Talk:Palestinian people/Archive 11

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 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 →

Contents

Occupation

Why is there no information in reference to the current Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza? Is there anything more contemporary and important than this Palestinian struggle going on right now? Land disputes? Escalation in Palestinian deaths? I can go on, seems strange not to have it in an article concerning Palestinians. (UTC)





'Palestinian'

abu_afak/abu_afak2@yahoo.com

Before 1967, Egypt ruled Gaza, and Jordan had Annexed the West Bank- and there were no 'Palestinians'.. except Jews.

While everyone's caught up on Genetics....(which I can discuss as well)

Even the word is Revisionist.

Palestinian nationalism was nonexistant Before Israel came into existence.

If you said 'Palestinian' in 1900, 1920, 1940, or even 1960-- you were referring to a Jew!

This topic is supposed to be about the USAGE of the Term 'Palestinian' and it's evolution/history. Yet...

`

""Palestinians" [are an] Arab people no one heard of before 1967 before Israeli governments certified this piece of propaganda... As has been noted many times before, prior to 1948, that is before Jews had begun to call themselves Israelis, the ONLY persons known as "Palestinians" were Jews, with the Arabs much preferrring to identify themselves as part of the great Arab nation. - David Basch

`

"...Palestine does not belong to the "Palestinians" and never did. They did not even call themselves Palestinians until the middle 1960s. Before that, the word "Palestinian" meant "Jewish," while the local Arabs called themselves simply "Arabs." The creation of the PLO by Gamal Abdul Nasser in 1964 was a brilliant ploy to distort the parameters of the dispute, largely for propaganda purposes. It was inconvenient to have a conflict between 20-odd Arab states with an area 530 times greater than Israel, a population more than 30 times greater than Israel's and enormously richer natural resources. Far better to invent a "Palestinian" nation that would be the eternal "underdog," - a nation consisting partly of Immigrants from Syria and other Arab countries who came to benefit from the rapidly growing economy Zionist Jews created..."

westerndefense.org

`

"There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented!"

- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, to the Peel Commission, 1937

`

So before the creation of the State of Israel, who were the Palestinians?

Until 1950, the name of the Jerusalem Post was THE PALESTINE POST; the journal of the Zionist Organization of America was NEW PALESTINE; Bank Leumi was the ANGLO-PALESTINE BANK; the Israel Electric Company was the PALESTINE ELECTRIC COMPANY; there was the PALESTINