial office to leave the editorial judgment for special volumes to the guest editors. This has also been the case with the issue on Anthropology and Genetic Markers edited by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena with the assistance of Luis Allende and Jorge Martinez-Laso. As Editor-in-Chief, I did not read Dr. Antonio Arnaiz-Villena’s own paper in Human Immunology in depth until the issue was published.

I regret deeply that the authors have confounded the elegant analysis of the historic basis of the people of the Mediterranean Basin with a political viewpoint representing only one side of a complex political and historical issue. While the authors have the right to their political opinion they have no special expertise in this area and their views have no place in a scientific journal. The Editors deplore the inappropriate use of a scientific journal for a political agenda and apologize to the readers. This paper has been deleted from the scientific literature.

In addition, a letter from the publisher was included, which said that they "condemn the use of a scientific forum to advance any bias. Because of the breach of scientific principle which has occurred, ASHI has undertaken a review of its policies regarding guest editorial issues to determine how best to prevent this from recurring in the future." The letter ends with a promise not to violate the readers' trust again. I conclude that it is incorrect to refer to the idea that modern-day Palestinians are descended from the Canaanites as established science. nadav (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC) This paper, I now see, is presented in the article text as if it is legitimate science. Various people have said the journal's reaction to discovering what it had printed was too draconian, but nevertheless, it is absolutely wrong to say that "the scientific content [of the paper] is generally upheld as valid." No one knows the full reasons for why the paper was retracted, and we cannot cite a retracted paper as accepted science. nadav (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nadav that the paper should not be cited, but for different reasons. The political controversy is a side issue as there are good scientific reasons why the evidence resented in this paper is not valid even if there are other reasons for thinking that its conclusions may well be. The whole section on genetics should be deleted. --Ian Pitchford 07:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just delete the whole article? After all, many of the people editing it don't even believe there is such a thing as the Palestinian people. Seriously though, the gutting of this article's contents is getting to be ridiculous. It is being held to standards not applied to other pages. And the policy WP:NPOV is being trashed in favor of an overly stringent interpretation of the guideline WP:RS. I am all for representing all POVs, but not for the deletion of every source that puts forward the links between Palestinians and Canaanites, which is what seems to be happening here. After all, no one contests that Rashid Khalidi is an expert on Palestinian identity, and yet the sentence where he explains that Palestinians view their identity as encompassing all archaeological strata from the biblical period to the Ottomans was also deleted in Jayjg's and then Armon's reversions, which mass deleted information instead of tagging sentences with sourcing that is potentially disputable. This is totally unfair and has to stop. Tiamut 08:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut - I agree with you that good arguments have not been put forward for deletion of much of the material you added and there is certainly no reason at all why a distinguished academic like Rashid Khalidi cannot be cited. The genetics section is a complete mess though, and it adds nothing to the article. If someone finds a good review paper on the genetic studies that would be a good start. --Ian Pitchford 08:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Most of the material was original research using bad sources. The rest either misuses its sources, or makes WP:UNDUE claims. Regarding Khalidi, he is fine to use for a discussion of the Palestinian myths and beliefs about their origins, but not for a discussion of their actual historical origins. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right about the genetics section Ian. I noticed it needed work and begun editing the copy to fix it. But it is almost impossible to do any serious editing here when everything that gets added gets deleted by Jayjg and Armon. And when an introduction added by Itzse that I painstakingly disassembled as inaccurate (see above) keeps getting restored by Jayjg and Armon without acknwoledging the talk section debunking its validity. How can we move forward? Tiamut 08:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) I haven't followed any of the edits being made so I don't know what to say about that. Speaking for myself, I don't think there is anything wrong with saying that Palestinians identify with the pre-Israelite cultures and have incorporated their history into the Palestinian identity (that's what I'm inferring Khalidi is saying. Am I right?). However, it should also be made clear that there is no scientific basis for the claim that they are their direct descendants. We have to work together on a version that conforms to the relevant policies. I'll try to contribute to this effort over the coming days. It may take some time to come up with a good version that explains the issue well, but there is no urgent rush. nadav (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In my view we can't make the claim that "there is no scientific basis" for that link but we certainly can't use Arnaiz-Villena’s paper to say that there is. --Ian Pitchford 09:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

When I encounter a respected, peer-reviewed genetic study that proves that proves a direct descendence, I'll eat my words. In the mean time, Whitelam's book, which conflates the ancient Palestinians (i.e. residents of Palestine) with modern-day Palestinians, openly states that this is not the mainstream view. Of course, as always in debates, there is a small minority of current historians that do link them in some way ("[Marcia] Kunstel and [Joseph] Albright are those rare historians who give credence to the Palestinians' claim that their 'origins and early attachment to the land' derive from the Canaanites five millenia ago, and that they are an amalgamation of every people who has ever lived in Palestine."; from a review by Kathleen Christison of Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright's Their Promised Land: Arab and Jew in History's Cauldron-One Valley in the Jerusalem Hills. Appeared in Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 21, No. 4. (Summer, 1992), pp. 98-100.). I'm just saying that I believe it is proper for the article to describe the popular Palestinian beliefs about this, as well Khalidi's remark and the views of the minority of scholars, while at the same time emphasizing that the mainstream does not agree with the specific assertion. I think that's how the policy would have us handle this. I am curious to hear what others think about this. nadav (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. --Ian Pitchford 10:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that states that "the mainstream [archaeological, historical and genetic] does not agree with his specific assertion"? If not, I would prefer that we proceed as you described, (outlining how Palestinians believe this to be an important part of identity), and then either juxtapose the views of different scholars against one another on the issue and/or describe it as an area of contention or debate. I don't agree with characterizing this as a minority viewpoint, nor have I seen a reliable source that has comprehensively summarized the archaeological, genetic or historic scholarship on the issue and made such a conclusion. I prefer to let the different views on the subject be stated and let the reader decide for themselves. Tiamut 17:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is "his"? If you mean Khalidi, I was definitely not trying to say that anyone doubts what he says in the quote you brought forward. And, respectfully, I believe that I have brought forth enough evidence to show that the Canaanites-as-direct-ancestors link is held to by only a minority of current experts. I will look for even more sources later if you like, but whatever the case, we will not be able to accord as much space as you may wish to proponents of this theory per WP:UNDUE. I hope you will not think I have ulterior motives for saying this. nadav (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As I made clear, Khalidi is a fine source for quote about how Palestinians feel about themselves, but not for information about their actual origins. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayj: isn't how Palestinian define themselves relevant to an understanding their origins? In any case, to answer Nadav:I meant "this" not "his" but no matter - in essence, I don't agree that the evidence you have brought forward conclusively determines that Palestinian descendency from Canaanites is a minority view among scholars. I (and others) have provided more evidence that says some Palestinians did indeed descend from Canaanites. From what I can understand in the comments of other editors opposed to this formulation, they seem to be saying that "Palestinian" is a relatively new identity and therefore cannot be related to Canaanites. This is why I went to the trouble to find sources that referred to the Arab fellaheen of Palestine and their loinks to Canaanites, as well as including the material from Khalidi both establishing that this is the view of Palestinian themselves and discussing the emergence of Palestinian identity alongside Arab, local and religious identities (which remains the case today). As I said, considering there is no definitive consensus on these matters between the editors involved here and in the world of scholarship at large, I feel the best way to proceed is to juxtapose the views against one another and let the reader decide for themselves. I don't understand on what authority editors here feel qualified enough to disqualify information from people E.A. Finn or Mariam Shahin or Rashid Khalidi or The Encyclopedia of the Orient or Bernard Lewis or Barbara McKean Parmenter which are the sources I used to draft this paragraph after objections over the use of other sources (some books that I do not have access to) previously. So here is what I would like to see happen. Here is the paragraph I tried to add as an improved replacement for the existing one:

Sir James Frazer, in his book Folklore in the Old Testament: Studies in Comparative Religion Legend and Law, mentioned:

"It is the opinion of competent judges that the modern fellaheen or Arabic-Speaking peasants of Palestine are descendants of the pagan tribes which dwelt there before the Israelite invasion and have clung to the soil ever since, being submerged but never destroyed by each successive wave of conquest which has swept over the land."^[18]

What would you like to see added and/or what do you think should be removed to balance it out per WP:NPOV? Tiamut 19:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, we've been through this at length; your basic issue is that you keep trying to prove something, using any source you can find, rather than repeat what reliable sources have said. It has been explained ad nauseam why Finn, Frazer, Shahin, Aamiry etc. are not reliable sources for your claims. Finn and Frazer were non-experts writing in the 30s and 40s. Shahin is a journalist who wrote a non-footnoted, non-scholarly political work. Aamiry is an unknown who wrote a slim political tract in the 70s that has already been shown to have misrepresented at least one source, Kenyon. Khalidi merely talks about Palestinian beliefs, not their actual origins. The Encyclopedia of the Orient does not tie modern-day Palestinians to the ancient Canaanites.

Making things worse, you have consistently ignored what actual reliable sources have said. When nadav brings statements from peer-reviewed journals explicitly stating that few historians connect Palestinians with ancient Canaanites, you insist that it still needs to be proven. When William G. Dever points out that Whitelam's political polemic is "bad historical method" and "dishonest scholarship" (extremely strong words from an academic), you dismiss him as a "fringe source".

You need to start all over again. First find reliable sources - modern sources, written in the past 20 years, by respected historians, archeologists, or academics in closely related fields. Then, quote what they have to say. Don't desperately search for sources to support your "Palestinians are Canaanites" thesis, then insist over and over again that any source which supports that thesis is reliable, and any which does not is "fringe", or "just one opinion". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, once again you have misrepresented what is going on here. Your POV can be summarized as any material I and others have put forth cannot be included if they do make the claim that Palestinians are descendants of Canaanites. They are suddenly rendered unreliable sources.

For example, "Nadav's source" that claims that few historians connect Palestinians with Canaanites is the Whitelam source, which I brought forward, and which in fact claims that Palestinians are descended from Canaanites. When I was using him to support that claim, he was an unreliable source and when Nadav uses him to debunk it, all of a sudden he is "peer-reviewed".

You need to start all over again and restore the masses of material you have deleted which included material I added to sections unrelated to this debate and attributed to Khalidi (specifically the material on the modern national identity of Palestinians). You also need to restore the order of the sections in the article as they were, rather than unilaterally changing them as you see fit without discussion. You also need to restore the introduction as it was and not include an introduction that was painstakingly debunked. And as a gesture of good faith, you should restore the section above and work on adding sources that contrast against the material provided there, per WP:NPOV.

Finally, you need to learn how to respect the work of others and no be so patronizing and agressive in your editing style.

With respect. Tiamut 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Nadav's source was Kathleen Christison's review of Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright's Their Promised Land: Arab and Jew in History's Cauldron-One Valley in the Jerusalem Hills which appeared in Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 21, No. 4. (Summer, 1992), pp. 98-100. I've been quite clear; use reliable sources. That includes historians, archeologists, and related academics who have written in the past two decades. If you like, we can even make it the last three decades. Which of your sources meets those basic requirements? The closest is Khalidi, but he is a scholar of Modern Arab history, not ancient Canaanite history, and only writes about how Palestinians view themselves, not about their actual origins. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

When I referred to Whitelam, it was to point out that even he himself says that he is writing against mainstream research, and in any case Jayjg has shown how established experts on the Canaanite era have dismissed his conflation of Canaanites with modern Palestinians. The sources I myself brought forward were: 1) a biography on E.A. Finn in Biblical Archaeologist that discusses how she was an amateur who moved to Palestine to accompany her husband there in 1846-63. While there, she tried her hand at archaeology, but made a number of false assumptions based on potentially misleading etymology, Josephus, and the Bible, which were the usual sources of that day. Her major contribution after she returned was raising funds for the Palestine Exploration Fund through drawing room meetings of "Ladies' Associations" in private houses. Her own books were semifictional and "sometimes mawkish for modern taste", though they are factual accounts of the manners and customs of the Arab and Jewish communities of the time. Clearly, there is no way we can give weight in a modern encyclopedia to a source like this since we have current historians and archaeologists to depend on instead. 2) I brought a quote from Science that shows that Palestinian archaeologists seek to distance themselves from the Canaanite ancestry theory, and see it as rooted in ideology, not archaeology. 3) I quoted a 1992 review in the Journal of Palestine Studies (now edited by Khalidi) that says it is a rare historian who gives credence to the Canaanite ancestry claim.

Tiamut, with all due respect, the version that you describe as an improvement is unsatisfactory for a modern encyclopedia. It has a clear subtext that seeks to portray Palestinians as direct descendants of the Canaanites, but does not give any quotes in support of the theory from any authority that would be acceptable to current scholars in this field. The mentions of Frazer and Finn should be compacted into one sentence or else dropped entirely. nadav (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

It is not true that the arabic conquest spread the Arabic language into syria. The gassanites 200 years earliers kicked out the Nabataeans and became the official princes of Syria , The gassanite spoke Arabic and were elite tribe whom the Poet once said "If you want to trail the Gassanide phalanges , look up inthe sky to see where the bands of black crews are heading" Arabic and Arameic were very similar bt the gassanites ( christians up till now ) who completely arabized the aramaeic language in the area. I have references. Also the gassanites are continued by the Palestinian and Jordanian christians ( but mainly palestinians ) who replenished the christian population in the holy land after ( crusaders, Mongols, and others)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnanmuf (talk • contribs) 02:23, May 30, 2007

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena article

OK, now I get why the Antonio Arnaiz-Villena article has to be linked to rense.com and other antisemitic websites, it was pulled by the journal it was published in. That being the case, it's not an WP:RS and doesn't merit inclusion at all. <<-armon->> 00:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The article of antonio was not pulled for political reasons but because it was flowed and non scientific.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnanmuf (talk • contribs) 02:16, May 30, 2007

Scholarly evidence that Palestinians are descendants of earlier Semitic peoples in the region

Historians Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright in their book, The Promised Land: Arab and Jew in History’s Cauldron, One Valley in the Jerusalem Hills claim that Palestinians are an amalgamation of every people who has ever lived in Palestine, and that their origins and early attachment to the land derive from the Canaanites five millennia ago. [40]
- Yes, this source is OK. We can cite it, but not devote too much space to it per policies WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE. nadav (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
In his book, Palestinian Identity:The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, Rashid Khalidi noted how the archaeological strata that denote the history of Palestine - encompassing the biblical, Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Fatimid, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mamluk and Ottoman periods - form part of the identity of the modern-day Palestinian people, as they have come to understand it over the last century.^[8]
- As has already said many many times, this is evidence that Palestinians today identify with those earlier people. It is not evidence that Palestinians are direct descendants of the Canaanites. nadav (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
[41]

... Palestine is and always has been a land of many histories; it is a radical simplification to think of it as principally, or exclusively, Jewish or Arab, since although there has been a long-standing Jewish presence there, it is by no means the main one. Not only the Arabs, but Canaanites, Moabites, Jebusites, and Philistines in ancient times, and Romans, Ottomans, Byzantines, and Crusaders in the modern ages were tenants of the place which in effect is multicultural, multiethnic, multireligious. In fact, then, there is as little historical justification for homogeneity as there is for notions of national or ethnic and religious purity today.
- Very true, but how does it prove that Palestinians are direct descendants of the Canaanites? nadav (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Published 30 October 2000 in Science Now, A publication of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): Jews and Arabs Share Recent Ancestry

... a new genetic study shows that many Arabs and Jews are closely related. More than 70% of Jewish men and half of the Arab men whose DNA was studied inherited their Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestors who lived in the region within the last few thousand years. The results match historical accounts that some Moslem Arabs are descended from Christians and Jews who lived in the southern Levant, a region that includes Israel and the Sinai. They were descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times. ... Hammer praises the new study for "focusing in detail on the Jewish and Palestinian populations." Oppenheim's team found, for example, that Jews have mixed more with European populations, which makes sense because some of them lived in Europe during the last millennium.
- This does not say that Palestinians are direct descendants of the Canaanites? nadav (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Palestinian and Jewish History:Criticisms a the Borders of Ethnography A New York Times article notes that: "…a growing consensus among Egyptologists, Biblical scholars, and archaeologists, that most of the early Israelites were Canaanites." Sari Nusseibeh notes on Palestinian identity that: "Present-day Palestinian Arabs regard Canaanites, Hittites, Jebusites, etc., [along with more recent waves of migrants] as their ancestors." Michael Walzer's view is recorded as "whoever who are you are probably a Canaanite".
- The author is setting up an opposition between the NYTimes article and the statement by Nusseibah that Palestinians regard the Canaanites as their ancestors. In this context, the quote from Walzer is probably a facetious remark intended to poke fun at how everyone seeks Canaanite ancestry. Again, the source is not asserting that Palestinians are direct descendants of the Canaanites. nadav (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Palestinian Arabs are probably partly Israelite

The Cohen Modal Haplotype is not exclusively found among Jews, but rather is also found among Kurds, Armenians, Italians, Palestinian Arabs, and a few other peoples. In Figure 3 of Nebel et al.'s 2001 paper, it can be seen that while some Muslim Kurds possess the Cohen Modal Haplotype (at a frequency of 0.011), and even some Palestinian Arabs do (at a frequency of 0.021), more Muslim Kurds (0.095) have a haplotype that is a different Y DNA lineage, with a different allele number in one of the six microsatellite locis. Figure 3 is also interesting since it shows that 0.021 of Palestinian Arabs have the Cohen Modal Haplotype.
- Interesting, but there is no reference to the Canaanites. nadav (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Sacred Landscape by Meron Benvinisti wherein he quotes A. Barghouti as writing that:

European scholars have affirmed that the life of the Palestinian fellah is no different than that of biblical times and that the best way to understand the Bible is through learning about the life of the Palestinian fellaheen. According to these scholars ... the fellaheen are the remnants of the Canannites. And I thank them for this conclusion, evne though they used it for colonial purposes, because they proved that the majority of the members of the Palestinian nation (the fellaheen) are Canaanites who were here before the Hebrews ... The scholars add that since the days of David, the fellaheen have not been destroyed but have styaed in the same places. They served David and Solomon and have remained in this state, from one occupation to the next.
- It sounds like he is talking about old texts by Orientalists. I wouldn't be surprised if he is specifically referring to E.A. Finn. Does Barghouti cite any specific authority? It also sounds like he has a strong political motivation for saying this. nadav (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What we have here is evidence of a complex, multifaceted Palestinian identity and origins intimately tied to the heterogenuous history of the region of Palestine. Those who are insisting the Palestinians are not the descendants or earlier peoples that populated the region have yet to offer an alternate explanation as to where the Palestinians came from. While it is clear that the modern national identity of Palestinians is a recent one, the people who adopted this identity were Arabs living in Palestine. They did not come from the moon. Therefore, while it is fair to explain to the reader that some historians reject the notion that Palestinians are descendants of earlier Semitic tribes like the Canaanites, it is also only logical that how Palestinian articulate their own identity and the controversy around that identification (because of the wider political situation) be represented. Note too, that the claims of other editors that historians and archaeologists largely reject Palestinian descendancy from earlier Semitic tribes seems to be a false one, as borne out in the DNA studies that consistently refer to such historic scholarship and their newest genetic findings as confirmation of them. Tiamut 10:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that "the Palestinians are not the descendants of earlier peoples that populated the region". Nobody is saying that "historians and archaeologists largely reject Palestinian descendancy from earlier Semitic tribes". People are only objecting to this particular unproven assertion that Palestinians are directly descended from the Canaanites. Most historians/archaeologists reject this notion. Again, I have absolutely no problem with saying that Palestinians identify with the Canaanites, but we cannot assert that they are direct descendants of them. What we can write is that Arabs have been in Palestine since its conquest upwards of a thousand years ago, and that undoubtedly, Palestinians also share roots with the population that existed in Palestine before that, which included many Semites, but also other non-semitic Christians. Moreover, many Palestinians share similar genetic material with Jews, and this genetic material has been native to Palestine for millennia. This, I believe, is all born out by the studies. But the claim of direct ancestry from Canaanites is not proven by anything. nadav (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

While you may not be denying that Palestinians are descendants of earlier populations, many editors here are. My point is putting together this material is not as you seem to believe "to prove that Palestinians are Canaanites", rather it is to faithfully represent how Palestinians view their identity and how scholarship does as well. I appreciate your points above and have incorporated the Khalidi quote into the section on identity rather than ancestry to begin. Further, I will be adding material from most of these sources to the article in the coming hours and days. I remain perplexed however as to why Sir James Frazer (who was already cited in the article for months before being deleted along with what I added) and E.A. Finn, the two people who make direct connections between Canaanites and Palestinians and refer to the popularity of this view among early Near East historians are not relevant or notable to this article. Tiamut 11:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no issue with anything that was just added. The quote from Khalidi is obviously important and should be included, and I don't think there is anything controversial about what Mckean is saying. I think we understand each other now. We just have to be cautious when citing the genetic studies to not take the results out of context or add to their conclusions. Best, nadav (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And I remain perplexed as to why you refuse to accept that non-experts writing in the 1920s and 1930s are not reliable sources for your claims. It's an extremely simple concept to grasp. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this issue is resolved for now. No need to stoke the fire. nadav (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is confused about which paper is referred to in the Science Now story "Jews and Arabs Share Recent Ancestry" (I was) it's Nebel, D. Filon, D. A. Weiss, M. Weale, M. Faerman, A. Oppenheim, M.G. Thomas. (2000) High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews. Human Genetics 107, pp. 630-641. --Ian Pitchford 11:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Ian, it is true that palestinians share RECENT ancestry. However Recent ancestry is measured by Haplotypes ( ie GMH Galilee Modal Haplotype and CMH Cohen Modal Haplotype), and Ancient (DEEP) ancestry is measured by Haplogroup ( ie J1). The palestinians are composed of majority arabs (j1 =62%) and minorities, these minorities are the same found in the jews minorities, so haplotypes are similar ( also CMH and GMH is only one step mutation from each other. The Nebet et al study of Jews and Palestinians share a RECENT ancestry (ie haplotypes) could mean both the statement that palestinians have converts from christian and jewish people who were jews and or Canaanites) and it could also means that the haplotypes similarities are due to the last 1000 years of mixing with other people ( crusaders, Euriopeans, Turks, Kurds, Armenians, etc). However the more evidence that all jews muslem palestinians and christian lebanese share an early J1 ( semites with out the CMH or GMH, that is of the Phoenicians and Canaanites ( or simply arabs and jews who did not develop into the way of those particular haplotypes), The study is made by Capelli et al [42] in which he staes that the Maronite christian sample had 9% J1 ( quite high) while the Muslem lebanese have 32% J1) However when J1 was studied for J1 haplotype (GMH of the Arab recent expansion) it was found 2.4% in Maronites and 4% in muslems, But!! when studied for the next mutation ( ie GMH +/- one repeat ( still in Arabs or jews ) the christians did not have any J1 with that extension ( meaning they had the J1 that is prior date to the Arabs and jews establishment (1500 BC) ie Phoenicians, while Lebanese muslems had plenty of the next step mutation 14%) meaning in all, that both have Phonecian J1 but christians have more of the phonecian ancestry while muslems have more of the Arab J1 ( GMH +-). However I expect that Christian palestinians would have more of the Arab ( and Jewsih) J1 (that of GMH and CMH) since they were gassanids ( the same Arabs brothers of the Arabic expansion), I would like to add that in the Family Tree DNA more people with the last name Cohen are showing up with arabic specific J1 haplotype (GMH) too and their names are added to the Arabian Penincula Project at MTDNA website. In the same study mentioneed above, the Ashkenazi Jews clustered with the Arab dominated Near Eastern Block while Sephardim and Mizrahi jews clustered with the Mideterranian block, a surprizing find. and the article added that "The Arab conquest in particular appears to have had a dramatic influence on the East and South Mediterranean coasts" this statement negate the opinion of Ibn Khaldoun ( at least concerning Arabs in North africa!) so Ibn Khaldoun citation in the article should be removed or quoted as does not represent the Arab exansion ( which was very dramatic that previously thought). Thanx http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Capelli_AHG06_Med_Basin_Y.pdf Population Structure in the Mediterranean Basin: A Y Chromosome Perspective C. Capelli 2005

Palestinian culture

I would like to propose that material from the Palestinian culture section be moved into this article. As it stands, that article refers to smaller article subsets on language, food, music, etc. I don't really understand why this material isn't included here. Instead of describing Palestinian people and their culture, this article is very politically heavy. It would help the reader to know that Palestinians have an identity outside of the conflict with Israel and a culture with a rich historical tradition. Any objections? Tiamut 13:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I find the suggestion appealing. --Ian Pitchford 13:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No objection whatsoever. Similar articles such as Egyptians and Jew all have a culture section with summarized material from the main article per WP:SUMMARY. The article Palestinian culture, though, needs to be heavily expanded. The section on literature, for example, is a disgrace. I'll put in a request for Palestinian literature on the project page. nadav (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that you were proposing to completely merge the culture article into this one. Isn't it a bit much to describe the fine points of musakhan preparation in a general article on the Palestinian people? I think we should compress some of the culture information in this article and greatly expand the culture article. nadav (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What I'm trying to do is incorporate the outline that is the Palestinian culture page into this one. I think Palestinian culture should redirect here eventually and that there should be brief descriptions with headers that lead to each page on each specific subject. So you're right, the finer point of mussakhan preparation don't need to be here, but they shouldn't be in a Palestinian culture article either. They should be in the article on Palestinian cuisine. This is going to need a alot of time to organize. You can help by paring down the sections here and placing the material that is too detailed in its respective article sections. Tiamut 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think that's a good idea, and I agree with your reasoning to merge regarding avoiding a lot of the politics. A couple of points. Obviously musakhan can be offloaded to the cuisine article, and I think the whole DNA section could be seriously trimmed or removed because I don't see that sort of section in other articles. Also, is there any objection to just titling the merged article "Palestinians"? <<-armon->> 23:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the DNA section is worthy of inclusion though it could use some clean-up. About the titling, I think you should get the opinions of others who know why it was named the way it was too. I don't have strong opinions or policy reasons for one or other either way right now. Tiamut 02:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Golda Meir quote

Could we have a proper source for the Golda Meir quote please? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This won't do. A proper source, please. By the way, a proper source would include things like an article title and author, and ideally a page number. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

O.K., now it's a La Guardia book. What page is the claim on? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's all in the citation, Jay. It's page 156, in the "Victims of Victims" chapter, and it is visible through GoogleBooks as well. -- Avi 20:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm increasingly dubious of this claimed 1969 quotation from the Sunday Times. Not one of the many sources I've seen seems to be able to state the name of the article, its author, or page number, and many quote it inaccurately, not realizing the alleged quote it much longer. If they had actually seen a proper source, they would have at least inserted ellipses. Some of them claim it was made in the New York Times, rather than the Sunday Times. Even more worrying, there's a source from 1964 that is already referring to it: [43] Can anyone verify that she actually said this? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the full quote, including the question and Golda Meir's answer, is here [44]. Beit Or 20:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, regarding the 1964 date, I believe that is the first date of the publication of Journal of Peace Research. They have been publishing journals every year from 1964, as you can see here: http://jpr.sagepub.com/archive/. There is no indication of WHICH journal that "snippet view" comes from, Jay. I am feeling somewhat confident in the 6/15/69 quote, as I saw it in around 4 or 5 footnotes on GoogleBooks already. I did not bring those as references, as I could not get the PAGE with the quote to load, only the page with the footnote (e.g. footnote 4 in the 10th? chapter of Colin Chapman's book, but pg 188 is locked, etc.), and "assuming" that it is accurate without eyeballing it is both original research and a cite violation, thus the use of La Guardia. Actually, the 6/15/69 date in the template is also technically unreferenced, so II'll comment that out pending confirmation. -- Avi 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, the JPR article is from 1971. See http://online.sagepub.com/cgi/searchresults?src=selected&journal_set=spjpr&fulltext=golda+meir. It's Galtung, Johan, The Middle East and the Theory of Conflict, Journal of Peace Research 1971 8: 173-206 -- Avi 20:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Great find, Beit Or, I'll update the article. -- Avi 20:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The quote is quite well known, to the extent that Golda Meir wrote a letter to the NYT in 1976 where she attempts to answer the critics. [45]. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Article updated with the entire quote and reliable source. A significant portion was left out previously that may or may not change the connotation. It is best that we bring the pure, unadulterated, unexpurgated text and let the reader draw their own conclusions. -- Avi 20:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To wit, Gelvin himself says that the quote is often taken out of context. His analysis has been added to the article. -- Avi 21:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, now why does this quote belong to the article? Furthermore, why do we need an extended analysis of it? Beit Or 21:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it has been used, perhaps erroneously, by various people to demonstrate that there was the idea that Israeli's deny the existance of Palestinians as a people. Perhaps Tiamut can explain it better. -- Avi 21:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add the material in question, just copyedited it and provided sources. I don't have a strong opinion about it either way right now. Tiamut 23:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm still suspicious. These sources: [46] [47] say it was in The New York Times. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, please, please read them carefully, they are quoting the NYT on the sixteenth, saying Meir said it on the fifteenth. WHile I do not have the articles in front of me, I am very certain that the NYT ran the Meir interview in the US the day after it ran in the Sunday Times in the UK. Jay, this has been verified near sixteen ways to Sunday here; we have reliable sources that she said it, and you know how adamant I am about demanding reliable sources. Now, does it mean what Khalidi and Said make it out to mean? That seems to be a scholarly debate as depicted Gelvin and by Weiner (Commentary 108; if you can find it, see footnote in second source you brough above). We cannot make any connotation one way or the other; we are supposed to bring examples of the primary opinions from reliable sources with sufficient citations that the interested reader can research and make his or her own decision. -- Avi 23:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times is concerned, there was no interview with her in the paper then. However, she was in England at the time and gave a couple speeches, so it's very possible she was interviewed by The Times (of London). And you know how people always get those two papers mixed up. nadav (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it again, check the DATES

. Before the advent of fax machines, it was not uncommon for a paper in the US to run something the day after a paper across the pond. -- Avi 00:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Excerpt in the Washington Post

We should learn to depend on our good friends at Wikiquote, who apparently are better at citations than many books: q:Golda Meir. The Washington Post has a very long excerpt from the Sunday Times interview as a front page article. Meir was interviewed by Frank Giles, the foreign editor of the Sunday Times, while she was in London. Some interesting highlights:

Q. It seems to me that the heart of the Middle East problem as it is today is to be found in the plight of the Palestinians with their sense of grievance. Does Israel admit a measure of responsibility?

A. No, no responsibility whatsoever. If you say, is Israel prepared to co-operate in the solution of their plight, the answer is yes. But we are not responsible for their plight. This is a humanitarian problem. But the Arabs who created this refugee problem by their war against us and against the 1948 U.N. resolution have turned this into a political problem.

After all, there are millions and millions of refugees in the world, and I have not yet heard anybody say the three million Sudetan Germans should go back to Czechoslovakia--nobody. I do not know why the Arab refugees are a particular problem in the world.

[Question about Fedayeen appears here, and the reply is basically identical to the Gelvin book text. The reply continues:]

There is really no such thing as a representative body speaking for so-called Palestinians...[all ellipses are in the Post article]

Nor do I favor a separate Palestinian Arab state. There are 14 Arab states with immense territories, with natural resources. What would this tiny state of the western bank really mean as to its viability...? I would have to be part either of Israel or of Jordan.

nadav (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In Edward Said's The Question of Palestine, writing in 1979, he notes that :

In Israel today it is the custom to officially refer to the Palestinians as "so-called Palestinians," which is a somewhat gentler phrase than Golda Meir's flat assertion in 1969 that the Palestinians did not exist.

I think the current formulation in light of the larger context of the quote belabors the point unecessarily. It's pretty clear that Meir is denying Palestinians the right to articulate their own separate Palestinian identity and that this was largely representative of Israeli thought at the time (and among some segments, even today). Any one have a proposal on a short way of nothing this in the article? Tiamut 19:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

about representive family picture of palestinians

I found this image (public Domain) of a Palestinian family AKA 1910 of a Ayoub family (a Gassanid clan family!!!) can any body post it here. I found that the picture of a family 1900 is of Samaritan family from Palestine (nothing known in the source about it!!! could be a kurdish family in Kurdistan or anything) so please help me replace it with this one as follows. It is releaseed to Public Domain by a Palestinian of Gassanid origin. here is a copy past from the wiki England web page (arab) and (ramallah):

Ramallah-Family-1905.jpg (478 × 345 pixel, file size: 48 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

Summary I, Charles Ayoub, own the image and release it to the Public Domain. It was also featured in the book 'Ramallah - Anicent and Modern' by Khalil Ayub Abu Rayya.

The picture was taken in 1905 of a family from Ramallah, Palestine. From left to right - Abraham Ayoub, Michael Ayoub, Peter Ayoub, Tifaha Ayoub, Louis Ayoub.

Licensing I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

File history Legend: (cur) = this is the current file, (del) = delete this old version, (rev) = revert to this old version. Click on date to download the file or see the image uploaded on that .

(del) (cur) 03:28, 27 November 2006 . . Ramwikiman (Talk | contribs) . . 478×345 (49,374 bytes) (I, Charles Ayoub, own the image and release it to the Public Domain. It was also featured in the book 'Ramallah - Anicent and Modern' by Khalil Ayub Aby Rayya.)

Edit this file using an external application See the setup instructions for more information.

File links

The following pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file (pages on other projects are not listed):

Arab Ramallah ..... Thanx. I don't know how to do it. Hi, I managed to add the photo "Palestinian family" in the ancestry section.

Ayoub family according to the website wiki (Arab) and ghassanids are of Ghassanids origin as Gebara family and other families.

I would like to have your attention that this picture should be in the top replacing the one of photo inside the UN embelm. That picture is unknown in origin , However the title says "sumeri" which means samaritan in Arabic, hence the picture is not representive of the palestinians since small minorities like samaritans dress differently so that people can recognise them as minorities. The use of Koufiyah is strange for arabs or palestinians to dress like this, plus the women dress is completely authentic to that particular minority.

Please remove and replace it with this picture which is authenticated and was published in a book and the family name is known palestinian and of Ghassanid origin.abubakr 10:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You make an interesting point. This will need discussion first, since a lot of talk went into picking the current representative Palestinian picture. (Link to the proposed picture: Image:Ramallah-Family-1905.jpg) nadav (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the word Sumeri in the title of the picture. Could you point it out for me? But in any case, I don't really see the problem with having a picture of Samaritans as representatives of Palestinian people. We are made up of many different minority groups and being a descendant of Ghassanids doesn't make someone more Palestinian than ethnic Armenians who have lived in Jerusalem for thousands of years. I am open to discussing the issue more of course, and you raise some good points about it's origins. It should be noted that this was a compromise picture after the picture of two Palestinian girls form Jenin and then Palestinian refugees were refused as inappropriate and POV respectively. Tiamut 14:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am talking about the first photo in the article ( aman surrounded by two women and a daughter sitting and behind him an old man. These are the cloth for celebrating Haggadah ( jewish celebration) and the title of the picture if you click on the picture will take you to anew page titled Sumeri. I was sure it is of Sumerian (Samaritan family) before I saw the title and I became very sure, plus there is no indication that this picture is of a palestinian family or not ( it could be in Afganistan or Kurdistan). Can't just throw any picture. More over the Last picture at the end of the article is lso of a coffeee House , But again for jews ( see the traditional jewish dress stripes on the shawl and turbans) and it could be in Yemen, or any where , since it is a public domain there is no description of it or where it came from. But the people in the picture are difinitely jewish. With due respect to jews and samaritan, these two pictures are not representive of PALESTINIANS. It is like presenting a photo of David ben Gorion as a Palestinian since he lived one years in Palestine on a temporary visa in 1908. This page is very corrupted by a long time nowabubakr 17:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Jews or Samaritans being represented in pictures in Palestinian-related articles since they were (and some still are) Palestinians. I still also don't see the "Sumeri" title you keep referring to (I'm really sorry if I'm just blind and missing something obvious). To be honest, I am kind of fatigued by the whole picture debate which was just settled a little while ago. I will put a notice at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine page though, to get other editors to come and give some feedback. Tiamut 19:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Which picture is the one that ostensibly has Jews? if you mean the one on the right, I have to disagree with you for two reasons. One, if you follow the wiki trail to the original postcard on commons, it has a caption. Secondly, that mat is NOT a haggadah and those striped robes are NOT tallitot. Anyway, the Haggadah is read at night and this is by day, and one is not supposed to grind (or pound, as one man is in foreground right) coffee beans on a Jewish Holiday since it can be done before without noticable loss of quality (See the halakhos of tochen), and many other issues. The picture is what it portends to be, a late nineteenth century Palestinian coffee house. -- Avi 19:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The picture on the right you re showing is no coffee shop . This halaqa with the head rabbi with the largest turban in the back. a waiter from the next door shop is presenting coffee before commencing. Where is the Hookah if this is a cafe? and the stripes are that of the jews. how come all of them were similar cloth. As for other picture at the beginning of the article this is a family going or coming back from the street celebration, and behind them is not a house it is a dumpster ares in the town with a scary dark gate like a night mere movie (the forgotten dungeon) and the girl sitting is smiling really frightening, it is a demeaning photo for any people palestinians or jews or whatever. they are dressed for the celebration of haggada procession. and the title of the comment on the picture says (sumeri). Both pictures are not for palestinians and probably are not from Palestine. There is nno reference what ever in wiki commons and Public Domain that these pictures are for palestinians.abubakr 05:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The full source info for the image at right is at Image:CoffeePalestineStereo.jpg. The uploader wrote: "Scanned from a period stereoscope card in my collection. Printed by Keystone View Company, Manufacturers and Publishers, Meadville Pennsylvania & St. Louis Missouri. Copyright 1900 by B. L. Singley." The image is clearly captioned there as being a coffee house in Palestine. nadav (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Also, my guess is that Image:Palestijnse familie rond 1900 .jpg has a header that says "Sumari" because the original German uploader misspelled the word "summary" that usually appears in the image description page (In the German wikipedia too). nadav (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Adnanmuf, are you Jewish? If you are, I am so sorry that your upbringing has been so lacking in basic Jewish education that you could have made the above statements. Let me try and educate you.

Halakha means "Law". There is no such PLACE called "Halakha". If anything it is a Beis Medrash, and NO self respecting Jewish scholar would be pounding on the coffee beans in a Bais Medrash; some don't even allow eating or drinking in the main study hall out of respect for the Torah.
The stripes are not the kabbalistic stripes that appear on talleisim. As a matter of fact, not being four-cornered garments, they CANNOT be taleisim. As a side point, there are no fringes either. If they were Jews, which it appears that they are not, there couldn't be; it is not four-cornered.
A Rabbi would not be identifiable by the size of his turban, that is absurd. There is no difference in dress, it is a difference of knowledge and respect.
This is supposed to be a coffee bar, not a smoke shop, so no hookah. Anyway, the man in the back is smoking a cigarette.
As pointed out, the postcard's caption says Palestinian Coffee shop

Sadly, you seem to be driven by a particular idealogy that has made you jump to improper conclusions and make inappropriate edits to further a particular cause. Please review WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV and join all of us in contributing appropriately to the project. Thanks. -- Avi 14:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC) There are all kinds of modes of stripes belonging to different jewish sects ( not only the orthodox jewish sect you are imposing) there are ( Karaites styles, Samaritan styles, even Muslim Pashtun styles ( muslems in Afganistan who say they are of the 10 tribes deported by assyrians (use stripes to identify themselves as israelites from time immomerial (on turban and shallut). This is no coffee shop, it is outside on the street outside a door ( of Transcaucasus style). the title of the picture is made up by the wiki user who added the picture, not by the original owner ( company). He/she is using a media psychological warfare of diluting the identity of palestinians and role exchanging. The people are jews and are not in Palestine, they could be muslems of some sect but the door and dress is persian style. faces have Khazarian ( slavic and north caucasian features ( the raw in the back). this is identity forfeiting. there are many pictures free online . I will fetch some.abubakr 05:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV obviously represent the person who added that picture in his/her propaganda to forfeit palestina identity and diluting it. I am neutral trying to prevent a NON Neutral propagandistic view. What exactly is my propaganda in cutting a picture that is not of the palestinian people of whom I am one.

For you rinformation :

1.commons:Image:CoffeePalestineStereo.jpg

2. NPoV doesn't mean to be neutral, it means to introduce all points of view a neutral way.

Alithien 07:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What? Am I too stupid?? I have MD and PHD yet still some people would like to play the ivory chair instruction mentality, what? I did not understand you, I think I lost you due to my mental limitations I have only 130 IQ. You call presenting Palestinians as jews Neutral? identity theft neutral? Psychological warfare neutral? the two pictures of a Samaritan family and the second of a jewish circle meeting in Azarbijan representive of palestinians? Why cut my picture of a Palestinian from a REFUGEE CAMP! throwing stones at a tank representing both the section of refugees and the section titled Intifada 2000???abubakr 09:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The names of the family members were typical for Middle Eastern Christians a century ago. I cannot see how they could possibly be Samaritans. On the other hand, pending further investigation, the photo at the top of the page must be removed as having no source: it comes from the German Wikipedia, but the URl that was supposed to link to the source is self-referential. Beit Or 13:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, summery in German is Zusammenfassung why that german guy use sumari instead of Zusammenfassung if he was not good in English why would he relax the word that much from the german origin. I can't imagine agerman say sumari.

as about the other picture it is taken from a travel guide catering to the jewish community in New orleans to attract them to travel to palestine, they would go to any length to bring a familiarity object to them. that is normal. you can not trust an advertising company to be authenticallistic so both pictures should be removed. You can go to flicker.com commons to search for hundred of free photos of palestinian families sitting standing jumping swimming dressed etc why suddenly it is hard for you to find representive pictures since you have mouthfulls of policy wordings.abubakr 14:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Invitation for Almaqdisi to discuss desired changes

[Please detail exactly what sentences you want to add here. nadav (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC) ]

Thanks user:Nadav1. It is not really about a specific sentence. The following material could be reorganized and balanced without having to remove any of its sources and references. All these citations are interesting and will save the average reader a lot of time when they try to understand the different point of views... Editors are welcomed to enrich this section by adding citations from other academicians, and so on... I will copy past the part that was removed earlier. Please change it and work it out the way you like... If some sentences are felt to be not balanced, include citations which point out inaccuracies in this presented material, or include other citations that supports different findings about the Palestinians.

Summary: The ancestry section should eventually reflect the conclusions that have been reached by most anthropologists and DNA analysis that have been done so far and reflected by ancient and old writings and family records that Arab historians also discussed in Arabic literature such as Ibn Khaldoun: 1- Palestinians are descendants of populations that have existed before the Islamic conquest, and also descendent's of others who came after the Islamic conquest. 2- Palestinians peasants in particular, have not mingled like the Palestinian population in cities which absorbed through the ages people from Albania, Turkey, Egypt, and so on. 3- Palestinians are not the Canaanites because there are no more Canaanites! Canaanites however are a major contributor to their ancestry, as well as to the Lebanese population, as demonstrated by the many DNA clues section. Names of most Palestinian towns and villages are still in its Canaanite version. 4- Many Palestinians, whether Muslims or Christians or Samaritans, have common ancestry and in many cases share it with many of the Jews of the middle east, and with other Jewish communities who have immigrated in the last Century to Palestine. 5- Mention of the populations that have existed in Palestine from the Canaanite period and beyond that. These collectively will give the reader a perspective and an understanding when they go ahead and read the DNA section too which talks about some of these ancient communities.

Hello. Thanks for responding to my invitation. It truly is more productive than edit warring. I want to address the general points you wish to add first, so allow me to do that here.

I think this one is currently covered in the article to a large extent. The ancestry section says:

The Arabization of Palestine began in Umayyad times. Increasing conversions to Islam among the local population, together with the immigration of Arabs from Arabia and inland Syria, led to the replacement of Aramaic and Hebrew[40] by Arabic as the area's dominant language. Among the cultural survivals from pre-Islamic times are the significant Palestinian Christian community, and smaller Jewish and Samaritan ones, as well as an Aramaic and possibly Hebrew sub-stratum in the local Palestinian Arabic dialect.[41]

and

The results of recent DNA studies support historical accounts that "some Moslem Arabs are descended from Christians and Jews who lived in the southern Levant, a region that includes Israel and the Sinai. They were descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times."

Moreover, the identity section includes Khalidi's statement that the histories of previous civilizations in Palestine are part of Palestinians' identity as they see it. We can change the wording somewhat if you like, but I don't think we should stray too much from the wording of the studies and scholars themselves.

This item is problematic, since a good source has not yet been provided: E.A. Finn is not a reliable source for this purpose (the lengthy details for why are above) and Frazer is not a contemporary historian and was never an expert in this field.
No scientific study has been found linking anyone in anyway to the Canaanites. The studies do not mention them.
This is already in the article. See the quote I gave above.
We can work on including this in some way. nadav (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The blanked paragraphs were the following:

Sir James Frazer, in his book Folklore in the Old Testament: Studies in Comparative Religion Legend and Law, mentioned:

"It is the opinion of competent judges that the modern fellaheen or Arabic-Speaking peasants of Palestine are descendants of the pagan tribes which dwelt there before the Israelite invasion and have clung to the soil ever since, being submerged but never destroyed by each successive wave of conquest which has swept over the land."^[20]

Palestinians, like most other Arabic-speakers, thus combine ancestries from all the pre-Arab peoples and Arab tribes who have come to settle the region throughout history. The precise elements of this mixture is a matter of debate, on which genetic evidence (see below) has begun to shed some light. The findings apparently confirm Ibn Khaldun's argument that most Arabic-speakers throughout the Arab world descend mainly from culturally assimilated non-Arabs who are indigenous to their own regions. This process can still be witnessed today in some areas, as with the continued Arabization of Berber-identified North Africans in countries such as Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya.

The Bedouins of Palestine, however, are more securely known to be Arab by ancestry as well as by culture; their distinctively conservative dialects and pronunciation of qaaf as gaaf group them with other Bedouin across the Arab world and confirm their separate history. Arabic onomastic elements began to appear in Edomite inscriptions starting in the 6th century BC, and are nearly universal in the inscriptions of the Nabataeans, who arrived there in the 4th-3rd centuries BC.^[21] It has thus been suggested that the present day Bedouins of the region may have their origins as early as this period. A few Bedouin are found as far north as Galilee; however, these seem to be much later arrivals, rather than descendants of the Arabs that Sargon II settled in Samaria in 720 BC.

You are welcomed to enhance it, work on it, and please try not to remove information per se, but to organise it in a way that you think is balanced. I actually do not see anything wrong with this material and I wonder what do people who remove these paragraphs object too. Removal of Academic sources that address this particular subject sounds weird to me.

I will not be able to have a look on this but for sometime, so please take your time working on it, and I hope that you do understand that much of this removed information is the work of many other editors who have spent time collecting such information. Cheers!

Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 02:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Almaqdisi, you have completely ignored the lengthy discussion above #Claim that Palestinians are descendants of the Canaanites. In brief, the sources were unreliable, and were used to support a great deal of original research. We will not be "working on" material that is so fundamentally flawed; instead, we have moved on, and found good information from reliable sources. Please work with other editors, rather than reverting in policy violating material. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg , the ancestry part is based on analysis. All the material included there is from very reliable sources. I do not know what gives you the authority to claim that all of these citations like History Channel, Bernard Lewis, James Frazer, Ibn Khaldoun, and DNA researchers, etc... are all propogandists... Also, please do not speak on the behalf of other editors and only speak of yourself. If you do not like this material, that is your problem. Go and debate that with those who wrote it originally. At Wikipedia we cite the most relevant resources, and these are among them. I thought you are the all-knowing about Wikipedia's policies?! What is going wrong? Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 02:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Almaqdisi, we have been over this at length, above. It's hardly fair of you to make us repeat it. Please read the discussion above to understand why the sources used are not reliable, and why the few reliable sources are used for original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg , you are not being impartial about all this. I will not waste your time and mine trying to discuss and repeat my self and other editors. You have simply classified this information as "propoganda" and this immediately makes you biased against the inclusion of this information... I do not see those scientists, History Channel, Bernard Lewis, Ibn Khaldoun, and many others as propogandists. This information brings centuries old of knowledge and has also been recently confirmed by DNA analysis. This is not propoganda! Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 02:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't. I've given a detailed analysis of the problems of each of the sources used; please show respect to the editors here by reading it through carefully. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Further to my comments at the start of the section, I want to address the text you offer. As I said, Khalidi is in the article, it's just been moved to the more relevant Identity section. The list of nations that have controlled Palestine may perhaps be incorporated into some background section, but from what I understand, the results of the genetic studies have been too broad for us to say that Palestinians are descended from each individual nation that appears on that list. Placing the list in the ancestry section would mean that we are making certain assumptions that are not directly stated in the studies. Let me repeat now what I said to Tiamut: What we can write is that Arabs have been in Palestine since its conquest upwards of a thousand years ago, and that undoubtedly, Palestinians also share roots with the population that existed in Palestine before that, which included many Semites, but also other non-semitic Christians. Moreover, many Palestinians share similar genetic material with Jews, and this genetic material has been native to Palestine for millennia. This, I believe, is all born out by the studies. But the claim of direct ancestry from Canaanites is not proven by anything. nadav (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

nadav, Our task is not really to prove or disprove that. There are many excellent researchers who went through all this. WikiPedia is an encyclopedia. And per such, it should report these findings. If there is any question of any sort, new references should be included that particularly mention that these studies are false. But to put ourselves in a position to pick and choose here is not correct. I hope you do understand. Finally, the Canaanite story is part of the issue and is not the whole story. No question that Palestinians name their towns and villages the same names that have been used since the Canaanite age. Canaanites contribute to the Palestinians ancestry. Similar studies shows that many in Lebanon are also connected to the ancient Canaanite Phonecians. Now, this all does not mean that today's Lebanese and Palestinians are Phonecians/Canaanites... This section is about ancestry... Where these people come from? That is the whole issue. Since there have been many studies about the subject, in the past and in the present, there should be no reason to exclude this material. To be fair with Wikipedia readers, if there is any study that mentions that some of these studies regarding the Ancestry of the Palestinians are wrong, then please include that. I do still object to Jayjg's style of exclusion. It is simply not the correct way of doing business here. This is a public space, and should be a bank of relevant information. We should not take it beyond that. By the way, with the recent Genetic studies in the USA for example, they can tell now the ancestry of people to Europe and so forth.... This is all relevant material. Finally, Professor Antonio Arnaiz-Villena is one of the most known people in DNA studies. This paragraph of his is constantly being removed for no obvious reason.

The genetic profile of the Palestinians which has been studied in Arnaiz-Villena et al.,'s DNA study on the origins of Palestinians ^[22] supports the claims of those like Sir James Frazer and E.A. Finn, claiming that:

"Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian and Anatolian peoples in ancient times."

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena's study has been the subject of intense controversy due to political terminology employed in the article, but the scientific content is generally upheld as valid.^[23]^[24]^[25]

This is encyclopedia and nothing else. DNA studies only prove what anthropologists and historians say. This all should be reported without removal of any material. If you have any references that have conflicting results, please include it. This is how it is supposped to be. We are not on an Editorial Board to pick and choose. Let the scientists figure this out. We only report their findings in this article. In summary, the way to balance this section is by adding material that presents other point of views and not removing the references that already exist. This is called vandalism and unfortunately some Wikipedia admins seem to forget that.

Please try to organise and restore the deleted material as your time allows. Again, if you have references that say otherwise on any of the subjects, you are welcome to include. I hope you understand me. Thanks, and good luck. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 23:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The genetic studies are in the article, no? It is true that all mention of the Arnaiz-Villena paper has been removed, but I think this is proper. The journal that published it went on to completely retract it in extremely strong language. They then removed from their databases and even asked libraries to physically remove all mention of it. Besides its political language, the editors also said that it was not properly peer-reviewed. Now, it is true that some claimed this reaction was too extreme, but none of these people who said this discussed the scientific merits of the paper in the customary peer-review process. Given all this, there is absolutely no way that we can cite this paper as if it's established fact. The McKean Parmenter quote about place names, I notice, has been deleted without consensus. I'll put it back in the article. Anyways, if there are other scientific studies you want included about Palestinians, please call attention to them. nadav (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

nadav, one final point. Arabs/Arabians were in Palestine before the Islamic conquest. The Nabateans for example existed in the area since 600BC, in south Palestine and Jordan and the Syrian desert. They spoke Aramaic language which later assimilated with Arabic in the 2nd century AD. The Ghassanids also spoke Arabic/Aramaic and had Damascus as their capital and ruled the populated areas from Lebanon to Palestine and Jordan too. This was 500 years before the Islamic conquest. At the time of the Islamic conquest, the language inside inner Arabia and the Levant was almost identical. Arabs before Islam who extensively wrote poem and literature have been already speaking a language that is similar to what was spoken in the Levant at the time.... Finally, the Canaanites themselves are considerd an ancient Arabian tribe that populated north Arabia and the Levant including Palestine. Some of the ancient Arabian tribes are Canaan, Ghassan, Adnan, Qahtan, etc...... Others have been in Iraq since 600 years before the Islamic conquest and are called Manathera. Many of these left Arabia long long before Islam due to many reasons. Most of these people went north to the fertile crescent area. This has been on going since at least 2 millennium BC. This is among many other reasons that Palestinians still use the same names the Canaanites used, because simply the languages were derivatives of each other. No surprise there. Even today's Arabic and Hebrew are quite similar in many aspects. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting stuff. I have never heard of the Ghassanids till you brought it up. I am reading on them now. nadav (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes nadav.. I have also re-included User:Tiamut resources and references. It is all from anthropologists and I do not see why it is removed... Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 00:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Only Frazer and Finn were removed. There is detailed and extensive reasoning for this above, and you should not readd them without addressing the points that have been made. The rest--McKean Parmenter and Khalidi--was just moved to more appropriate places in the article, since they are not about the ancestry of Palestinians, but about their identity and language. nadav (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

nadav, please include citations from other researchers that say otherwise and that particularly contradict and falsify Finn and Frazer, and also Ibn Khaldoun who by the way said the same thing over a thousand years ago (Textbook in Arabic)... Else, there is no point in removing these legitimate references. Please restore these two citations until you find something that mentions otherwise. These two citations are very much related to the subject at hand, and by the way they are not the only ones that I can add to this section. This is accepted stuff, and there are plenty of studies about that. Also they never contradict the DNA section too. Let me remind you of what David Ben Gurion acknowledged once. He said the following:

But turning Palestinians into Jews does not mean that they can have access to their own Palestinian Hebrew ancestors. On the contrary, it is precisely through Zionism’s appropriation of the history of the Palestinian Hebrews as the ancestors of the European-Jews turned- anti-Semites that the Palestinian Arabs lose any connection to their Hebrew ancestry. While neighboring Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese, and Iraqis can narrate a national history that extends to the Pharaohs, the Nabateans, the Phoenicians, and the Babylonians, Palestinians cannot lay any national claims to Palestine’s past. As recent converts to landless Jewishness, they cannot access the past of a land colonized by anti-Semitic Hebraic Jews, nor can they claim ancestors uncovered by Zionism to be the Jews’ own exclusive progenitors. This is not so unlike the process through which the Hebrew prophets were abducted from the Jewish tradition into Christianity. It is, however, ironic, and particularly scandalous for Zionism, in this regard to find that a young David Ben Gurion had postulated in 1918 that it was indeed the Palestinian peasants who were the descendants of the Jews who had remained in Palestine, and that, despite the Islamic conquest, these peasants had held on to their Hebrew ancestors’ traditions, most obviously through maintaining the same names for their villages. Ben Gurion went so far as to assert that “in spite of much intermixing, the majority of the [Palestinian] fellahin in Western Palestine are unified in their external appearance and in their origin, and in their veins, without a doubt, flows much Jewish blood—from the Jewish peasants who in the days of the persecutions and terrible oppression had renounced their tradition and their people in order to maintain their attachment and loyalty to the land of the Jews.

Cheers... Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 05:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please checkout this book [48]. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 05:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. I don't think your approach of putting the burden of proof on me to find sources that specifically discredit Frazer and Finn is reasonable. Instead, the fact (proven many times over) that contemporary experts reject their claims should be more than sufficient. Also, I don't see how the theories of David Ben Gurion have any bearing, since—just like Finn and Frazer—he is not a modern expert. nadav (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Almaqdisi, it has been explained many times why amateurs writing in the 20s and 30s are not considered reliable. That goes for Ben Gurion as well; he was a politician, not a historian. You need to find reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, Ben Gurion's famous quote starts with the words "in spite of much intermixing". I wonder where the remaining balderdash comes from. Atheist Ben Gurion was making a polemical point that for Jews attachment to their land transcends their attachment to their religion. The idea is interesting, but not relevant to an encyclopedic article. Beit Or 13:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of historical record

Hi. It is not true that the arabization started in the Umayyad period ie 7th century AD. If you mean Arabization of the language it is well known that The Ghassanid christian Arabs who completely arabized the Nabataean (Arabic Arameic language ) by 500 AD. The gassanid entered Palestine and Jordan and south syria in 200 AD!

If you mean that Arabization meaning race it is also not true because the Bedoin of the Negev are descendent of the early arabs ( children of Nebiothah first son of Ishmael, not Kedar the second son whom the Adnanite arabs (muslem conquest). The Nabataeans existed in Palestine and Syria ( as name Nabataens since 400 BC). Also Arabs ( arabian, arabian princes, arabian merchents, mentioned in the Bible as contemporary of Solomon, Ezra (opposing Ezra in building a wall around Jerusalem in 450 BC because they wanted to herd outside the city daily ( they were living INSIDE jerusalem in 450 BC). and many other references in bible talmud and Herodotus etc)

So the Arabs are much ancient in Palestine than the Umayyad period! The study of Ornello stated (that the level of Atrab takeover of Middle East ancestrally (namely Haplogroup J1 is essential ( defies Ibn Khaldoun a scientist from 700 yeras ago who built his studies on Andalusia ( where Berber were majority in the last days of Islam in Spain because the Tumertian Berber ( The Mohad took over. Ibn Khaldoun himself was a Berber born in Tunisia but lived most his life in Spain)

Phoenecians are like the Bedoin of Negev who are J1 but don't have the Galilee Modal Haplotype ( which is a representive inside J1 of the Adnanite Arabs who came in the & century AD) since more than half of Palestinians and Christian lebanese and Muslem lebanese have J1 and Don't Have Galilee Modal Haplotype then they are of the Arabs of more ancient History ( contemporary of ancient jews and J1 of Phoenicians (canaanites) before Jews.

Conclusion: Arabization Racial and Linguistical took place much more earlier than 7 centruy AD!

The Romans assigned the Nabataeans the rulership of ALL Syria ( they spoke Aramaic Arabic), the Gassanids became the princes of ALL syria ( including Palestine). in 500 AD ( they spoke PURE Arabic evidenced by the Poem scrolls hanged on Al Kaaba by some of their poets ) They completed the full transfer of Aramaic (Ancient Arabic and sister of Hebrew at the same time) to the grammerized Arabic of Muslems ( before muslims came to Syria!) Actually one of the Kings of the Ghassanids built the City of Jablah near Lattakia ( on his own name), how could he do that if he was not ruler in that farther northern part of Syria???abubakr 23:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, concerning the Nabataen in Palestine, it is known that the dead Sea Scrolls in the Sier desert ( inside Palestine west bank) was discoverede by a bedoin a member of the Taamera clan, However the Taamera clan was mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls as the bedoin nabataeans whom the Essenes ( writers of the Scrolls) dwelled within !!!! Even the name of the tribe have not changed for 2000 years! And they were Nabataean at that time so they are Nabataean Now ( current Bedoin of Palestine and the Negev) !abubakr 23:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The information about the Nabateans and Bedouin in the Negev is already in the article. Did you see the second paragraph of the Ancestry section? Feel free to expand it if you have good modern sources. Are you saying the Nabateans managed to Arabize all of Palestine? I'm not familiar with this claim. nadav (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't get it do you? The Ghassanids spoke Pure Arabic ( not Arameic -not Arabized Arameic like Nabataeans). Only seven poems made it to the walls of the Kaaba in the yearly festival to commemorate the best Arabic poems. The Ghassanid poet Labid made it ot the wall of Kaaba in his poem in which he said In pure Arabic ( arabic language of the Islamic conquest) in which he said " If you want to track the Ghassanid Phalanges, look up in the sky to see where the bands of crews are heading". The king of Ghassanid was titled Harithah just like the king of Nabataeans before him ( Areses) the title was for the ruler of ALL of Great Syria on behalf of the Roman Impire ( King Herod's father was a general of Al-Harithah (Areses) in 100 BC.!!

Aramaeic was the official language of the Persian Empire since King Darius The Great in 500 BC because the Arabs helped him in his wars, he even excempted the Arabs from Taxes ( even Persia had to pay taxes). This Aramaeic was the WESTERN (SYRIAN ) version of Kaldanian language. Nabataens spoke (((ARABIZED ARAMEIC))) not Aramaeic. However after the Nabataens settled as farmers after Hadrian, the whole Syria spoke their language (Again It is Arabized Arameic not Aramaeic) However the Ghassanids ((spoke pure Arabic like the Arabs of Mecca))) came into syria in 150 AD and took over the Office of Harith (Areses) from the Nabataens in around (((500 AD))) that is 200 years before the Islamic conquest. King Harith (Jabalah) built the city of Jabla near Lattakia before Muslems and Umayyads came to Syria). Recent discovery of a Church annals of the period it was written in Pure Arabic (city of Emessa: Homs)

Yet you keep insisting on saying the Arabization of Syria happened in the Ummayad period, even though you have just a bachler degree in Anthropology, it is most likely outdated by now.

Recent articles in the Diekens Anthropology Blog says there is a great affinity between Race and Language, but you keep insisting on that stupid Ibn Khaldoun who knew nothing about DNA , and the study of Cinninglu proved him wrong, that the Arabs effect on the region was more than just forcing their language on the so called native people, but they the Arabs WERE the Native people!!!abubakr 07:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? I'm not insisting on anything at all about this (and I don't even have an anthropology degree). I know nothing about the Ghassanids, so how could I insist? Add whatever you want to the article (as long as it's not based the three discredited sources mentioned earlier in the discussion), and everyone will have a look. I'm just trying ensure to the best of my ability that everything in the article is sourced and is in accordance with current mainstream scholarly opinion. Keep in mind though that some of the content you are proposing might be too detailed for this page and might be better off in Palestine or History of Palestine. Best, nadav (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

i meant Jayzyg, look how much he cut lately, very usefull info by almaqdisi. I don't know whats going on in wiki, first they tell you it is open page, but the administrators and others filter the info like they are the national security agency, who are these people? who do they work for, because they are working hard to block any good info about the palestinians. I mean who can surpass the palestinians ( or arabic countries) in their homogeny, you got 80% of the population is Arabs, who got this ratio any country in the world? England? jow many scotsh, picts, saxons, engles, welsh, etc?, what was England in the 640 AD? was there a king, unified? established? Alfred was the first king!in 950 Ad while the vikings were beating him into unsure destiny. where in the world is there a country that have one haplotype of 60% or more? Non, what country in the world the names of the cities and villages are the same since 2500 BC? Southhampton may be? If all nations do not deserve to be nations Palestinians still can. According to the CIA fact book about the Middle East online 80% of Arabic countries are Arabs ( and of two clans in the majority). The Israelis got their citizen ship papers upon entry to the country at Ludd Airport based on a Law of the Semitic Right of Return of 1950, and who was there to check semitic origins? a rabbi checking for circumcission, being a child of a Jewish woman ( decided by the rabbies himself) now recent studies proved that 30% of Ashkenazim jews have the maternal ancestry K3 that is not found any where in the world but in the Polish roma people ( )% in Middle East, K means Katrina a female developed in Ukraine and moved to Sweden!!! the other ancestry is Helena, and 10 of women of Africa, found only in jews and Europeans N1 but not in middle east. The article in this page that talkes about a 10 % or more of african lineage in arabs from maternal side is stupid, because it was based by the researcher " since jews don't have that woman in 120 AD when they established jewish traditions and moved to Europe, then it is most likely the Arabs got these women from the Slave trade? What a stupid premise! How was he sure scientifically that jewish women never changed for 2 thousand years!, and how was he sure that women immigrated across the sea to Europe? in 300 AD, was it on the titanic? or Queen Victoria ship, with family size cabins? The african lineage found in some Arabic women is found recently to be part of the semitic collection of women in ancient times in the area, this is proven recently, and non existance of it in Europe and Jews is yet another proof that the jews mothers are also not from the Midddle East, just like the men: only 12% J1, 25% J2 25 R1a1 ( of slavs and germans), R1b of West Europeans (20 %), 10% of the Magi medes( found mostly in the Mezrahi), 10 % of E of Africa, 10% of I of Europe North, Q 5% of the Mongols, etc. Since abraham could only be in one ancestry ( choose one of the above, how much percentage would that be ? close to 60% of the Palestinians?, close to 56% of the Germans (R1a1), close to 60% of the chinese O, etc etc. 60% of jewish women are also of exclusively Not middle Eastern ( K1 a specific branch of Katrina, K3 another specific found in the Polish Roma people ( might be this ancestry is the semitic one, found at last it works good since it reaches 30%. The other is H and N1 from Africa ( not found in Arabs) Middle Eastern women are majority in PreHV maternal Haplogroup. So if both sides of the jews are not semitic ( males and females) so how did they get their semitic ancestry and descent from Abraham ? by eating Hummus? They should revoke the nationality ids of all the israelis and return them back to country of origin until he can bring proof that either his paternal ancestry is J1 or maternal lineage is preHV, that will make the so called Semitic right of Return more likely This article should be cut off or we should add the Roma people exclusive ancestry of Ashkenasi jews.

When was Abraham's DNA taken? How do we know that the Canaanite gene was actually taken from a Canaanite?

I thought that King Herods father was Antipater, a slave of Hyrcanus; that's what Josephus writes. When was history rewritten and Antipater promoted to general of the Nabatean King, Al-Harithah (Areses)?

If they whould revoke the nationality id's of all the Israelis and return them back to country of origin - they would all become Palestinians, because the definition of Who is a Palestinian is much more lenient then Who is a Jew; that's how 10 million were created from an original 700,000.

Are you suggesting that the Roma people had that many rapists? I find this whole discussion void of any scholarship. What I hear is nothing more then denial politics masqueraded as scholarship. Itzse 17:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Antipar was a general working for King Areses (Haritha) the Arab.

Show me a source.

No, Ashkenazi women are converts from the Polish Roma people , these women had never been in the Middle East. The Khazar either married wives from the Roma people or the Ashkenazi were the Roma people, either one of the two.

If the Ashkenazim are the Roma people, why is there no historical or genealogical record of it?

If a man rape a woman the daughter will get her Mother mtDNA, Roma men are R1a1 just like the slav and current ashkenazi ( eastern ), the Western ashkenazi had the 10% female lineage of exactly the same percentage of the women of the Europeans N1 this N1 is not found in the middle East, 60% of Ashkenazi women are H (Helena mostly western Ashkenazi) and K( Katrina ) in Eastern Ashkenazi, but the K is specific it is a subclade ofg K found only!! in Roma people women. another 10% is of the N1 a nother specific African female found only in European women and Ashkenazi women of all the world. By the way How did the Ashkenazi knew how to separate their wives between east and west according to their deep ancestry, or is it just simply the local women where they lived! mtDNA haplotype ( deep ancestry) transend only from mother to daughter (only) and Male Y haplogroup transend from father to son (again only). You see a man can not give his Y chromosome to his daughter ( this Y chromosome is attached to the other 22 chromosome of the male side, so if it does not exist then all the 23 chromosomes ( with billion of genes on them are gone too), same thing with women side. Son is more like his mother, but His son is more like that son' Mother ( ie the wife of the son). A woman can only transfer 1% of her father Y DNA side to her son ( but this side goes away by displacement of the wife on the son and so on. You can only preserve either male line all the way though history ot the mother line, However Abraham did not have a daughter from Sara, neither Rebecca, the daughters of Jacob married non Israelites, and the children of the 12 tribes (males) were not allowd to marry women from other 12 tribes, but were encouraged to marry non Israelite women or women from their own tribe only ( that is the law Read it in Deutronomy) applied all the way till the time of Jesus and beyond untill the rabbies came up with the switch to maternal line destroying all the hard work through 1800 years from Abraham to 140 AD.

You misread Deutronomy and the historical record.

Jews did not take their middle Eastern women to Europe ( if they went (males) to Europe in the first place) because males of Ashkenazi are 50% R1 (European) 10% I (ancient indigenous European) and remnants from North Africa (E 10%) and G9 of Iran) and most importantly the excotic Q deep ancestry of the Altai mountains in the northern Siberia (found in mongols, finland, Khazars for sure ( Khazar were 25% Q and 75% R1a1) the same ratio found in Eastern Ashkenazi.

I don't know , tell me WHO IS A JEW? Isn't he a follower of the Jewish religion? just like (wwho is a muslim?) followers of a religion ( are christians of the world a one nation?, do they not fight each other ( wwii for example (70 millions dead from christians on both sides), how about war between shia and sunni, millions dead too just in the last few years?.

For Who is a Jew, read the article. For Who is a Palestinian create the article.

When did God promise believers in a religion to inherit the holy land or increase their numbers? he promsied Abraham progeny only ( ancient jews and Arabs) God achieved his promised thousands of years ago ( jews till 70 AD and Arabs till now (300 millions).

Did Jewish history stop at 70 C.E.? Have you heard of a Bar Kochba war? Have you heard of a Jerusalem Talmud? Have you heard of a Babylonian Talmud? Have you heard of the Nesiim? The Exilarchs? The Geonim? Rishonim? Achronim?

No people's history have been documented as much as the Jewish people. With the emphasis on self criticism not criticism of others.

Who is A palestinian? the people who live in the Holy land ( designated between the Jordan and the white sea) ( obviously a special people) they speak same language since eternity, same chromosomes since Abraham( Muslim Arabs, Christian Ghassanids, Ancient Israelite converts to Christianity and Islam) that is who is a Palestinians ( brothers from Abraham) have same traditions and Palestinian dialect, and History ( fighting the Crusades the Mongols, Napoleon.

So oviously you deny those Jews who lived in the Holyland for hundreds and thousnds of years, as being Palestinian people. You are actually denying my right to be a Palestinian, as I fit into that category, and my ancestors even those that were raped didn't speak Arabic.

Do you know that a christian ( Isa"Jesus" Al Awwam ) was the volunteer who dove in the Acre Port to disengage the Heavy metal chains blocking the Chrudars port in the last battle for Acre. Did you know that Crusaders killed over 20 thousand Christian arabs in Jerusalem in 1099 ( The christian neighbourhood-including children )?

You quote the Bible, so please tell me what the borders of the Holyland are. Why from the Jordan to the white sea? Is that what the Bible says? Where is the White Sea?

After the destruction of Jerusalem Titus ordered the city prohibited on the jews and built Zeus temple on the site of the temple? do you know that the Wailing wall is part of that Zeus temple? because you can see right now iconic engravings on some of the blocks ( naked women (upside down or on te side, or Roman writings on the top of the wall? It is because another Roman rebuilt the crumbled Zeus temple again using engraved blocks from the first wall of Zeus Temple? Can you explain that? So jews did not not live in Jerusalem untill 640 AD when Khalif Omar allowed them to enter the city) Again during all the crusade wars, there was only one Jew in the whole of Palestine?.

So if that is true, do the people (the Jews) thrown out of their homeland forfeit their land to those that moved into their homes? and even worse, denied their identity by such people like you?

It is Not hard to figure out what Abraham DNA was. He has to be one of male haplogroups ( ABCDEGHIJLNOQR) he can not have two haplogroups. he can only give his same haplogroups to his sons ( let's say Hypothetically it is J2 since J2 is found in both arabic countries and Jews), then all his descendents have to be the same deep ancestry ( haplogroup) all the way to the present. Haplogroup J2 like all haplogroups branched out between 25000 up to only 5000 years ago, that means that Abraham Haplogroup did not branch. It is an absolute statistical impossibility that Abraham Haplogroup would branch ( a mutation SNP requires several alleles and several repeats for each allele, any repeat require one generation at least, you do the math) Even if Hypothetically his haplogroup branched to I and G and J1 and R1a and R1b, etc ( just like found in Ashkenazi) that means all the people of the world are the children of Abraham ( does that go with the history)?

Now J2 is not found in Ethiopia and Eritheria, but how can that be since their is known historically that many jews since the babylonian diaspora moved to Africa there and even established Kingdoms too ( not that of Solomon and Sheba) but later immigrations, what do you deduct? J2 is not the one of Abraham. R is of the Goths who moved to Europe in the first half of the 1st century AD. They were blocked from entrance to the middle East by the Dam built by Darius. Even if Hypothetically they did cross the Caucasus, that could have happened after 1000 BC ( five to 800 years after Abraham was born, so he could not be descendent from them!. G is locusted in Iran Caucasus ( very rare in Arabic countries, known to be of the ancient Medes ( kurds ancient), H of the Dravidians in South india. E of Africa ( one of the berber and one for the somali) J2 itself is made of several subclades ( ancestries) ( one located in Balkan, one in Italy and Turkey, one in Greece, one in Georgia, and one specific to India) the current jews have all of these clades ( ancestries) Sea people were before Abraham, Troy war ( greek on another j2 or J1 of phoenicians) were 200 years after Abraham, could it be that children of Abraham increased so much in 2 or 400 years to make the nation of the (Sea people (greece or the the troys? Could it be that Abraham was descendent of the Trojans and Greeks?, then how come we don't find a trace of that specific J2 clade in the holy land or all the places jews went to? How about the bible? Did Arabs write it?

Many of the books of the Bible were written at different times. Some parts are written by Sumerians, Akkadians, Egyptians and then inserted as what is called wisdom literature but is really just plagerism from ancient sources.

Some parts are written by Greeks, Persians and people living in Samaaria, Damascus, Carchemish, Aleppo, Coptics in Alexandria and so forth.

Some of those people may have been Jewish, some Christian, some of the Greek and Roman authors may have been pagan writers acting as scribes.

Where you would probably get into arab witers would be with the parts that became the Koran, and likewise with Jewish writers the Torah.

I can't prove it but for some people writing the bible may just have been their job, they would be trained as civil scribes, generally employed to keep track of births, marriages, deaths, contracts, decrees, good at taking dictation, transcribing notes, copying or translating a page without errors and hired for their skills rather than their religious piety, much as politicians are employed for their skills regardless of their true beliefs which all in all you probably wouldn't want to knowRktect 14:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Did not the bible say that Ishmael was a son of Abraham?. J1 is exclusive to the Arabs! and found in small quantities in adjacent places inside arabic countries ( like kurdistan) and also found in Europe little ands pakistan ( just like the history says) and above all found in the other SEMITIC languages speakers ( Ethiopia and Eritheria ( Amhari, Tigri, and Tigrinia languages and races) where both Arabs and jews historically went, and also the other j1 people went before them( phoenicians canaanites, sabaeans, etc). J1 had experienced two migratory episodes into Europe ( one late Neolitthic and one recent 700 AD) to Europe and Middeteranean coast evident by the fact that there is one haplotype ( Galilee Modal Haplotype (GMH) specific to the Arab expansion of the 700 AD, AND J1 that DOES NOT HAVE THIS haplotype ( Haplotype represent recent ancestry ( 20000 years back in time), so who are those people who went to Europe and Mideterranean and the coasts of England ( even US Plymouth rock phoenician settlement 1500 BC), what it the greek? then how come the greek don't have J1 or j1 is rare where ancient greek settled ( south italy and other places), do you know of any other people other that the greek and the phoenician from the Bronse Age who wandered the Mideterranean coasts then? help me please, could it be the j2 ( of the kurds) found also in Europe ( but most of it actually in Europe not kurdistan,) did you know of any kurdistani incursion on the seas ( mountain peoples) can you name that civilization? and even if you found it, the question remains, who were the J1 people who traveled the seas into europe and England before the Arabs ( if not the Phoenicians)? A multiple new studies recently ( last in 2/ 2007) proved that there is a great affinity between race and language. Phoenicians spoke semitic language ( race no? they spoke semitic but were not semitic? why? were they forced to? by who: Did the victorious Israelites were forced to speak the language of the defeated Canaanites ( pjoenicians)? how come? Language is encrypted on the genes. recently a girl from India was found to read and write the very ancient and very extint language of Guptas (sanskrit died 2500 BC). Do you know of an excellent Araic language poet who is not Arab by ancestry?

Yes. Arabic speakers are found all over the world. I think my ancestory is probably scots irish but I speak Arabic better than Gaelic and am still illiterate in over 4000 languages. It would be immodest to speak of my skills as a poet or calligrapher Rktect 14:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How about a senegalese man who makes peoms better than Shakespear? Scientist can even trace the ancestry of people based on the changes in their language!!! ( ancient gothic for example in relation to its daughters English German and Yiddish ( Yiddish being the closest to Gothic!)Fact in etymology( on the web)

Are you done? I quickly glanced through this dribble and commented occassionly. I regret having poked my nose in; I should have known what to expect and won't bother to respond any further. A little knowledge is worse then no knowledge. Itzse 21:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

First I would like to remind editors of this: Bernard Lewis mentions in his book The Arabs in History:

"According to this, Arabia was originally a land of great fertility and the first home of the Semitic peoples. Through the millennia it has been undergoing a process of steady desiccation, a drying up of wealth and waterways and a spread of the desert at the expense of the cultivable land. The declining productivity of the peninsula, together with the increase in the number of the inhabitants, led to a series of crises of overpopulation and consequently to a recurring cycle of invasions of the neighbouring countries by the Semitic peoples of the peninsula. It was these crises that carried the Assyrians, Aramaeans, Canaanites (including the Phoenicians and Hebrews), and finally the Arabs themselves into the Fertile Crescent."^[26]

The following statement of Lewis:

The rewriting of the past is usually undertaken to achieve specific political aims... in bypassing the biblical Israelites and claiming kinship with the Canaanites, the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Palestine, it is possible to assert a historical claim antedating the biblical promise and possession put forward by the Jews... In terms of scholarship, as distinct from politics, there is no evidence whatsoever for the assertion that the Canaanites were Arabs. Clearly, in Palestine as elsewhere in the Middle East, the modern inhabitants include among their ancestors those who lived in the country in antiquity. Equally obviously, the demographic mix was greatly modified over the centuries by migration, deportation, immigration, and settlement. This was particularly true in Palestine..."^[27]

does discuss whether Canaanites were Arabs or not. This is not the subject here. We are saying that the Canaanites, whether you want to consider them Arabians or not, are indeed ancesters of the Peansants of Palestine along with others possibly the Hebrews, as mentioned on more occasion in the DNA section too... If you accept that today's Jews are indeed semitic and related to those who have existed in Palestine 2000 years ago, then you why do you reject that Palestinians are the natural descendents of Canaanites, Hebrews, Nabateans, Ghassanids, etc..... Please include Bernard Lewis remarks in that context. Again, the debate whether Canaanites were Arabs is one issue, and whether the Palestinians are descendents of Canaanite just like Lebanese and Phonecians is another issue. Please let us cooperate instead of this cat mouse game... It is just not acceptable to marginalize that section as if Palestinians are of no solid origin, heritage, or history... Note that it is an accepted fact that many of the original semitic Jews infact converted to Christianity starting with Jesus himself, and many of those converted to Islam at the end of the Umayyid period. Saying so, it should be noted that the Language of Palestine was Aramaic and Arabic and not Hebrew for the most part after 300 BC.... Jesus is beleived to have himself spoken Aramaic... But in any case, this is all not our subject... the point is that you are welcome to include sources which you like that discuss the ancestry of the Palestinians, but you cannot simply remove the citations provided. By the way, the two citations included are not the only ones that we can possibly have there.... There are too many who studied Palestine and its people in the past 200 years, and reached similar conclusions.

Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 03:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The first quote of Lewis says nothing about Palestinian origins. The second actually does; the only way Palestinan Arabs could be Canaanites is if Canaanites were Arabs. Lewis makes it clear that in Palestine the original Canaanites inhabitants were overwhelmed by a "centuries by migration, deportation, immigration, and settlement". And yes, we really, really, really can remove citations to unreliable sources. Please don't bother stating again that we can't, because not only can we, but we are obligated to do so by policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

To Jayzg: Bernard Lois is an idiot, what proof he had that Arabia as green? how does he know that Israelite peroiod is the center stage? He is a jew, and he is basing his statement on the bible? is the bible scientific? is there archaeological evidence that jews were center stage in their period? who is bypassing who? Canaanites had more evidence of their existance archaeologically (Scientifically as you want to instisdt and your Lois) than the Israelites? You are being biased for the israelites? The Israelites bypassed the Canaanites and not vice versa! You are not being scientific at all! You are being politically motivated. There is no archaeological evidence that the Canaanites were wiped out, other wise their cities and villages would have changed names which did not happen to this day. All the palestinian villages that were destroyed in 1948 had the same Canaanite names found in Archeaology!!!!! They are ruins now for the last 50 years only ( a very short period in history that does not count, and they will be rebuilt again in your life time. There is no such thing as a nation with out a land for two thousand years, the whole history is 4000 years. Beir Sab(a) is the the name that changed to Bersheva!! There is no V in all semitic languages!!

Bersheva means Well number Seven while BeirSab(a) means the well of the Lions. why the ancients will name a place (well number seven)

V is a letter in the European languages especially the Gothic language and the yiddish language, The forfeiting is obvious and widespread and stupid as Bersheva example. No body said the Canaanites were Arabs, what is your problem, the Canaanites and Arabs and Ancient jews were same people who immigrated from Arabia to the fertile cresent like Lois said, They all spoke semitic languages ( no V) Canaanites were not destroyed, they did not immigrate outside Palestine, so where are they? can you answer this question? Wasn't there Canaanites at the time of Christ? did they suddenly convert in the few years after Jesus to Judaism and hurled out of Judea with the jews? did they rebel against the Romans because Romans insulted Jehovah temple? and upheld the Canaanite Pagan gods? see the point. as for Itze:

Um, no, Lewis isn't basing his statements on the Bible, and no, he's not an "idiot", and it's not really a good idea to dismiss him because you think he's a Jew. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes he did, read Lois statement again!

Lois according to his biography was a nobody, being the little weasle he is, he try to cause clash of civilizations started byn his book in which he crossed the sound barrier in lies ( clash of civilizations) since then he became famous.

You have ultered my ref to refer to a statement from a previous article of Nebet et Al of 2000. Nebel is actually retracting his lies in the new article ( my reference) and you refuse his new finding in preference his old finding! The Three Stooges ( Nebel Hammer and Behar) all work at Family Tree DNA in which Elly Coffman works too!

Hammer being the first liar in 1997 claimed that the Cohan modal Haplotype was exclusive to Cohanim, Now we find it is 20% in Arabs of Oman, etc while it is only 3% in Israelis!!

He claimed in 1997 that Cohanim had 90% J1 and J2 haplogroups ( 80% J1 and 10% J2) and it is only 1.5% in Arabs, Now we know that J2 is 50 % in Cohanim and J1 is 25% only while in The Arabian Peninsula Project in Family Tree DNA where he works and makes big bucks, J1 is more than 90% among Arabs ( private data by th e hundreds available on the website) These guys became the laughing stock of scientists:

in Wiki page J haplogroup it says (

and that haplotypes does not mean relatedness if found in different Haplogroups. The Nebel 2000 he is actually Not refering to regular Haplotypes ( because only one haplotype was discovered by then CMH, but he was comparing intersections of interest ( to his) between Y chromosome in Arabs and Jews. You might already know that the similarity between Chimpanzi DNA and Humans is 98.5%, no wonder he came with these findings ( junk science)In several websites they talk about he retracted his big lie about similarities between Jews and Middle East pool by telling the truth the similarity is with non arabs ( even with haplotypes)

As for your statement, that this page is about palestinians not jews, you contradict your self, because you submitted the old view of Nebel about similarities between Arabs and Current jews. First and foremost it is insulting to Arabs to force non relatives on them as relatives especially if those non relatives are the people who stole their land and caused them misery.

And the subject of The non relatedness of Israelis is important in this page to clarify the right of palestinians in their stolen land and to expose that those israelis are imposters as the scientific data reveal day after day. Finally I would like to know what is your status in Wiki and if it authorize you to gravely cut people contributions that they spent so much time working on preparing while your self after you cut their contributions you add your opposing views as a replacement as you just did with me and Maqdisi.

Please give us more info about your political motivations and scientific relatedness to edit matters that obviously were not in your curreculum in school ( anthroplogy) since DNA science is medicine and genetic engineering subspecialty in medicine and medical research.

You consider Haplotypes more important than haplogroups in determining relatedness even though wiki webpages about haplogroups and haplotypes say contrary. Do you have a hunch that you are right and you can see through walss, or do you think the teachers you studied under are the best. You force m,e to clarify every statement I contribute ( referenced as Wiki instructions) from the Big bang. I am doing contributions on a hobby basis, but you are forcing me to become expert like as if I want to get a new PhD. Please have mercy. I do not even get paid for all this hard work to satisfy your uninformed inquiries and requests for clarifications. can I just not have to start from the big bang of the cosmos next times? Sincerely. PS: how can I become an administrator like you?

references of interest( not arranged properly, hope you get the picture

Jews were found to be more closely related to groups in the north of the Fertile Crescent (Kurds, Turks, and Armenians) than to their Arab neighbors[49]^[28]

here some studies expose the three stooges lies:

Members of the CMHg were observed throughout the world, with significant frequencies in various Arab populations: Oman (20.1%), Iraq (15.2%), Palestine (9.5%). Eur J Hum Genet. 2007 Jan 24;

Ashkenazi Jewish mtDNA haplogroup distribution varies among distinct subpopulations: lessons of population substructure in a closed group. Feder J, Ovadia O, Glaser B, Mishmar D.mtDNA Differences between populations of Ashkenazi Jewshttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?tmpl=NoSidebarfile&db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=17245410&dopt=Abstract

Criticism on papers regarding Jewish genetics A new paper debunks the claim that Spanish Americans are significantly crypto-Jewish, i.e., descended from Spanish Jews who hid their Jewish status to blend in, and eventually even forgot their origin. Ann Hum Biol. 2006 Jan-Feb;33(1):100-11.

Toward resolution of the debate regarding purported crypto-Jews in a Spanish-American population: Evidence from the Y chromosome. Sutton WK, Knight A, Underhill PA, Neulander JS, Disotell TR, Mountain JL.

"Ashkenazi Jewish as well as Sephardic Jewish origin also showed >85% membership in the "south" European population consistent with a later Mediterranean origin of these ethnic groups". Based on PLoS Genetics 2006 European Population Substructure: Clustering of Northern and Southern Populations Michael F Seldin et al.

Here are Anthroplogy web blog making fun of the Three stooges: 7 and 5 in particular in the top ten list for the next year 2006 expectations of future studies in DNA: 9. There will be two Neandertal genome-related announcements. 8. No Ardipithecus. 7. "Population cluster" will become the new "race". 6. There will be another paper (yes, besides the one last month) using genetics to estimate the time of the human-chimpanzee divergence. The date will be 5 million to 7 million years ago. 5. Evidence of recent selection will be found for several Y chromosome genes. http://johnhawks.net/weblog/site/new_year_predictions_2006.htmlJohn Hawks Department of Anthropology University of Wisconsin—Madison Copyright © 2007 John Hawks

Here another webblog of superior scientist to the three stooges about predictions for 2006 too:

At least one paper from the Genographic project in a venue other than National Geographic about some obscure people that no one has heard about but everyone will talk about for days. The paper will have a feel-good message about the unity of mankind. The French will continue to remain a genetic mystery, but there will be at least three more studies on Jewish population genetics.

And by the way, Lois says that claims of origins from Phoenicians are politically motivated , but he does not say that these claims are wrong, so it is more appropriate if you just added the note of the Biased jew against the palestinians after the Maqdisi contribution, since Loius has not Forbade! the claims but only consider it motivated politically which is not bad if it was TRue ( you got the idea?)abubakr 23:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

To Jayzg:

You are making a mockery of science:

The statement you took from Nebel 2001 is actually from Nebel 2000, and the statement is not unique ny it self, it is found in comparison between any two peoples of the world for example:

Jews ahve R1 (Europeans) 60% and J 20% and 10% of I (indegenous European), while Palestinians have 3? of R1 and 60% of J and 0% of I, and 10 % of E. The combining raw add of pools of Haplogroups ( including their haplotypes) will result in Pool (R1 and J and) found in both communities *0% in Jews and 80% oin Arabs. This does not tell about frequencies in each population, moreover this similarities in Nebel 2000 was made in comparison to a third ( denominator sample : The Welsh!!??) in Nebel 2000. With such a third sample even the chinese and palestinians will look more like each other than to the welsh!)

The Nebel 2001 ( my reference) main finding is as follows "The differences among Ashkenazim may be a result of low-level gene flow from European populations and/or genetic drift during isolation. Admixture between Kurdish Jews and their former Muslim host population in Kurdistan appeared to be negligible. In comparison with data available from other relevant populations in the region, ((((((((Jews were found to be more closely related to groups in the north of the Fertile Crescent (Kurds, Turks, and Armenians) than to their Arab neighbors))))))))))))). The two haplogroups Eu 9 and Eu 10 constitute a major part of the Y chromosome pool in the analyzed sample. Our data suggest that Eu 9 originated in the northern part, and Eu 10 in the southern part of the Fertile Crescent. Genetic dating yielded estimates of the expansion of both haplogroups that cover the Neolithic period in the region. Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin differed from the other Middle Eastern populations studied here, ". Nobody ever refered to the statemnent you inserted ( and replaced my ref a main finding of Nebel 2001. Hence you are showing that you as an administrator is biased towerd the jewish claims and against the Palestinians (and Arab) claim (that is supported by Nebel himself (20001, an Israeli scientist).

If you want to insist on adding ancillary findings I will have to add tons of counter findings to them, making my life miserable because I have to spend much more time on the internet. I am playing your game (Wiki guidelines that already does not recognize many references I uphold true (ancient books written in Arabic, etc, while I am bringing refs from your own poool of suspected (biased) refs like Nebel and Loius ( anti palestinian jews whom you or Wiki holds dear).

As long me and others are bringing 1 or more (non OR) refs for each contribution we bring, you should not cut ours!!!. I remind you that you cut my contrib stating that it talks about Jews ( and that the page is about Palestinians) yet at the same time kept the same ref to highjlight the ancillary finding about Jews!!. You also did not notice that same section in the article is about jews (supposedly resembling palestinians based on Junk science) for ages you did not mind this section. This proves your ( and Wiki) extreme Zionist background and motivation (Politically motivated).

What o you have to answer about the incident I just explained ( your replacement of my contribution of Nebel 2001??)abubakr 19:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, the article is about Palestinians (and their DNA), not about Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you bring the statement that jews resemble palestinians in haplotypes from Nebel 2001?? and why a big section in DNA clues is about resemblence of jewish and palestinian genes?. I added my reference in response to that section added by jews. it is a scientific evidence that Israelis and jews resemble non arabs ( mainly kurds turks and armenians) rather than arabs. this is the finding of Nebel 2000 not the quote in the body of Nebel 2001 that refers to a previous study of his 2000 which was not taken in context, because Nebel2000 actually said that in comparision to the welsh Palestinian and jews resemble each other rather than the Welsh.

and the quote you brought is not the main finding of 2000 and the quote is decieving as I explained above, and that is what I said this is a mockery of science based on political motivation and BIAS ( of an administrator of Wiki)

The whole section under DNA clues that talks about resemblane to jews should be taken off because it is not related to Palestinians accordingly to your protest, or I will have to bring more refernces to debunk them! You can see I have a lot of info but I put some in Talk page because you request that people study them slowlyabubakr 08:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The material in the section should be about Palestinians. If the sources compare Palestinians to Jews, Bedouins, other groups, that's fine. But don't put in various original research arguments about other groups. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Two Palestines

Shell we write about that now? Gaza will and always wanted to go their own way, or are they like part of Palestine but autonomous?

No, that's unrelated because what Hamas and Fatah control does not have any bearing on who is a Palestinian person. (Also, don't forget to sign your name, like so:) Smaug^{(talk to me)} 18:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 17:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC) :)

Aramaic , and Arabic

Nadav, read this pleae regarding the local languages.. As I have said, Arabic was as common as Aramaic at the end of the Byzantin perion and before the Islamic conquest... In fact, the majority of south Palestine and transjordan and Syrian desert were already speaking Arabic... The Nabatean Aramaic language has already smoothly became Arabic around 100 A.D. The area in Jerusalem and the Galilee were multi lingual and Greek was a common lanugage too. the local indigenous population though was speaking Arabic and Aramaic by the end of the Byzantine time... [50].... Please streamline references, imrove language, but let's not try to remove cited information because it is common out there... See this [51] regarding some of this information... Also do not forget that Herod's himelf was of Arab descent[52]! Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 00:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If you continue to insert erroneous material from unreliable sources, despite the lengthy discussion and consensus above, it will simply be reverted. Keep that in mind. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I had read the entire Griffith source when I said that the main languages spoken in Palestine prior to the conquest were various dialects of Aramaic and (among the elites) Greek. In fact, that was exactly the source I had in mind when I said that. Here are some excerpts from that paper:

"On the basis of the distribution of the inscriptions, one recent scholar judges that the CPA-speaking [Christian Palestinian Aramaic] population was distributed mainly in the area of Jerusalem, the Judean desert, Transjordan, and western Galilee [M. Levy-Rudin]. Presumably these people were for the most part the indigenous Christians of the Holy Land; many of them may also have been Greek speaking." (p. 8)

"And although [CPA] was the language largely of the rural population outside the major cities of Palestine, and of the non-Greek-speakers in the urban areas... (pg. 9. rest of sentence is about it having been preserved in monastic collections)"

On pages 20-1, the article discusses how even when the monks came into contact with Arabs, they spoke CPA because:

the language flourished in Palestine and Jordan, and in the monastic communities, precisely during the period between the fifth and sixth centuries. What is more, it was, according to the the findings of current authorities, M Bar-Asher, A Desreumaux, and C. Muller-Kessler, very much the language that developed locally from the old Aramaic dialect of the rural and nomadic groups of Galilee, Transjordan, and what Bar-Asher calls "a radius of 30 to 40 kilometres around the [city of Jerusalem]." No doubt there was also a currency of Arabic in this milieu in the fifth and sixth centuries, primarily among those whom Cyril [ancient historian] calls "Saracens." But Arabic in no way infringes on the communicability of CPA; bilingualism had long been a feature of the lives of the nomadic and settled Arabs in those territories in which both Aramaic and Arabic were current and intermingled. Indeed there is evidence of a considerable influence on CPA, especially in the latter period of its currency as a liturgical language.

(Just so there is no doubt, the article says CPA was still used a liturgical language well into the Islamic period.)

"As for the currency of Christian Palestinian Aramaic, the evidence suggests, as we have seen, that it flourished as a spoken and written language in Palestine and Transjordan until it gave way to Arabic in the eighth century, as the local idiom of the Melkite Christians."(p. 13)

"Milka Levy-Rubin has argued that CPA was the language of a relatively poor and disenfranchised population, outside the main urban centers in Palestine. On her hypotheses, neither CPA nor the Christian Arabic that largely supplanted it after the eighth century ever seriously displaced Greek as the dominant cultural language of the patriarchate of Jerusalem."(p. 13)

The author disagrees with her opinion that it was only the language of the poor, because:

deployment of these local languages [Aramaic, Arabic] suggests a burgeoning accommodation to the cultural facts of the place, especially at a distance from the centers of empirewide pilgrimage to the Holy Land. In the early Islamic period, when Arabic was quickly becoming the lingua franca of a new world order...Greek persisted in divine liturgy...Gradually, from the ninth century onward, while Greek retained its social prestige and iconic functions, one would be hard-pressed to find any evidence of new compositions in this lingua sacra in Syria/Palestine...CPA too persisted into the Islamic era as a local liturgical language. However, unlike Greek, it was gradually eclipsed altogether by Arabic, which was not the language of a local Christian community but the idiom of the world of Islam, which all communities in the caliphate gradually adopted for purposes of survival.

(p. 13)

"in the eighth century, Arabic was beginning to occupy that niche in the social fabric of the monasteries and the church in Palestine that had theretofore been solely the province of CPA, that is to say, the language of the non-Greek-speaking local population of the patriarchate of Jerusalem." (p.27)

"The period of the demise of CPA as a spoken language, after the eighth century, corresponds to the period of the rise of Arabic in the same milieu." (p. 27)

In short, Griffith says that while Arabic was spoken in Palestine by what the ancient historian Cyril calls the "Hagarene and Ishmaelite" "Saracen" groups, the lingua franca of Palestine prior to the conquest was Aramaic (with Greek also extremely common). Arabic only became the main language afterwards. nadav (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC) nadav (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition to being Canaanites, Palestinians are also Philistines

Rktect expands on the opinions above about Canaanites, and informs us that Palestinians and Philistines are one and the same as well. It seems he is just conflating two meanings of the word "Palestinian": one refers to inhabitants of the geographical region of Palestine, and the other refers to members of the modern-day Arab Palestinian people. For more on this, see Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian (though that article needs work). nadav (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm refering to the historical inhabitants of the region having continued to occupy the land generation after generation farming the same lands, harvesting olives from the same olive groves, continuing through millenia with very little change up until the late forties when some unfortunate events seem to have redefined what it meant to be a Palestinian in about the same way Europeans redefined what it meant to be an American when they arrived in the "New World" they desired to occupy.

Referring to Phillistines and Canaanites as the ancestors of Palestinians is about as contraversial as refering to the Clovis people as the ancestors of some modern American indian tribes. Both have about 12,000 years of historical association with their homeland. Rktect 12:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who the Clovis are, so I don't know what you are saying, but many if not most Palestinians', in the common modern usage of the word, parents/grandparents/etc immigrated to Palestine in decades preceding Israel's independence. So saying Canaanites are acenstors of today's Palestinians is as accurate as saying today's Americans are descendants of Native Americans. Dragon Smaug 16:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that most Palestinian Arabs arrived in the last few centuries from other parts of the Arab world as a direct result of the mass immigration of Jews. It is known that people go where there is a potential of a livelihood. So as the Jews immigrated; so did the Arabs, and commerce was good for both. Most Palestinian Arabs cannot prove their ancestry in Palestine for more then the modern era. So all this talk of being of Canaanite descent should be taken in the context of the origin of all the Arabs; Palestinian Arabs are the same Arabs from Syria, Egypt and Arabia who happened to end up in Palestine. Itzse 19:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Canaanite descent predicament

Nadav1, why are you and most other people in the article resorting to the utilization of conclusions of archaeologists and historians (whichever side of the debate their arguments may support) in regards to the question of Cannanite descent of the Palestinians?

Instead, should not the verdict of that matter be established by the literature and conclusions of scientists and geneticists? I forward the motion that the question of Cannanite descent of the Palestinians should be discussed ONLY in the "DNA clues" section of the article, quoting ONLY scientific sources dealing with genetic findings related directly to the Cannanite descent of Palestinians, or related genetic studies dealing with other modern peoples said to be descendants of Canaanites (the various Jewish communities, or the Lebanese as descendants of the Phonecians; though a different nation, still historically one and the same population with the Canaanites) and that these be utilised as a means to either support an affirmative or negative position to the question. Furthermore, all positions should be covered.

Also, in regards to the problem with using the word "claim", I once again insist that the quoted source being utilized is first and foremost the conclusions of a HISTORIAN. A highly educated and respected historian, indeed, but nothing more that a historian nevertheless, incapable of ultimately passing verdict on the Palestinians descent from Canaanites, or the descent of any other modern population from ancient peoples. Secondly, the only thing which is said to be a "claim" is that the Canaanites were an Arab people. It is here, in his capacity as a historian, that he criticizes anything as revisionism. Asserting that the Palestinians are descendnats of Cannanite, mixed or otherwise, cannot by definition be called revisionism, because the topic it outside the scope of historical studies, but scientific (more specifically, genetic) studies, which as already mentioned, is yet to be established. The quote lends support that asserting the Canaanites were Arabs is revisionism because it is historical concensus that they were not. It is not historical concensus that the modern Palestinians are or aren't descended from Canaanites, as this topic, as already stated, is outside the scope of historical analysis.

We all must keep out POVs out of this whole debate, and edit based on the reliable and RELEVANT (as already mentioned above) sources avaiable. Al-Andalus 07:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please trust me that I have no POV that I'm trying to push here; I'm only concerned about good science. If you examine the genetic studies, you will find nothing linking either Jews or anyone else in Palestine to Canaanites. The Lebanese-Phoenician study is not very relevant: first, because it talks about Lebanese and not Palestinians specifically, and second because not everyone agrees Phoenicians were Canaanites. The studies that linked Palestinians to Jews did not conclude that either are Canaanites. It would take a lot of original research to transform those into proof for the claim. nadav (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we must edit based on reliable and relevant sources; that's why your edits are invariably reverted. The fact that they aren't written in correct English doesn't help. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretty snarky comment... Fred Bauder 02:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

But, I think, entirely accurate. Who on earth would write this sentence: In regards to Palestinian descendance from Canaanites, there exists controversy in the approach and context of the assertion.? As for describing Lewis as "Jewish-born", I'm afraid that's really not on. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Al-Andalus did not describe anyone as "Jewish-born". That was another editor (see above). Further, Al-Andalus' edits to the article page have all been fine. Usually, people aren't as picky about grammar and spelling on the talk page. Fred Bauder's right about Jayjg's comment being snarky. His general attitude here has been aggressive and dismissive towards those whose POV he does not share. That's why this "controversy" has a tendency to continue unresolved. There is little in the way of collaboration between editors disagreeing on this issue. Stuff just gets summarily deleted when Jayjg decides it does not pass his interpretation of WP:RS. Tiamut 04:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss edits, not editors. As for Al-Andalus describing someone as "Jewish born", of course he did; see this edit where he describes Lewis as "Jewish born". Regarding Reliable Sources, quite a few editors have rejected early 20th century romantics etc. as reliable sources; I'm not sure why you're so intently and personally focussed on me, but again, please focus on edits, not editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not be hypocritical in the dispensation of your "advice". You attacked Al-Maqsidi's editing, based on one edit where he includes information on Lewis' religious background. I am discussing edits, and how yours tend towards deletion, which does little for conflict resolution and comes off as WP:OWN when used overzealously. Don't be pretend to be shocked Jayjg. I've brought it up throughout the page here, as have others. The viewpoint that Palestinians are a mix of all peoples that passed through the land before them is pretty standard. Where else did they come from? The moon? It is not within a historian's scope to speculate on the precise mixture of Palestinian ancestry. Geneticists have found clues that point to a continuous gene pool originating from the Levantine area among many Palestinians (JI Haplgroup). But the passage as is, tries to imply that the only purpose for acknowledging Canaanite ancestry among Palestinians is political, rather than really quite natural. Tiamut 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, please address only article content, not other editors, and please avoid further violations of Wikipedia's civility policy. I will not respond to your comments unless they are solely about article content, and make no personal references. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the Bible, the Canaanites and Philistines were two different people. The Philistines lived on the Phoenician coast which stretched from Syria to Egypt (which is supported by the ancient historian Herodotus); and the Canaanites lived inland and shared what became the Holy Land or Land of Israel with another six tribes mentioned in the Bible for which I think only two even have articles in Wikipedia; that’s how unimportant they are considered. But Canaanites, a long lost civilization (unknown if not for the Bible) now takes center stage because some people want to kick out other people based on lousy opinionated and fraudulent science.

This reminds me of Jacob and Laban. If studies of genetics on Canaanites would seem to favor Arabs then we are all reminded that we need to follow this new found science. If it turns out to support the Jews; then we are reminded that Philistine genetics seems to favor the Arabs. If both work for or work against a point of view; then we are told that Canaanites and Philistines are the same thing or that we can't rely on the Bible. The arguments keep on changing based on the predicament (needs) of the revisor of history.Itzse 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the opinions of historians and archaeologists as well as Geneticists should all be included; but please, in proportion to reality not wishful thinking. Itzse 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the findings of geneticists and scientists, in a topic such as the ancestry of a given people (especially one whose results would provoke a storm of political controversy due to intertwined claims to land), be given higher credence to the opinions or educated theories of historians of archaeologists. The problem arises when people arguing in favour of any given veiwpoint find it quite all right to quote the theories of historians and archaeologists and present them not only as equally authoritative to genetic findings, but somewhat more authoritative. Not only that, that they address that sensitive subject outside the "DNA clues" section.

The fact is, no genetic studies have fully established the Palestinians or the world Jewish communities to be descended from the Canaanites. And I'm not suggesting that this is to say that either is or isn't. I'm merely stating that given that fact, historians should not be left to pass verdict on the question. Have we forgotten that much of the Middle East's demographic changes throughout history have come as a result of consecutive cultural and linguistic assimmilations rather than population replacements? It could go as far, and further back, than the shift from Hebrew to Aramaic. That did not suddenly and miraculously make the population Aramean, even partially Aramean, by descent! The closest we have come to answering the question of who is, or who are, the modern descendants (mixed or otherwise) of the Canaanite is when some studies have suggested it is LIKELY that BOTH Palestinians and the world's Jews are descended from Canaanites, in addition to other peoples to greater or smaller extents.

I urge again that the Canaanite question be left to "DNA clues", to be backed with existing or future findings. If not, it will continue to be an invitation for POV pushing from all sides. Al-Andalus 09:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Your position is a fair one, but I beg to differ. If you were dealing with theories of Historians and archeologists then you would be right that if we are already dealing with theories then the findings of geneticists and scientists should be given higher credence. But in reality the historians are dealing with hard facts which is bolstered by archeology; and on the other hand the findings of geneticists and scientists which is still in its infancy; they are mere theories. To make it even worse those findings aren't at all objective but the need of the finders drives the findings.

Even on the worse case scenario if the findings will contradict the historians; that would only force historians to find the answers; but facts will stay facts. Itzse 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point. I haven't any problem with quoting historians or archaeologist. Their input is invaluable. What IS a PROBLEM is presenting those historian and archaeologists' opinions and theories (as educated as they may be) as irrefutible facts that answer the question to Canaanite or any other ancestries. How many times has history had to be re-written based on never-ending historical discoveries shedding more light on topics? The puzzle that is a historian or archaeoligst's theory is only as complete as the amount of pieces to the puzzle the historian or archaeologist has avaiable to work with. If more than 80% of the pieces of a puzzle are still missing, the result you come up with with less than 20% of the pieces may or may not be on the right path, but either way, it is still not the entire picture. Al-Andalus 08:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are we arguing? That the Arabs who existed in the Holy land in 1948 now want to claim Canaanite descent. For centuries they never dreamt of claiming that, because it would have been a stupid claim, so for what good reason act stupid? But now things have changed because there is a need to discredit and disqualify the Jews. So any thing that can be used as an argument is used as an argument no matter how stupid and how shallow it sounds. Now for arguments sake the puzzle used to be a twenty piece puzzle and historians worked with fifteen. Now the puzzle has been broken into a thousand, or a ten thousand piece puzzle; so now historians are all of a sudden dealing with only a part of the puzzle. Everything has been thrown into question. Are we Jews? Did Jews actually live in the Holy land? (according to Yasir Arafat in his famous interview; not). Did a Temple exist? Was it a Jewish Temple? Did it last more then 10 years? Who were the real inhabiters of the land? Did Abraham exist? Were the Jews really in Egypt? Did David exist? This is just a fraction of the questions put forth in the hope of watering down the Holy land and the Jews as Jewish.

But in reality to any clear thinking historian without any prejudice; Jewish history in the Holy land is simple and clear. On the other hand the Arabs that were living in the Holy land in 1948 are given a national identity based on an article in a paper that they actually wanted to be represented before the Ottoman Empire; totally out of proportion; as they considered themselves Arabs and Muslims but wanted representation before whoever ruled the land as anybody would want to in any place on earth. There is nothing that differentiates those Arabs from other Arabs but circumstances; thats about it.

Now in order to claim Canaanite descent you have to first claim that you are indigenous to the land for which there is no proof. As a matter of fact there is proof to the contrary as I have already written elsewhere. Also in order to check genetics you first have to determine that the person being checked is indigenous and the person being checked against is also indigenous; but how can you determine that objectively?

The bottom line is that the new found science is full of holes even if the science itself would be solid. So in that case genetics should be given a place in the article but in proportion to reality as a side bar; and what historians knew since time immemorial should take center stage. So even if we don't have the complete picture; this picture is complete; that a newly created people want to destroy an old known people and the burden of proof should be on the newcomers to history. Itzse 15:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Nine Bows

Peleset = Phillistine The first image on this page is a Pelest warrior captured in one of the many battles with the sea peoples. In addition to having a headress reminiscent of the Phillistines and occupying the same territoty (The story of Wen Amon for Peleset and Tjecker) his disctinctive hairstyle or headress matches that of the warriors on the Phaistos Disk from Crete.

The Sea Peoples were:

The Peleset, who were non other than the Philistines that gave their name to Palestine.

The Lukka who may have come from the Lycian region of Anatolia.

The Ekwesh and Denen who seem to be identified with the Homeric Achaean and Danaean Greeks

The Sherden who may be associated with Sardinia.

The Teresh (Tursha or Tyrshenoi - possibly the Tyrrhenians), the Greek name for the Etruscans; or :from the western Anatolian Taruisa

Shekelesh (Shekresh, Sikeloi - Sicilians?)

Some of these may have been closely tied to the tribes of the Sons of Israel, some may have been Greek, Minoan, Libyan, Anatolian, Phoenician, Assyrian, what have you fighting as mercenaries or as bandits or as traders especially of exotic spices and perfumes in Canaan.

Tutankhamuns cane portrays Libyians and the Enemies portrayed whether Cannaanites, Syrians, Libians, Nubians or Peleset all occupied Canaan at one time or another. The coats of many colors come from Sidon, the Long sidelock indicates youth there are a lot of clues as to origins...the Sons of Israel fight with unbound hair.

unbound hair

Resef a Syrian god

Baal coastal Cannan

Probably your best source for images of the different peoples will be the Oriental Institute, the Griffith Institute, or possibly touregypt. (see above) I have a large collection of the Egyptian images of peoples located in Canaan between c 1900 and 1100 BC but can't put them up here without getting them common sourced, so I'm just directing you to sites.

The Egyptians illustrate the different hair styles, clothing styles, and other indicators of ethnicity and then label them with names.

Sometimes you see this in the prisoner lists, sometimes in the execretion texts. The southern coastal tribes known as Phillistines are generally of Mycenean Greek, Minoan or Libyan extraction. They have emporia located along the coast all the way across Egypt to Cyrene in Libya.

The Phoenicians or Lebanese have cities in the north all the way up past Sideon, Tyre, Beirut to Ugarit. The Syrians from time to time occupy everything the Persians took. In the early bronse age Mari is an important player in Syria, latter its Carchemish and Damascus see (CAM) for breakout by period and empire. In Assyrian times its the border towns like Kadesh, Hamath, beth Shean and Yenoam.

Looking at it in terms of gene, oinkos and phratre is better than trying to establish ethnicity by kingdom. Running up the line of the Jordan and farther north the Orantes there are no jews until after the establishment of Judah which is relatively late. A better description would be Egyptian, Hittite, Syrian, Assyrian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Crusader, Abysside, Ottoman or British.

Religious preference has almost nothing to do with ethnicity or language. In the case of the Phillistines they were originally Greeks, thats what most of their DNA would show. Libyans may have Greek origins also. Over the years they lived among each other and their DNA would show that as well. Arabic became a dominent language and Islam one of the dominent religions throughout what had once been Canaan and later came to be knowm as Judeah, Israel, Syrian and Palestine much like English has done more recently. Well into the Middle Ages Greek, Egyptian and Latin remained important languages in Canaan and today many English speakers can be found...The Canaanites became both the jews and the palestinians...so what?.Rktect 01:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

By making a statement that the Canaanites became both the Jews and the Palestinians you are rejecting what the Bible tells us; which is your right. But rejecting the Bible doesn't automatically make it a fact that the "Canaanites became both the Jews and the Palestinians". You'll need to stand on your head and spit wooden nickels while doing three somersaults to arrive at such a scholarly conclusion.

In other words; by rejecting what is accepted as fact even by non-believers; you start at the drawing board and have to hypothesize new theories to believe in. Itzse 19:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I take the Bible as originaly composed in the languages most probably in use when the events in question occured. From that I strip off a lot of the speculation by Greek and other commentators including some 19th century archaeologists. Like most books some parts are better than others. Names of people, places and things can be collaborated from other sources, sometimes discussed from a slightly different perspective. A lot of the speculations are interesting to read but have been found rather readily debunkable by later archaeologists who have more to work with. Large parts of the Pentateuch have textual artifacts that can be traced back to the form of contracts, the price of slaves and geopolitical context. Some things are spelled out very clearly in the Bible but modern commentators simply don't believe they occured and the reason is they have made a speculation which has them looking for the wrong things in the wrong places at the wrong times.

It goes both ways that some things that they didn't believe occurred; later proved correct when they finally looked in the right place. The Bible should at the minimum have as much value to historians as an ancient history book. Why aren't ancient historians challenged as much as the Bible is, that whenever someone thinks that they caught the Bible with an error says "Aha" I caught you by the lie and believes that only these parts are true, and believes that other parts aren't true? Itzse 18:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

the Canaanites became both the Jews and the Palestinians is at least suggested by Judges 3, where the sons of Israel lived among other peoples in Canaan, intermarried with them and worshipped their gods. Some of the people they lived amongst were the original inhabitants, some were not. I think of this as a little bit like the English Language, over the years it has picked up words from pretty much every place an English speaker has ever been.Rktect 18:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

True some Jews did live among other people in Canaan. But what you are forgetting is that those people on the most part, as would repeat itself constantly in history actually disappeared from the Jewish people; intermarried and embraced new gods. The Jews of today, I would call them the "survival of the fittest"; they are actually the essential remains of a people who withstood every hardship imaginable and still exist today totally intact. As Blaise Pascal said that the existence of the Jews is proof that there is a God. Itzse 18:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What should decide the issue is the best sources and research. Personally I don't care where it comes from, the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, the Pentateuch, archaeology, history, or DNA studies so long as it is verifiable and consistent and not dependent upon a belief rather than a fact.

The Bible should need to be verifiable as much as Herodotus or Plutarch needs to be verifiable. The ancient historians wrote about things that happened centuries before them, yet their information is considered as primary sources. Itzse 18:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been studying the ANE informally for about 35 years and have collected a lot of reasonably good sources that work right across the board. I find the Egyptian descriptions of their neighbors are pretty decent, albeit they come with some rather strong POV. Some examples of good agreement are the coat of many colors which comes from the area of the northern tribes around Sidon gong back to about 1900 BC, and the unbound hair that typifies the Sons of Israel when going into battle. You can link the tribes and locations with historic events such as the Amarna letters, and then go look for evidence such as the dates Hazor was burned. It requires that a lot of 19th century speculation be lifted away but there are new sources that discuss sites like Timnah to replace them with.Rktect 02:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I also find they compliment rather than conflict with the version coming from the people of the book once you strip off the patina of religious gloss and get down to the basics.Rktect 02:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Arabs and Palestine

I am not convinced with how the ancestry part stands at now. The Canaanite issue is not the only problem we have here! What about other Arabian states and tribes that inhabited Palestine like the Nabateans? Ghassanids Arab Kingdom? Iturean Arab kingdom? and more and more......

The ancestry part bluntly is written in a way that presents Arabs as 7th Century Islamic invaders new comers to Palestine!!... Arabs have been populating Palestine since 2500BC a fact that Bernard Lewis himself mentions in his book Arabs in History.. See the other Book by Philip Hitti.... Even Herod the Great was athnically an Arab and son of both Arab Sheikh and mother Sheikhah [53] [54][55]....

I think some editors here are not interested to see the word Arab in regard to Palestine's social and political history preceding the 7th Century. This is total unacceptable bias... And Jayjig, the stalking and removal of information under the accusation that it is an original research proves the ignorance of those who say it, not anything else.

Arabic as a language really begins then. Semitic languages are much earlier, but what defines arabic is its literary style and to some extent the beauty of the caligraphy matching the beauty of the words.Rktect 03:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 22:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

A better word than arab might be semite c 2500 BC, if for no other reason than because its the Romans who came up with that label much later. Arab implies a people existed to whom the lable Arab could be applied, but c 2500 BC you are talking no groupings much larger than tribe. I'll allow that by c 2000 there were people who eventually became arabs and jews settled in the Negev and Arabia Petra; Nabateans for example and the Shashu and Rephidim and Amalakites who were still nomadic.

If someone found a way to do DNA stufies on the Shashu such as those who are pictured captured during the battle of Kadesh that might be interesting as they appear to be genuine giants, like the giant phillistine Goliath who is said to have fought David.

shashu. right above the label a pair of shashu identified by the label above them are being beaten. On their knees they stand as tall as the Egyptians beating them.Rktect 03:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You are consistently confusing the words "Arab" and "Arabian"/Semite. Anyway, concerning the Ghassanids, who were indeed Arab: they were concentrated in the Golan and Syria, not Palestine. nadav (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Arab is apropriate usage after c 700 AD between the Romans naming their region Arabia after the Araba and c 700 there is half a millenium in which they are better named as tribe rather than as people. The people concentrated in what Israel called Naphtali and Zebulon up as far north as Dan Kadesh and Damascus were still Nahrin until the Romans brought in the Ghassanids as govenors.Rktect 03:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I am only pointing out that for you. I did not write these articles... I am passing information to you that is it. You are free to accept it or reject. Personally, I think you are not trying to understand it. That is it really. On another issue, if you pick and History book taught in the Arab world, you will find most of this information passed to generations of people... You like it or not, Arabs consider Canaanites to be part of the ancient tribes emerging from Arabia. Arabians have been mentioned even in the Bible... Arabs may be defined in several ways.. In the ancient time, it was to mean those who originate from the Arabian peninsula.. Arabian Peninsula per definition, at least the Greek definition, included the Palestinian and Syrian desert... Making Canaanites already and extension of the Semitic tribes inhabiting Arabia. A new more general accepted definition for Arabs is Arabic-speaking... This is because many of the people in today's Arab world may not be related to families that historically originated from the Arabian Peninsula... To be precise, let's say like the English-speaking people. Of course, there are still some notable Arab families that can trace back their origins to Arabia and the Arabs who spread out from Arabia during the Islamic period. But many do not.

To summarize.. Nabateans are Arabs... No one for sure knows that is exactly the language spoken in Arabia 2500BC... But it is a consensus that the script of current Arabic letters are Aramaic, and that Aramaic has seamlessly united with the Arabic language... Palestinian Arabic for example is one of those dialects of Arabic. Regarding Herod, he is only an example of the many non-Jewish tribes, semitic tribes, that have lived in Palestine, which are usually refered to as Arabians... If you do not want to consider Arabians to be Arabs, this is a seprate issue. The buttom line, is that Palestinians have an ancestry that combines the Pre-Roman and Roman time Arabians including - Nabateans, Ghassanids (Capital Damascus ruling all Levant including Palestine), and Canaanites, Amorites, and others... Ancient Arabian tribes are like ancient Hebrews, have really many interesting nams, and lived more or less in close areas... In fact, if you read the bible more closely, you will notice several mentions of Arabian tribes that existed in Canaan at the time. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 22:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

1- Is there Wikipedean who thinks that there is no consensus among historians that Canaanites are an extension of tribes from northern Arabia, and to that matter that they are of Arabian origin... Bernard Lewis, among many other historians, does not seem to object to that. In fact, this popular hypothesis of the origin of Canaanites is also mentioned in his book. See Regarding first Arabs in Palestine, you may read this [56]. See also Lewis' comments to this regard:

Cananites are neither semitic nor arab. Its possible they are closer to cro magnon or neaderthal than homo sapiens, they are just really big boned, large, tall, thick people. In the relatively recent past there was discussion among anthropologists as to whether the neanderthals found cohabiting caves on Mt carmel with home sapiens intermarried. The canaanites might be the answer.

[Kebara_Cave] Canaan Rktect 04:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The earliest known events in Arabian history are migrations from the peninsula into neighbouring areas ^[29]. Around 3500 BC, Semitic-speaking peoples of Arabian origin migrated into the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia, supplanted the Sumerians, and became the Assyro-Babylonians (see Babylonia and Assyria). Some archeologists argue that another group of Semites left Arabia around 2500 BC during the Early Bronze Age and settled along the Levant, mixing in with the local populations there. Some of these migrants became the Amorites and Canaanites of later times. Some archeologists argue that the migration instead came from the northern Levant. Other archeologists argue that there was no migration, and that the outside influences found in the indigenous Levantine population resulted from trade. Bernard Lewis mentions in his book The Arabs in History:

"According to this, Arabia was originally a land of great fertility and the first home of the Semitic peoples. Through the millennia it has been undergoing a process of steady desiccation, a drying up of wealth and waterways and a spread of the desert at the expense of the cultivable land. The declining productivity of the peninsula, together with the increase in the number of the inhabitants, led to a series of crises of overpopulation and consequently to a recurring cycle of invasions of the neighbouring countries by the Semitic peoples of the peninsula. It was these crises that carried the Assyrians, Aramaeans, Canaanites (including the Phoenicians and Hebrews), and finally the Arabs themselves into the Fertile Crescent."^[30]

This can also be found in History Channel, and many other places like [57] and like [58].

2- The comments included in this article that cite Lewis are in response to whether Canaanites are Arabs or not, it is not to whether Palestinians relate to Canaanites, or whether Canaanites, although Arabians, are Arabs. Isn't this confusing? Can someone explain to me what is the purpose or the context of this paragraph really. How would you balance between these two points appropriately?

Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 23:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There were no arabs c 2500 BC when the semites from the interior of the Arabian penninsula began moving toward the coasts. The interior is very different from the coast along the Red Sea where the mountains are high and the baboons are thick along the guard rails. There are houses that go back before there were semites. In the interior along the banks of long since dried up rivers there are kites and cairns of the gazelle hunters that go back to before there were deserts there. All I'm saying is that to this day you can find quite a mix of races and ethnic groups on both sides of the Red Sea that still define themselves as tribe rather than as a people or nation.Rktect 03:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

1) I think we basically understand each other now. Arabian is a general term that can refer to many groups that are theorized to have originated in Arabia (including the Hebrews and other groups not designated "Arabs"), though usually some variation of the word "Semite" is used. The word, "Arab," however appears only in the first millenium BCE and I have never seen it used to describe Semites in general. (And, as you say, the modern meaning of "Arab" is now merely Arabic speaking) I've started browsing through this book, which looks to be very informative about all these topics. nadav (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there some convention we can agree on that makes clear who, what, when, where, why and how? For example I think it makes some sense to allow the original Canaanites are not entirely assimilated into the general population at a point prior to the 19th Dynasty because we still have recognizable images of them in that period. They are just really really big and tall people. After that its possible to speak of Palestinians with Canaanite ancestors but they aren't really Canaanites anymore. Is it confusing to speak of a non semitic arab, defining by language and culture rather than the genetics some suggest testing?I have always been taught that you can't stereotype populations... does that not apply to cultures and their traditions also?Rktect 00:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Folklore

I have included two references from non Palestinians, without quoting them just to be consistent. Also, I think there should be a part discussing Palestinian folklore. Particularly their dressing, etc... I think we can use some of this there, not in the ancestry part, but in the folklore part. Can somebody help please? Here is the material removed from the ancestry part. If someone can make use of it in a folklore section. It is true that the Palestinian peasants preserved the names of the towns of their ancesters.. It is true that their dressing is special, and in line with the general dressing in ancient Syria, which inherited the dressing style known by the ancient semitic, Arabian :), tribes.... Here is the material for your consideration:

A 1923 study, Palestine Peasantry, authored by E.A. Finn, concluded that the Arab fellaheen in Palestine were aboriginal people and descendants of ancient Canaanite nations.^[12] Finn's conclusion was based on five main premises: 1) the five Canaanite nations (Jebusites, Amorites, Hivites, Perizzites, and Hittites), "continued to exist in the land until the Christian era, and cannot have been annihilated or driven out since;" 2) "fellaheen are apparently aboriginal people and there is no tradition or record to show that they are anything else;" 3) "many customs of the Canaanites prohibited in the law of Moses still exist as customs of the fellaheen;" 4) "they [fellaheen] have preserved the ancient geographical names;" and, 5) "there appear to be customs among them derived from the Israelites."^[13] Barbara McKean Parmenter has also noted that the Arabs of Palestine have been credited with the preservation of the indigenous Semitic place names for many sites mentioned in the Bible which were documented by the American archaeologist Edward Robinson in the early 20th century.^[14] Sir James Frazer, in his book Folklore in the Old Testament: Studies in Comparative Religion Legend and Law, mentioned:

"It is the opinion of competent judges that the modern fellaheen or Arabic-Speaking peasants of Palestine are descendants of the pagan tribes which dwelt there before the Israelite invasion and have clung to the soil ever since, being submerged but never destroyed by each successive wave of conquest which has swept over the land."^[31]

If you may cut and paste things into a section regarding the folklore of Palestinians would be great. We can still make use of these references in that perspective. Thanks... Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 23:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know if the following is folklore or history. The accounts are fairly consistent and there are enough of them to suggest a history. The Egyptians also portray the Shashu as very large, as tall as a man when on their knees. When we speak of the ancestors of the Palestinians and Jews as Phillistines and Canaanites and people who moved in to live among them, these would be the people Judges 3 5-7 tells us they lived among and intermarried with and whose gods they worshipped;

5 And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites:

6 And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and served their gods.

7 And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and forgat the LORD their God, and served Baalim and the groves.

These people the Sons of Israel are living among are in part unusually large, tall persons, apparently having great physical strength; especially among the tribes of Aram and the Nahrin, and among the tribes of Edom, Manassah, Zebulon, Naphtali and those living at Ashteroth, Gilead, Hebron, Debir, Anab, Kirjath-arba, Gaza, Gath, Ashdod, and Jerusalem where we have mentions of Chedorlaomer, Anak, Arba, Og, Goliath, Ishbi-benob, Saph, Sippai, Bashan, and Argob

(Gen. 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Gen. 14:5 And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim,

Moses 8:18 And in those days there were giants on the earth, and they sought Noah to take away his life; but the Lord was with Noah, and the power of the Lord was upon him. and after

Num. 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Deut. 2:10 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims;

Deut. 2:11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.

Deut. 2:20 That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims;

Deut. 3:11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

Deut. 3:13 And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants.

Deut. 9:2 Raphah of Gath was said to be the father of several giants of whom Goliath was one

Joshuah 11:21 And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel: Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities.

Joshuah 11:22 There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained.

Josh. 12: 4 And the coast of Og king of Bashan, which was of the remnant of the giants, that dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei,

Josh. 13:12 All the kingdom of Og in Bashan, which reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei, who remained of the remnant of the giants: for these did Moses smite, and cast them out.

Joshuah 14:12 Now therefore give me this mountain, whereof the LORD spake in that day; for thou heardest in that day how the Anakims were there, and that the cities were great and afenced: if so be the LORD will be with me, then I shall be able to drive them out, as the LORD said.

Joshuah 14:15 And the name of Hebron before was Kirjath-arba; which Arba was a great man among the Anakims And the land had rest from war. (a giant among giants)

Josh. 15:8 And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same is Jerusalem: and the border went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the valley of the giants northward:

Josh. 17:15 And Joshua answered them, If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country, and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee.

Josh. 18:16 And the border came down to the end of the mountain that lieth before the valley of the son of Hinnom, and which is in the valley of the giants on the north, and descended to the valley of Hinnom, to the side of Jebusi on the south, and descended to En-rogel,

1 Sam. 17:4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. (Over 9 feet tall)

2 Sam. 21:16 And Ishbi-benob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David.

2 Sam. 21:18 And it came to pass after this, that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob: then Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Saph, which was of the sons of the giant.

2 Sam. 21:20 And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.

2 Sam. 21:22 These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.

1 Chr. 20:4 And it came to pass after this, that there arose awar at Gezer with the Philistines; at which time Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Sippai, that was of the children of the giant: and they were subdued.

1 Chr. 20:6 And yet again there was war at Gath, where was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six on each hand, and six on each foot: and he also was the son of the giant.

1 Chr. 20:6 A 12-fingered, 12-toed giant is also mentioned as one of the sons. The giants in Palestine were also known as Ankims, Emins, and Zamzummins.

1 Chr. 20:8 These were born unto the giant in Gath; and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.

Job 16:14 He breaketh me with breach upon breach, he runneth upon me like a giant.

Moses 7:15 And the giants of the land, also, stood afar off; and there went forth a curse upon all people that fought against God;

Moses 8: 18 And in those days there were giants on the earth, and they sought Noah to take away his life; but the Lord was with Noah, and the power of the Lord was upon him.

Rktect 13:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please engage in discussion over intro

For those who have a problem with the intro as it is now, I would appreciate a discussion before reversions to old versions whose unsuitability was discussed with Itzse above. As for Rktect edits, I appreciate the effort and thrust but would like to see some sources since not many people are familiar with this material. Thanks. Tiamat 16:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I use online references where I can but most of my references are from books. If you want a specific reference from a book that I can't find online I'll try and type it out for you as a quote. Pictures are harder because they aren't all common source. Here is the basic list of references I use. I cut and paste whichever are relevent:Rktect 17:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Long list of books removed.[59] nadav

Why would you remove a requested list of references?Rktect 04:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(talk) 23:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut. As you know, Shahin is not a reliable source, and we've been through this many times. Her travel guide had pretty pictures, but not one footnote. Any edits that re-insert that material are simply unacceptable. Find reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. I do not know that Shahin is not a reliable source. That's your opinion, not shared by other editors here. Nevertheless, and as always, so as to accomodate you, I found other sources to back up her statements. While I did not remove Shahin as a source, I did add another source for every statement that she was used for in the ancestry section. Therefore your deletion is rather unwarranted and could have been restricted to removing Shahin refs only, rather than the entire body of text. Please self-revert. Thanks. Tiamat 12:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Was there any reference on the list Nadav removed that was objectionable?Rktect 04:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

None so far as I am concerned. But that also depends on what the books are used for. It would be best for you to draft a paragraph that cites some of these books so that we can see how you intend to use them. Adding refs without accompanying text to the article is superfluous, except to note them in an Additional reading section perhaps. Tiamat 12:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I added some of them to the Jerusalem page cited book and page to show how Jerusalem became a city based on the very lucrative international trade across the Red Sea to Thebes and North to Tyre Canaanites trading horses to the Mitanni, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt in exchange for building materials, metals timber, and gold began c 1900 BC. The trade south through Elat and across the red Sea included juniper oil, bitumen, naptha, linen, woven papyrus, mixed with cargos coming north from yemen to include frankincese and myhr all traded across the Red Sea for Nubian Gold or ovrland following the kings highway along a line of fortified wells for grain.Rktect 19:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not expand this to some of the archaeogists who have been leading the discussion over the last 30 years. Trudy Dothans, Ken Kitchen, Michael Dever, Emanuel Anati, Benjamin Sass, James Harris, Dana Hone, Moin Haloun, Hubert Grimm? [semites and canaanites in the Negev] Rktect 19:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's rename the article before we discuss the introduction

Tiamat has suggested that we discuss the intro which has been a bone of contention.

Before we discuss what the content of the intro should be, we need to first go to the root of the problem; then I think everything will fall into place.

The problem is that the name of the article in and of itself is patently wrong, misleading and POV; which forces us to craft the intro to correct what it wrongly insinuates; otherwise the reader of the article will walk away thinking that a "Palestinian people" is a fact and there are no other opinions on the matter.

Let me explain if it still needs explaining. There is an article called Palestine which refers to the region called Palestine. Rightly or wrongly, it’s a fact. Then we have an article Palestinian Jews which talks about the Jews living in Palestine. Now for the Arabs living in Palestine we should have an article called Palestinian Arabs; instead, lo and behold "Palestinian Arabs" gets redirected to "Palestinian people"; which means that Wikipedia becomes an accomplice to pushing a one-sided POV and de-facto creating a "Palestinian people" which never existed. This is totally unfair to say the least.

Yes, there were Arabs living in Palestine just as there were Jews living there who were identified together as “Palestinians”, or as "Palestinian Arabs" and "Palestinian Jews" when identified individually. But after the establishment of the State of Israel, those Arabs who didn't want to be called "Israeli Arabs" were left without an identity, so by default they were called "Palestinians”. But that's a far cry from calling them "Palestinian People" which is a brand new creation for a political agenda.

At its best even if you don't agree with me; "Palestinian People" as it stands is POV, and it should be renamed to "Palestinian Arabs" which will automatically link directly numerous redirects. Itzse 21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your request, but the article name policy is to generally stick with the most common English name, which I think you will agree is "Palestinians" in this case. Indeed, I propose renaming this article to "Palestinians." nadav (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Palestinians" is a great improvement over "Palestinian people" as far as POV is concerned and would rectify most of the POV injustice, but it will still leave some vagueness; as the Neturei Karta consider themselves "Palestinians" and for the rights to Palestine the Israelis haven't relinquished their claim as Palestinians. So by renaming this article to "Palestinians" we would still need some clarification in the intro to explain the nuances.

Therefore I propose to rename the article to "Palestinian Arabs" with "Palestinians" redirected to it, so that when "Palestinian" is mentioned in the context of Arabs it will rightly link to "Palestinian Arabs" and when "Palestinian" refers to "Palestinian Jews" it will link to "Palestinian Jew" as it actually does in some articles. As to "Palestinian people" it should become a paragraph name in the "Palestinian Arabs" article, explaining the term, usage and history and all opinions about it.

As far as the most common English name; "Palestinians" is commonly used as short for "Palestinian Arabs" and both are equally commonly used. So in our case where the term "Palestinians" has a POV innuendo and needs clarification, it's better to use the unvague and precise term "Palestinian Arabs" which leaves no question as to what is talked about. Itzse 16:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I did some research and found that the article was renamed on January 5, 2006 from "Palestinian" to "Palestinian people" by Khoikhoi; and for a reason he gives: "Moved Palestinian to Palestinian people to avoid confusion"^[32]. Little did he know that he would create more confusion. On July 29, 2006 Khoikhoi finished off the cycle by redirecting "Palestinian Arabs" to "Palestinian people"^[33].

So here you have it; we can either go on the old tracks that didn't work or we can go on new tracks which are accurate. Itzse 23:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell: "Palestinian People" is POV, "Palestinian" was tried and found to be ambiguous and confusing. Therefore its time to try the correct term which is "Palestinian Arab".

As there are no objections, “Palestinian People” is being renamed to “Palestinian Arab” as per WP:Article naming policy, specifically WP:Precise. I hope that this will clear up any confusion.

As I don’t have much technical experience; if I botch up, please fix whatever needs to be fixed. Thanks everybody. Itzse 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The most recent version representative of the two camps positions is this one [60]. Unfortunately, the introduction and other unrelated edits in the DNA section also get reverted to different versions as well in the course of the this edit war. But it seems that the "Ancestry" section is the major point of contention. 11:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this dispute about the Shahin reference, or are there other issues?--Doron 12:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure actually. If the dispute was about the Shahin reference, Jayjg could simply have removed it from the latest version, rather than reverting everything as he did in the edit cited above. I say this because I added another reference beside the Shahin reference where used in the ancestry section, so the material is supported by another (as yet) undisputed source. But perhaps others who have deleted this information can explain their position further. Discussion as of late has been rather sparse. Tiamat 12:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the two conflicting sides list as many refs as possible on this talk page so that the outsiders can see some light into this dispute. (Wikimachine 12:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

Per Wikimachine's request, here are the nine sources being used to support the information in the two paragraphs in the Ancestry section repeatedly being deleted by one group of editors :

The Encyclopedia of the Orient [61]
Palestine: A Guide by Mariam Shahin (2005)
Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan by Ilene Beatty (1957)
Jerusalem: Arab Origin and Heritage by M.A. Aamiry (1978)
Giving Voice to Stones Place and Identity in Palestinian Literature by Barbara McKean Parmenter (1994) [62]
Michael Balter, "Palestinians Inherit Riches, but Struggle to Make a Mark" in Science, New Series, Vol. 287, No. 5450. (Jan. 7, 2000), pp. 33-34.
Their Promised Land: Arab and Jew in History's Cauldron-One Valley in the Jerusalem Hills by Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright (1990) - See also: [63]
Kathleen Christison. Review of Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright's Their Promised Land: Arab and Jew in History's Cauldron-One Valley in the Jerusalem Hills. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 21, No. 4. (Summer, 1992), pp. 98-100.)
Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry Into Conflict and Prejudice by Bernard Lewis (1999)

As has been explained already, Shahin's work is a travel guide, very pretty pictures but not one footnote. Aamiry's work is a propaganda pamphlet that abuses its sources. I've made it quite clear already that I'm not going to try to tease out any potentially useful information from edits which use these sources, which have already had literally thousands of words explaining why they are not reliable sources. Regarding the other sources, Parmenter's book is a literary work, not a book of history or anthropology. http://www.cactus48.com/ "Cactus48" is a personal website, and a highly POV one at that, filled with dubious propagnda material; the fact that someone has even attempted to try to use this as a source shows that they have either failed to take WP:V seriously, or are simply editing in bad faith. The book by Beatty is from 1957; as has been explained, we're looking for books from the last two decades, perhaps 3 at most, not ancient works from 50 years ago. Regarding the others, I'd need to see what material exactly is being attributed to them. Finally, the article is about modern Arab Palestinians. Please keep that in mind; it is not a repeat of the Palestine article, nor is it about the ancient history of Palestine. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

First, as already explained, Beatty is used in the place of Shahin and her work constitutes as RS here. Second, Aamiry's work is a compilation of other sources. He quotes Kathleen Kenyon on this, and in any case, he's an author who has put forward this thesis and should be represented per NPOV. Third, Parmenter's book relies on the work of Edward Robinson and is certainly relevant and verifiable. Fourth, cactus48.com was provided as an url to access a copy of the exact quote from Marcia Kunstel's book - it's not the primary source for this information and the book is recent. Fifth, there is no compelling reason to discount books older than two decades old. Finally, an article about Palestinians should include information about where they come from and who they were. They were largely Arabs, Arabized or otherwise, of which there is a long documented history and this is relevant to the article. Tiamat 16:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Shahin, if you're not using Shahin, then stop using her. Regarding Beatty, it's a 50 year old book. Regarding Aamiry, it's a 40 year old propaganda tract that abused Kenyon, as has been explained many times; who is Aamiry, and why should we trust him? If you're going to rely on Robinson, then rely on Robinson; Parmenter's book is a literary work. cactus48 is unreliable for anything, and in any event Kunstel and Albright are journalists, not historians, and we know the editorial slant of the JPS. Regarding ancient works, they aren't reliable regarding current views of ancestry or origins of the Palestinians; two decades old is likely the oldest that will be aware of recent scientific and historical research, and three decades is stretching it. Regarding the rest, we need to see exactly what you are citing from them. In general, though, start with the most non-contentious claims from the best sources. Don't insert some possibly good edit in amongst all the POV from garbage sources, as that's a just a way to ensure that the whole mess is reverted. You seem to understand the concept of good sourcing when it suits you. It's not up to other editors to try to tease out some possibly good edit from a mass of nonsense that you already know doesn't comply with policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

First, your opinion does not constitute policy. Second, there is no parallel between the site I deleted in that diff you provided and a work by a scholar on Palestinian literature that explores the issue of Palestinian identity. Third, you can read, so evaluate the diff provided with the text you deleted and determine if the sources not covered in your sum-up are appropriate there. Fourth, where is the policy that eliminates the use of works based on their date of publication? Fifth, cactus48 just reprints a paragraph in Kunstel and Albright's book which reads: "Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan... Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews [in the second century A.D.] were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes."^[34] Sixth, nothing in Wiki policy excludes the use of secondary source, Parmenter relaying Robinson is fine, in other words. Aamiry is used for one sentence and other sources can be found, if you find him so offensive. Finally, I don't see the problem with citing Shahin alongside others who uphold her views. It happens often when you force me to get another source for things attributed to her, only showing how misplaced your mistrust in her is. Tiamat 18:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, I'm not going to repeat myself much more. First, I do know policy, and my "opinion" has been supported by a number of other editors here. Second, a journalist writing an impressionistic travel book is no more reliable than any random website, not for Wikipedia's purposes. Third, don't force me to sift through a haystack trying to find a needle that might not even be there. Fourth, WP:V. Fifth, unreliable sites are unreliable, period, and I've gone over the issues with Kunstel and Albright even if you had the actual source, which you don't. Sixth, use history books. Seventh, find reliable sources. Eighth, a source doesn't become reliable simply because someone else says the same thing as them. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This dispute is leaving me confused. Let's set aside the references question for a moment. What are the actual points that you want the article to address? I can discern three things that seem to be disputed in the reverting: 1) How the lead should refer to Palestinian minorities (this is being addressed in another talk section) 2) Whether more weight should be given to the opinions of the Canaanite-Palestinian connection writers 3) Whether there should be a summary of historical rules of Palestine in the Ancestry section, and whether this summary should be based on Shahin. Is this a fair description? nadav (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

All except number 3, since an alternate source has been found (Beatty) who conveys all of the same information Shahin does. Tiamat 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As has been explained, Beatty's work is 50 years old; it's not reliable any more, if it ever was. Out of curiosity, can you explain what might have made Beatty a reliable source even in 1957? Was she a professor of Palestinian history at some prestigious university? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of this article, why don't we start discussing changes to the article one at a time, starting with the changes that are most likely to be accepted, as Jayjg as suggested. I'm sure the revert war included minor innocent changes that neither side would object, and hopefully some more substantial edits that may possibly be accepted by the other party with minor adjustments.--Doron 06:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer rather that those editors who find particular references to be inadequate, remove the refs currently cited and replace them with {{Fact}} tags so that we can begin to see which areas need more work. Tiamat 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, let's not add dubious material to the article, and then fuss about it with tags; instead, let's only add stuff that comes from excellent sources and complies with all of Wikipedia's policies. That way we can ensure that the article will only get better, never worse. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Responding to the RfC. Folks, this is very confusing, and seems to be more confusing than it needs to be. First of all, why are the reverts of Tiamut's work monolithic, when the objections to her sources are itemized and pertain only to aspects of what she's added? What's wrong with line-item veto? This wholesale approach means that material seemingly unrelated to the bone of contention – and possibly resolvable if addressed on its own – is getting swept up in and infected by the spirit of intransigence. How on earth do objections to Tiamut's sources create a pretext for re-inserting hoary myths and POV phrasing like this – "this number is disputed as it also includes the descendants of Palestinians who left prior to the 1948 war when their Arab neighbors asked them to leave temporarily to allow for an easier purge of Palestine's Jewish inhabitants" – back into the article?

Secondly, the objections to her sources are of wildly varying legitimacy. The travel book surely doesn't belong. But what significance should it hold for other editors that one editor has decided a book is a "propaganda tract"? Or that only scholarship from the last twenty years should count? Giving voice to stones : place and identity in Palestinian literature is not a "literary work"; that phrase refers to a creative work of poetry, fiction, or theater, not a scholarly study. One of the Library of Congress subject headings for the book in question, moreover, is "Palestinian Arabs -- Ethnic identity." The Journal of Palestine Studies is one of the preeminent scholarly journals of the subject at hand, unassailable as a reliable source, its credibility a function of its mechanisms of academic peer review, not of the thumbs-up or thumbs-down of Wikipedians.--G-Dett 23:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This was reinserted by a redlinked new user, and removed in my version. Tewfik^Talk 19:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg's objections seem to center around material in these two paragraphs [64]. As such, I have restored all changes unrelated to what he has raised here while omitting the two paragraphs until we can discuss them in more detail per Doron's suggestion. Note that by this action I have also reverted Itzse (talk · contribs)'s undiscussed moving and renaming of this page from Palestinian people to Palestinian (Arab). This is a rescope of the article, the definition of Palestinian being wider than just Arab, with non-Arab Palestinians discussed as well (and hopefully more to come. I have been meaning to add more on Armenian Palestinians, Samaritans, etc.). Tiamat 17:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't Doron's suggestion at all. Rather, he said For the benefit of this article, why don't we start discussing changes to the article one at a time, starting with the changes that are most likely to be accepted, as Jayjg as suggested. Now, discuss, starting with the first one. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, If you didn't see it, that doesn't mean that Itzse didn't discuss "moving and renaming of this page from Palestinian people to Palestinian (Arab)". You were the one who started the paragraph and I responded. Are you telling me that you don't look at what people are responding to you? I wonder how you can get away with a blatant lie when it's here for all to see. Itzse 23:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it pick on Tiamat day? Why don't we take it easy fellas? No need to be argumentative. Jayjg, I though your objection was confined to the points you raised in the RfC, which centered around the two paragraphs which I removed while restoring all other edits you kept reverting in along with your deletion of those paragraphs. Itzse, I meant that there was no consensus and no significant discussion. Forgive me if my comments were so broad and widesweeping as to be inaccurate. Thanks. Tiamat 00:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No it's not "pick on Tiamat day". I didn't wake up this morning and say, oh I'll pick on Tiamat. What you did is totally unjustifiable. If you are biased, say so. If you're not, then explain your position. Sorry but as an historian and as a person who has seen a lot; It's difficult to give you the benefit of the doubt; I ain't no fool. Itzse 00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So Doron says it's fine with him to rename this article back to "Palestinians", the way it was for a number of years. Nadav and GHCool agree with that too. I'll go along with it. So Tiamat if you have any objections say it now before we proceed. Itzse 00:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that Tiamat also gave her consent to rename it back to "Palestinians", so we can go ahead.

I don't have the ability to do it. Can someone please do it? Who volunteers? Thanks everybody. Itzse 00:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just come here from RfC and am totally confused. It appears that some of what was disputed in the diff [65] has been resolved. What hasn't? Aside from the lead? Hornplease 09:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally-speaking, besides the intro, there is too much weight given to a refutation of Palestinian descent from peoples who preceded them in the region, and a reluctance to accept the validity, reliability, etc., of those sources who do claim such a descent. If you notice, Jayjg restored this [66] a much older version of one of the two paragraphs I deleted in the diff you provided above. This paragraph quotes Bernard Lewis to refute Palestinian descent, even though the claim is hardly made. (Since Jayjg keeps deleting the material I and other editors have added, claiming it is unreliable).Tiamat 09:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion without an explanation is unacceptable

Three days with no objection is concensus. I clearly layed out my arguments and waited for any objections. When there was none I made the change.

Now concensus is required when there is a dispute. Here there is no dispute. If you disagree, where were you for the last three days?

Khoikhoi didn't wait for any concensus, he explained and acted. I went the extra mile and clearly explained my intent; when for a POV injustice as per WP:Precise you don't have to wait. Itzse 17:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I object and didn't see your earlier comments. A page move like this one is a rescope of the article which includes mention of non-Arab Palestinians as well, and should include even more. Tiamat 17:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Where were you when this article was renamed from "Palestinians" to "Palestinian People"? Did you object to that too?

I can't prove that you did see my comments, when you were the one who brought up the subject. But even if you might not have seen it; dozens of Administrators and hundreds of Wikipedians were watching it; and the result was no objections.

If you want to turn this back to a blatently POV name; you are the one that needs to build concensus. Itzse 17:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A regards your first question, I don't think I was, nor do I see the relevance.

You made your comments only in the last week and there has been a lot of discussion on other topics in the meantime as well that were directly related to another ongoing edit war. I'm not surprised that yours might have been overlooked.

That there was agreement to move this page from Palestinians to Palestinian people means that a lot of people agreed on what you are calling "a blatantly POV name". In other words, consensus was already reached once on this name. So actually it is you that has to build consensus for the proposed move. As I have already said, confining the definition of Palestinian to Palestinian Arab, rescopes this article and ignores Jews, Samaritans, Armenians, not to mention Bosnians and others who are also considered and consider themselves to be Palestinians. Tiamat 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Concensus was not reached then when Khoikhoi changed it from "Palestinians" to "Palestinian People"; he did it without concensus. I, on the other hand gave ample time for anybody who can cough up an argument to object. The reason it wasn't objected to is quite clear, because there are no reasons to keep a POV article name. So in a bid to try to prevent justice to be served; we are now going to argue if POV names are ok?

To see if you're sincere, I'll give in for the time being to rename it back to "Palestinians" for which I have a clear ok by the fair-minded Nadav. It is wrong to request me to wait, to right a wrong. Itzse 19:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I came here on an RfC, and don't plan to stay, but for what it's worth Wikipedia's naming convention is pretty clear about what it calls "self-identifying terms":

Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. The Cabindans use the term in a descriptive sense: that is what they call themselves. The Maputans oppose this usage because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term. They take a prescriptive approach, arguing that this usage should not be allowed.

Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen. By contrast, the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective. It is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide.

In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. On the other hand, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV.

In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe.

This should not be read to mean that subjective POVs should never be reflected in an article. If the term "Cabindan" is used in an article, the controversy should be mentioned and if necessary explained, with both sides' case being summarised.

This would seem to indicate the way forward very clearly with regards to the present case.--G-Dett 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The notion that the Palestinians are a "race" or "ethnicity" of people is widely disputed. The evidence suggests that Palestinians are a nationality at best. To define Palestinians as a ethnicity (and let's be honest, "Palestinian people" really means "people who are ethnically Palestinian") is to at once define "people" too narrowly and too broadly. the people that lived in the British Mandate of Palestine and their decendents collectively as "Palestinian people" also describe the people include Jewish citizens of Mandatory Palestine under that umbrella? This would include the entire Yishuv, Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi. According to this view, Menachem Begin is as much a member of the "Palestinian people" as Yaser Arafat. I would suggest that this too broadly defines what is actually being writen about. Would those that would describe the people that lived in the British Mandate of Palestine and their decendents collectively as "Palestinian people" also describe the people that lived in the British Mandate of Mesopotamia and their decendents collectively as "Mesopotamian people?" If not, then "Palestinian people" too narrowly defines what is actually being descibed. --GHcool 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

people: "the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people." [67]. Nobody wants to call the article "Palestinian race". "Palestinian people" sounds just about right, given WP:Naming_conflict (quoted above), as long as the subject of the article is indeed those who identify themselves as the Palestinian people.--Doron 21:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; the key phrase in WP:Naming conflict#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms isn't "ethnic group" (which is merely incidental to the hypothetical example) but rather "self-identification."--G-Dett 21:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

When there is a conflict of naming and one way to describe it is less controversial then the other, common sense dictates to use the uncontroversial one. Here this article was called for years "Palestinians" which was also wrong as it should have been called "Palestinian Arabs"; only in the last year someone came along and changed it to "Palestinian People". Doron, wouldn't it be the right thing to do, to change it back to "Palestinians", which GHCool and Nadav agree. If you agree then I'll take the lesser of two evils so that Wikipedia should be a step closer to being fair and unbiased. Remember both are self-identifying names, so when there is a conflict, the less controversial one should be there. Itzse 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's naming of articles about peoples is not uniform, you have Romanians and Italian people and Jew and Azerbaijani people and Demographics of India and Dutch (ethnic group). I don't see why "Palestinian people" is controversial, but I suppose I could accept "Palestinians". I prefer the former, as it is more clear that it is about the people. Why is it so POV exactly?--Doron 22:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't see it as controversial that tells me that you have a certain POV for which you are entitled. But this is Wikipedia and Nadav, GHCool and countless others do find it controversial, which should be enough to tell you that it's controversial. It would be futile to explain it to you if you don't know it already; haven't you read some of the comments here? Either way if "Palestinians" is acceptable for you and for GHcool and Nadav then I'll go along with it. Itzse 23:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't read much of what's been written here, I responded to a RfC, which now seems to be spiraling out of control. Could you give a brief explanation why "Palestinian people" is controversial, according to your POV?--Doron 23:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the above comment by GHCool which explains it a little. He starts out by The notion that the Palestinians are a "race" or "ethnicity" of people is widely disputed... It's not my job to explain the dispute. That it's disputed is not in dispute. I'm interested in Wikipedia being fair and unbiased, not reflecting one side of the dispute; that's all. Itzse 23:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"People" is not the same as "race" or "ethnicity" (see the dictionary entry I quoted above). The latter may be disputed indeed, but I don't see what's wrong with "people".--Doron 23:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Again what difference does it make if you understand it or not. It's enough that others who do understand it (scholars and laymen) think that it's controversial; that's all that counts. Wikipedia shouldn't reflect your way of thinking more then mine and others. Itzse 23:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't you answer a simple question? I'm not sure anymore that there is a dispute at all. It seems more like some people are denying the self-identity of others, which weakens the advantage of "Palestinians" over "Palestinian people".--Doron 23:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Palestinians" is approximately 10 times more common a term than "Palestinian people", at least according to Google. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Doron, What you just wrote is a POV and it's your POV. There are others including me who consider it a fact that there never was a Palestinian people; it's a brand new creation for a political agenda. For whatever it is worth, Golda Meir also believed so, and books are written on this subject; go learn. If this isn't satisfactory then I give up. GHCool, maybe you can explain it again to him. Itzse 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What is enough is that Wikipedia has a clear convention for precisely this sort of dispute.--G-Dett 23:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And what exactly is it? Itzse 23:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the discussion above Itzse or follow the link G-Dett provided. Tiamat 00:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia in no way justifies naming an article with the disputed title when there is another self-identifying title in our case "Palestinian" which is less controversial. What's more this was the original title for years, but it wasn't good enough for you; so someone went and biased it even more. I'm disgusted by you trying to justify an injustice by using Wikipedia's rules which you would like to support your bias. Itzse 00:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to naming the article Palestinian. I do have an objection to naming it Palestinian Arab. Please don't speculate as to my positions or intentions. Try kicking it down a notch. K? Tiamat 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I gave you the option of clarifying your intentions. It's no secret that people have agenda's and beliefs. Mine, I spelled out on my user page, stating clearly, that although I have a stong point of view, I believe Wikipedia should represent everybodies. So it is only human to speculate what other people's intentions are.

Now that you have given your consent to renaming it back to "Palestinians", we can turn over another leaf. Be a gentlewoman and make the change. Itzse 00:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Itzse that "Palestinian Arabs" is probably the most accurate, NPOV name possible, but "Palestinians" or "Palestinian" would do just fine because that is the term used in the mainstream media to denote the nationality being discussed in this article. Some editors asked for a reason why "Palestinian people" would be controversial. To those people, I'll try my best to provide an answer ...

I accept the definition Doron gave above (from Webster's) for a "people." Palestinians are a "body of persons who constitute a community, ... or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, ... or the like." Palestinians are not a "body of persons who constitute a ... tribe" and do not have "a common ... religion." Historical evidence suggests that the people that today define themselves as "Palestinian people" were people of Greater Syrian ancestry and migrated to Palestine relatively recently (around the mid-19th century up until the 1940s). Some "Palestinian people" have only lived in or were decendants of people who lived in the British Mandate for Palestine for less than 3 years before the State of Israel declared independance. Only the most liberal definition of the term "people" would accept that a group that had a shared history for less than 100 years could be considered a "people." The hypothetical "Mesopotamian people" have a better argument. Even "American people" or "Australian people" are a stretch of the term, unless it refers to the indiginous peoples of the United States or Australia, but those peoples wouldn't use the nationality of their conquerors to describe themselves. The point is that the "indiginous Palestinian people" is a myth that falls apart under historical/anthropological scrutiny. Therefore, to avoid confusion, a different term must be used in the title of the article to avoid NPOV, OR, and just plain accuracy. --GHcool 03:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, I think you're still confusing the general term "people" with more specific terms like "tribe," "ethnicity," etc. In particular, I think you're overlooking the two "or"'s in the definition of "people" you're working from, which is intentionally open-ended. Your notion that "American people" already "stretches" the term is idiosyncratic, to say the least. With regards to shared history, this is constituted by pivotal events, not a gross count of years, decades, and centuries. See Benedict Anderson's Imaginary Communities (one of the most influential and canonical works on nation-formation in the last 50 years) for examples. In any event, the Palestinians see themselves as a people, and Wikipedia's naming convention is pretty clear about how to proceed in cases of "self-identification."

Jay's observation that "'Palestinians' is approximately 10 times more common a term than 'Palestinian people'" is irrelevant, because these aren't terms for the same thing, and the former is far more semantically diffuse than the latter. "Palestinians" is a common noun, "Palestinian people" a collective noun. The subject here is the Palestinians collectively. In most instances where "Palestinians" is used, it refers to individuals and its meaning doesn't correspond to the subject of this article (e.g., "10 Palestinians were shot today in Ramallah"). The subject of this article is a collective, i.e. an entire body of persons who constitute a community, nation, or whatever, by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like. The precise term for this is "people." Like I said, I'm not planning to stay, and I won't object if the article is moved to Palestinians, but I don't see why accuracy and specificity should be compromised in response to objections that fall apart upon inspection.--G-Dett 14:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, everything you wrote above is absolutely true except for the assertion that I am confused by the term "people" or by the conjunction "or." You and I both know very well that "Palestinians" fit the literal Webster's definition of "people," but the word is so broad that even Trekkies can fit the definition. It violates Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words at best and WP:NPOV and simple accuracy at worst. I can think of no reason why "Palestinian people" would be a preferable title to "Palestinians" other than to deliberately cloud the facts and allow for misinterpretation. --GHcool 01:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians is fine with me. I just think Palestinian people is more specific (collective v. common noun), and frankly I think you're making an unwarranted fuss over an imaginary POV-issue. Depending on one's temperament, it may be annoying or galling or ironic or perfectly understandable that Palestinian national identity was forged in the crucible of conflict with Israel. But forged it was, and that's a fact. I am aware of arguments that "the Palestinian people" didn't exist a hundred years ago; I'm not aware of arguments it doesn't exist now. NPOV does not mean perfuming the facts for those who find their natural scent noxious.

I also want to be clear that I think Trekkies have a right to a homeland. It needn't be in historic Palestine, vexed as it already is by competing claims. Perhaps Jersey would do. But with a capital in Jerusalem, of course; everyone's entitle to one of those.--G-Dett 12:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, your opinions are noted. Thank you for accepting the compromise article "Palestinians." Your spirit of compromise is admirable. I am moving the page now. --GHcool 17:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: It appears I cannot move the page without an administrator's help. I'm adding my request using the protocol described here. --GHcool 18:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing not to object to a move is not the same as supporting it. G-Dett appears to have done the first, but not the second. As for me, I weakly oppose this move as unnecessary and controversial; actually checking Palestinians gets you to a dab page, half of which is Palestinian Jew; it really should remain a dab page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe G-Dett could speak for himself. In fact, G-Dett has spoken for himself when he wrote above that "Palestinians is fine with me." As for your weak opposition, the move is necessary and no longer controversial on Wikipedia. Your assertion about the disambiguation page is an argument for the title of this article to be renamed "Palestinian Arab," not "Palestinian people;" an argument I and many other fully accept but (for some unknown/unspecified reason) is unacceptable to some here. --GHcool 21:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The move certainly is controversial. The request appears to be based solely on your misunderstanding of Palestinian ancestry. --Ian Pitchford 22:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

From a NPOV; the term Palestinian should just refer to a person who lives in Palestine. palestine has been around for a long time and a lot of people have lived there. Whether they are Jewish (a religious reference) or Arab (a reference to a people) is not germane. In the history of Palestine there have been families living in the same place for millenia living among people who are jewish, christian, muslim and other religions, afroasiatic, indo European semitic and canaanite in terms of peoples.Rktect 22:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

But this article does not deal with any of the "broader Palestinians" other than the Arab Palestinians, who are not an ethnic group nor do they have a long ancestry or history of national identity. The modern day "Palestinian" (as the media and scholars refer to the group) is a national identity created some time around the founding of the PLO in 1964. Before that, the group identified themselves as Arabs that once lived within the borders British Mandatory Palestine. Their ethnic group was Arab and, if they thought in nationalistic terms at all, they would have called themselves Syrians or perhaps Egyptians. This move might have been controversial at one point, but it has since been sorted out and a compromise has been reached. Please do not undermine this process that others have worked for a long time toward. --GHcool 23:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, your post above – especially its first sentence – crystallizes what I find so puzzling and short-circuiting about the position you've staked out. It is self-evident to you what the subject of this article is, and yet you refuse to use the common term for this self-evident thing. What is this "group" you talk about (and parameters for inclusion in which are so obvious to you and everyone else) if not a "people"? When a large group of individuals see themselves as closely bound together culturally, historically, and politically, the word for that is "people," right? Or is there some other word? Imagine an editor imploring his fellow editors, "But this article does not deal with any of the broader range of fruits, other than the narrow, oblong, curved yellow peelable fruit we find in bunches and on trees – but don't call them bananas."--G-Dett 00:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[Outdent] The banana comparison is extremely weak to the point of being satirical. Maybe that was how it was meant, but I took it that you made the comparison seriously. We (meaning G-Dett and myself) agreed above that "Palestinian" was the best title for this article. To answer G-Dett's question, the group of people that the article talks about is a nationality, a more precise word for what G-Dett describes as "a large group of individuals ... closely bound together culturally, historically, and [often but not necessarily] politically." The term "people" is much more broad and can include virtually anything from ancient civilizations (Maya peoples) to common ancestry (Germanic peoples) to ethnic groups (Romani people) to skin color (White people) and everything in between. Calling Palestinians a people is misleading at best and anthropoligcally bogus at worst. --GHcool 05:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to move the article to "Palestinian nation," as per your latest post, I think you'll run into less resistance from verbally punctilious editors, who rightly prefer a collective singular noun to a common plural one. Your semantic distinctions meanwhile continue to baffle. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the bar for nationhood is higher than for peoplehood, not lower. If you've got a contemporary anthropologist who says otherwise, please share.--G-Dett 14:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the current name Palestinian people is a good article name and should be retained on this article. The controversies over this and similar articles aren't likely to be resolved soon, but there is widespread usage of the term Palestinian people and this seems a remarkably good article on that topic, all things considered. Andrewa 06:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Palestinians are not a nation either. I never said they were nation; I said they were a nationality and even that was a compromise (--GHcool 03:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)). The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East has an article on Palestinians that covers much of the same information as the Wikipedia article (although the Continuum article has virtually nothing on Palestinian culture and focuses solely on its historical/political existance) and the title of their article is "Palestine Arabs!" Throughout the article, the author never simply writes "Palestinians" to refer to the whole group, but sticks only to the group title "Palestinian Arabs." I suspect this is done to avoid confusion, but I would not recommend that it be done in this article.

Furthermore, the Continuum Encyclopedia uses the terms "Palestinian-Arab identity," "Palestinian entity," "Arab population of Palestine," but mostly sticks to the title of "Palestinian Arabs." Only once does the encyclopedia use the phrase "Palestinian people" when the article quotes Jordan's recognition of the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people." --GHcool 17:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, first you say "the group of people that the article talks about is a nationality, a more precise word for what G-Dett describes as 'a large group of individuals ... closely bound together culturally, historically'," etc. Now you say the group of people this article describes is not that. Then you say, "I never said they were a nationality, and even that was a compromise," which has a wonderful I-didn't-do-it-and-besides-the-SOB-had-it-coming sort of quality to it. Please make up your mind. And please tell me what the generic term would be for collective subjects like the subject of this article – you don't like "people" (for reasons I never understood), you liked "nationality" for the duration of one post but have now repudiated it ... just give us a good, generic, collective noun. A normal, uncapitalized English word I can find in any dictionary for whatever sort of self-evident thing it is we're talking about. "Entity" might be appropriate, reminiscent as it is of another ideologically stubborn, ultimately farcical refusal to use plain language in the context of this conflict.--G-Dett 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. I'm sorry. I made a typo. I'm glad G-Dett pointed it out to me because it was an important one. I meant to write "I never said they were nation; I said they were a nationality and even that was a compromise." I must have somehow not typed the first part of the second clause, but I assure everyone that that's what I was thinking. I appologize for making such a serious error because it totally changed the meaning of my sentence and made me look like a fool. I just ammended the previous statement (in bold) and signed my name next to the ammendment. Again, I'm sorry I didn't write it properly the first time and blame myself for shooting myself in the foot. Hopefully my point will be clearer this time around. --GHcool 03:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, I fail to see why you're baffled that some people think that "Palestinian People" is incorrect. But be it as it may, you are at least aware that there are people who think that it is wrong to have the article named "Palestinian People" when "Palestinians" would mean the same thing. I, even have a problem with "Palestinians" and think that in order that Wikipedia should be unbiased the article needs to be named "Palestinian Arabs"; but to appease some Wikipedians I yielded to the proposal that Nadav put forth to rename it to "Palestinians".

All those that objected to renaming it to "Palestinian Arabs" agreed that it would be ok to them if this article was renamed to "Palestinians".

I would also like to make you aware that this article did indeed have the name "Palestinians" for a number of years and only in the last year someone unilaterally changed it to "Palestinian People". It makes no sense to get into a heated debate on the meanings of these terms; suffice that it's controversial; why it's controversial is not important and Wikipedia should take the high road where possible. Besides, here is not the place to debate if the Palestinian Arabs are a people or not, it really belongs on the Palestine and Who is a Palestinian pages.

After a complete discussion we finally came to an understanding. Why all of a sudden the stone walling? Itzse 17:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett agrees with this view as evidenced by what G-Dett wrote on 12:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC): "Palestinians is fine with me." There was no longer a debate until Ian Pitchford selfishly revived it on 22:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC). The time has come to move the article from "Palestinian people" to "Palestinian." --GHcool 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians is fine with me. Palestinian people would be better, of course, because it's more precise. The various objections raised about it have not been compelling, and have not even cited sources for the idea that "people" is contentious or disputable. I find this sort of debate irksome, in the same way I'd find it irksome to discuss whether Israel should properly be called the "Zionist entity" because after all it's so young, its borders so ill-defined and the issues surrounding its founding so contentious. Surely one of the most depressing aspects of the I/P conflict is the dogged sophistries employed by each side to avoid recognizing the authenticity of the other. The fact that I am irked has made me prickly, and I'm sorry that my prickliness strikes some as stonewalling. I had hoped to make it clear that I won't stand in the way of a move to Palestinians if that is the way forward.--G-Dett 20:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[[:Since this is only Ian Pitchford who has (briefly) objected to the move, we should go ahead and move the page. Beit Or 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Now, how do we get the attention of an administrator? --GHcool 00:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I also objected to the move. But if I'm now the only one (it might be wise to check that others haven't been similarly ignored), that shouldn't be a problem. As this has been listed on WP:RM, it will get admin attention in due course. Andrewa 12:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I object to the move. I know why this guy wants it moved, he is Jewish. Never have I pet anti Israeli statements on Wikipedia as we have to be neutral in here. But I see he doesn't think of it like that.` So I've come here to object to it. All users opposing to Palestinian people are Jewish, this is ridicules! The Honorable Kermanshahi 21:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

i was about to suggest the same move, however, User:GHcool beat me to it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of this move, why hasn't it happened yet? --GHcool 06:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm an administrator who saw this listed. I came here looking for consensus in support of the move. After quite a bit of reading, I can't say I see a consensus. I suspect that this page hasn't moved yet because admins like myself are just looking for a clear sign that there is a consensus and that we won't be creating new problems and disagreements by making the move. If there is doubt, we probably won't make the move. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus building

Most people seem to agree that "Palestinians" is the better title and "Palestinian people" is a misleading title. --GHcool 21:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I suggest we move the article.

--Eternalsleeper 06:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, let's move it. The article is about the "Palestinians". "Palestinian people" is a silly tautology. <<-armon->> 02:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, I also agree to move it to "Palestinians." --GHcool 03:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I also agree to move it back to "Palestinians" which is the minimum necessity for Wikipedia to be fair and unbiased. A true NPOV title would have been "Palestinian Arabs", but as there is some opposition to it, I'll settle for "Palestinians" which has been its title for a number of years until someone recently unilaterally (without any consensus) changed it. Itzse 21:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
agree to move - I would have suggested the move myself had I not been beaten to it. btw, "Palestinian Arabs" is the most accurate term imho. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Support, as this seems to be a more concise title that was previously moved without consensus. Tewfik^Talk 18:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Question Can someone actually explain how "Palestinians" and "Palestinian people" differ and what specifically makes one more preferable than the other? ("Palestinian Arab" is a no go, it delimits the population artificially considering that there are individuals and groups who identify as Palestinian, but not as Arab. And further, most "Palestinian Arab" Jews - i.e. those Jews who lived in Palestine before Jewish immigration from Europe began and spoke Arabic as a mother tongue - became Israeli Jews ... further confusing the use of this terminology.) The advantage I see in "Palestinian people" is that it specifies that its subject are people who identify as forming part of a Palestinian nation - be they in exile (Arab Diaspora) or under occupation (West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem), in a refugee camp or citizens of the state that superseded what might have been their own. Palestinians seems less precise actually. But I'm open to hearing more about why it is. Tiamat 12:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's because it was discussed/debated too much, but it looks to me that this has been waaaaay "over thought". "Palestinians" is the almost universally used common name for the topic of this article. The issues you raise are best addressed in the body of the article, rather than titling it with a tautology. We know that "Palestinians" refers to people. <<-armon->> 12:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a tautology. A People or Nation has a meaning that differs from a loose collection of individual persons (the meaning when you remove the "a" before "people" as you did in your last sentence). It would help if you could explain why Palestinians is preferable to Palestinian people. It seems to widen the scope of the article rather than confine it more precisely to its subject - i.e. people who identify as part of the Palestinian nation (not necessarily as a state, but as a people). Tiamat 13:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a tautology, of course, but given the first two sentences of the article it's easy to see why someone would think that. "People" in its sense here is a collective singular noun, not a common plural, and Tiamut is exactly on point about the word's implications. There has been a circular debate on this page about whether Palestinians qualify as a people. However well-intentioned, this debate was fundamentally misinformed: both as a matter of Wikipedia policy and – more importantly – of the standard terminology of contemporary anthropology, a people is a people if they say they are. Self-identification as such is the only criteria. This debate hit a nadir of inadvertent silliness when an editor struggling valiantly for compromise claimed that Palestinians were a "nationality" but not a "nation," not realizing that the terms are mutually constitutive, that nationality is what you have when you're part of a nation. At any rate "Palestinians" is fine, but it would be nice if as the debate trundled to a halt there was a sense that some basic principles had been clarified. The only term that is not acceptable is Itzse's, "Palestinian Arabs," for the simple reason that Palestinians do not use that term for themselves and don't much like it being used about them; they see it as a political attempt to deny their nationality. This is one of those rare issues where POV is a moot point – again, for reasons both of Wikipedia policy and contemporary anthropological terminology. If black people in America tell you they don't wanna be called "Negroes" any more, that's all a Wikipedian needs to know.--G-Dett 14:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh OK. I get it now. You guys are pushing your POV, which is the opposite of the "they're just Arabs" position. Well at least I understand why we ended up with something other than simply "Palestinians" which is what 99.9999% of people looking for this article would search for. Ludicrous. <<-armon->> 14:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no POV issue at all here, because in terms of Wikipedia policy as well as anthropological terminology, Palestinians are a people if they say they are. Full stop. When it comes to what the Palestinians should be called, the only relevant point of view is that of the Palestinians. There will always be people ignorant of policy, ignorant of anthropology, indifferent to basic manners, and sufficiently impassioned to insist otherwise, but their insistence doesn't turn the matter into a six-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other POV-dispute. Ya can't call 'em negroes anymore, Armon. Why? Because they say so.--G-Dett 14:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you came down off your soapbox for a moment, you might notice that the Palestinians call themselves "Palestinians". <<-armon->> 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you got out of the "they're just Arabs" gutter, you might notice I'm standing on level ground, and you might also notice that we've agreed to "Palestinians" for the very reason you cite. Palestinians see themselves as a people, and as "Palestinians"; the former is more specific and therefore preferable, but the latter is what's going to fly here, due to the endurance of obsolete notions such as those you've helpfully espoused for us. On with the move already, for cryin' out loud.--G-Dett 15:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That figure in the gutter is just your strawman, not me. What's really noticable is your inability to simply type agree without a endless stream of disruptive rhetoric. No wonder the admin couldn't find a consensus for the move. <<-armon->> 15:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Equally noticeable is your inability to answer a simple question: Why is "Palestinians" preferable to "Palestinian people" and how will the name change help us improve this article and/or refine its focus? I can't give a simple agree answer until I get a satisfactory answer to this question. Tiamat 16:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't notice "Palestinians which is what 99.9999% of people looking for this article would search for" I guess. <<-armon->> 04:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians already redirects to this article. That is not an argument as to how changing the article name to it would help improve the article, refine its scope, etc. etc.Tiamat 11:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think all this "discussing" doesn’t belong here; mine included. This paragraph is labeled "Consensus building" where you agree or disagree, state your case and that’s it. The debate in one form or another is all over on this talk page so we’ll need to append any discussion or questions to the other paragraphs of this sort.

I’ll try to make a little sense of what has been discussed. If a group of people in Baltimore, Maryland decide one day to become a people; that doesn’t automatically turn them into a people, just because they say so. On the other hand if the Aztec tribe decides one day to exercise their people hood and demand self determination, that would be a serious claim since it is an established fact that the Aztecs are a "people". The Baltimoreans can scream until they are blue in their face that they don’t want to be called Baltimoreans and nobody will even listen, unlike black people in America who are justified in not wanting to be called Negroes since its short form has become a racial slur.

Tiamut asks why is "Palestinians" preferable over "Palestinian people"? The answer is, that on the fundamental question: Do the Arabs who lived in Palestine constitute a people? Tiamut and Arafat (born in Cairo) say yes; Itzse, Golda Meir, my grandfather and even my neighbor say NO. Why should Tiamut’s POV trounce my POV? The burden of proof should be on those who have never been a people to prove that are indeed a people. So even if we’ll use up another thousand talk pages, still I’ll stick to my POV and Tiamut will stick to hers and nobody will be smarter then before. That aside, it has been pointed out that even if the impossible should happen and Tiamut should SOMEHOW be proven right; the people in question refer to themselves as "Palestinians"; right or wrong that’s a fact. So a "factual" fact should be preferable to a "debatable" fact.

G-Dett is correct that Tiamut is exactly on point that using "people" would have "word implications". So to avoid those implications WP should use "Palestinians". G-Dett is also correct that the Palestinian Arabs don’t like to be called as such "for the simple reason that Palestinians do not use that term for themselves and don’t much like it being used about them; they see it as a political attempt to deny their nationality." I would like to remind G-Dett that NOT using "Palestinian Arab" is a political attempt to deny the Jews their nationality, and to convince people that a questionable fact (people) is a factual fact.

So here you have it for anybody interested in the truth. "Palestinian Arabs", although it's a FACT, the Palestinian Arabs don’t want it used, lest you'll think that there were also Palestinian Jews. "Palestinian people", which is at best a DEBATABLE fact, the Palestinian Arabs DO want it used so you'll become convinced that there is a Palestinian people. So in a goodwill gesture, Wikipedia will let the Palestinian Arabs be called the way they want to call themselves, which is "Palestinians" which still to a lesser degree wrongly insinuates that the Arabs are the Palestinians. IMO any pushing for the term "Palestinian people" has a clear agenda. Itzse 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Itzse, G-Dett, and Tiamut are all correct in saying that "Palestinian people" has unwanted implications that "Palestinians" doesn't have. I believe we found our consensus. --GHcool 06:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no preference on PP vs Ps, a rose by any other name ..., although if "Palestinian Arab" is objectionable to some, I think we should listen to them; I don't really follow how nonusage of "PAs" denies Jews their nationality. But is it out of place to note that Israel has had no objection to and has itself used the phrase "Palestinian people" in legal documents for a long time? - since the Camp David Accords - and it also appears in the Letters of Mutual Recognition. Begin objected to "Palestinian People" at the last minute, but what he wanted and got was merely the second word uncapitalized (see R Ben Cramer's How Israel Lost). Considering Wikipedia's capitalization conventions, this seems meaningless for us. By the way, Mencken used to call himself and his fellows inhabitants "Baltimorons" - I thought G-dett might like that (and is the real reason I made this comment).John Z 08:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe my question has now been answered and my vote is to stay with Palestinian people; in other words I oppose the move to "Palestinians". As John Z points out, while a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, "Palestinian people" is used by the Palestinians, the PLO and even Israel recognized the term under the Oslo Accords. It is obvious to me now that the POV of those who wish to change the article name stems from as GHcool put it the "unwanted implications" in "Palestinian people" - i.e. that it denotes that they are recognized collective. That Palestinians are recognized people, or nation is an important fact that I am not willing to deny Wikipedia readers. Tiamat 10:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't expect anything less from you. You asked for an explanation although GHCool has already explained it to you twice but you still asked for another explanation. I explained it again. Obviously your'e incapable of understanding another persons POV as I suspect that you consider yourself a Palestinian and your'e trying to force your POV on everybody with such fancy words as "I am not willing to deny Wikipedia readers" - your point of view. As much as you want to believe your POV; others don't share it. Is that so hard to understand? The Israeli goverments political (not factual) position is based on its desperate and correct attempt at peace, for which if necessary they will call "day", "night" and "night", "day". Their necessary positions are understandable but it still doesn't change a fact. The purpose of the Israeli goverment and other goverments to throw out the words "Palestinian people" is intended to make you feel good and agree to peace; not because they really believe so. Besides, I and others have already pointed out that goverments can't speak; people speak. Some will tell you what you want to hear while others like me won't. We'll tell you what we really think. So in the final analysis, only those that have a personal interest in wanting their POV pushed, want to deny Wikipedia's readers a Neutral POV Encyclopedia. Itzse 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion shows why it IS better to have an article called "Palestinian people". Anyone who can spend this much energy on this discussion desewrves toi be called a people. by the way, i am not kidding...sorry if i sound flippant, but I actually do mean that. --Steve, Sm8900 16:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Should emotions, or the lack of it, drive the content of Wikipedia; or facts? What exactly are you saying? Itzse 17:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Itsze, the fact is that there is a Palestinian people. that is a political and hsitrocial fact. this discussion is increasingly ridiculous. palestinians have a flag, a government, a UN delegate, and a national identity. to spend all this time aruging over minutiae is ridiculous. --Steve, Sm8900 17:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To you it's a fact; to me and others it's not. Can you at least acknowledge that; or does your understanding of what is a fact force me to think so too? I don't know where you are coming from; and if you're outside of this whole debacle, I can understand that you have accepted the Palestinian Arabs position, lock, stock and barrel. That's exactly why Tiamut wants WP to flaunt her facts, so that the next generation of know-nothings will accept it as fact too. I on the other hand whose family has lived in the Holy land (Land of Israel, Palestine) for hundreds of years, so I am personally acquainted and have first hand knowledge of its history, culture and nuances. So as a Wikipedian who strives that everything here should be correct and presented neutrally, surely I would want that the subjects that are dear to my heart to be presented neutrally.

You don't have to agree with me, but at least have the courage to acknowledge that others don't consider it a fact. Itzse 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I really can't believe that this whole proposal for a name change stems from your denial that Palestinians exist as a people. And you accuse me of pushing a POV! This extreme minority viewpoint, widely discredited even in Israel itself, continues to rear its ugly head. I'm sorry to say it, but it's just plain racist. Listen friend, you can deny me and the other Palestinians the right to a state, but you cannot deny us the right to define our identity and nationality. Trying to deny that we exist as a collective is like denying that we exist at all. It's also a huge denial of reality. I'm really just totally disappointed by this. Tiamat 18:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Itzse does not speak for me (nor, I am inclined to believe, for the other supporters of the move) when he implies that Palestinians aren't a group of people with a shared history/culture; and Tiamut was absolutely 100% wrong when he mischaracterized my attempts (and temporary success!) at gaining a consensus as denying that Palestinians aren't a "recognized collective." "Palestinian people" certainly "denotes that they are recognized collective," but "people" when used here also conotes that they are a race or centuries old ethnicity akin to the Japanese people or even the much younger Romani people. --GHcool 21:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a an implication of antiquity in the word "people" and take issue with attempts to say we just popped out of nowhere. I have access to church records that prove my father's family has lived in this region for more than a millenium. But again, all of the this is really besides the point. How does renaming the article to "Palestinians" improve the article? How does it help to better define its scope? Doesn't "Palestinian people" specify that we are talking about people who today identify as part of a wider Palestinian collective? The Palestine Liberation Organization, which remains "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" [68] uses "Palestinian people" all the time and by it refers to the subjects of this article: i.e. people who identify as Palestinian in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, inside Israel itself, Palestinian refugees in camps and elsewhere and other in the Arab Diaspora. Doesn't Palestinian people make it clearer who the subject of the article actually is? Tiamat 21:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt that Tiamut's church records would indicate the existance of a Palestinian national identity prior to World War I, but this is neither here nor there since the article already reflects this reality, even if the title of the article does not.

Although everyone agreed upon "Palestinians" until Tiamut came along, some of us are willing to settle for the compromise title of "Palestinian (nationality)." In the English language, "the [fill in the blank] people" can refer to a nationality (as in "the American people") or it can refer to a race/ethnicity (as in "the Romani people"). Clearly there is a "Palestinian people" in the former sense, but not in the latter sense. Therefore, it would be acceptable to me (and hopefully others) to rename this article to "Palestinian (nationality)." --GHcool 00:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How is "Palestinian (nationality)" different from "Palestinian people"? A people is a national collective; i.e. a nationality. What is so irksome about the current name that it cannot stand? Tiamat 11:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point I'm against bringing in any other option. "Palestinian Arab" wasn't on the table, yet people are still arguing as though it was. Bring up "Palestinian (nationality)" as an option is unnecessary, and will likely lead to another sterile 6 month debate about "nationality". All of these issues re: ethnicity/nationality etc. can be discussed in the article itself. Whatever the "ultimate truth" is of the matter, the subject of this article is the "Palestinians" -however they are defined. Aside from one editor, there obviously IS a consensus for "Palestinians". Would an admin please make the move. <<-armon->> 04:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than moving the article, wouldn't it be better to just remove the "ethnic group" infobox? Palestinians are "a people", not an ethnic group though. Funkynusayri 03:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Armon. I'm starting to lose my patience and resorting to desperate measures. "Palestinian Arabs" is the correct correct title for this article, but "Palestinians" is a close second. I shouldn't have opened the door to further options. --GHcool 06:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian Arabs is not correct and has no support so I don't see why you keep bringing it up. "Palestinians" seems to have near universal support, though some editors have expressed that they don't really care and don't really see the difference here. That is why I wanted to know why the move is being proposed. Again, questions:

Does it make it easier to find the article? No. Palestinians already redirects here.

Does it refine the focus of the article? No. Actually it broadens it considering that Palestinian can be used as an adjective for everything from things to people to land, and at different times has had different meanings.

So, how does this change improve the article? It doesn't. All it does is remove the word "people" which Itzse, GHcool, and I presume Jaakobou and Tewfik seem to find objectionable, despite the fact that the term is used by the UN, Israel, the PLO, and the Palestinian people themselves. If admins think that "consensus" to move without a compelling reason based on improving the article itself is good enough, I will obviously have to defer. But I can't agree to such a move in principle when it is motivated by the need to deny my existence as part of a collective. No self-respecting person would. Tiamat 11:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 12:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:Palestinian people/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

See here for genetics debate

pictures de jour

Section to be removed

The concept of "Palestinian people"

We've heard this before: Palestinian Arabs are somehow not native to Palestine.

Explaining changes

We need to fix the refs

non-Arab Palestinians

Claim that Palestinians are descendants of the Canaanites

Arbitrary section break 1

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena article

Scholarly evidence that Palestinians are descendants of earlier Semitic peoples in the region

Palestinian culture

Golda Meir quote

Excerpt in the Washington Post

about representive family picture of palestinians

Invitation for Almaqdisi to discuss desired changes

Discussion of historical record

Two Palestines

Aramaic , and Arabic

In addition to being Canaanites, Palestinians are also Philistines

Canaanite descent predicament

The Nine Bows

Arabs and Palestine

Question

Folklore

Please engage in discussion over intro

Let's rename the article before we discuss the introduction

Request for Comment

Reversion without an explanation is unacceptable

Requested move

Consensus building

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search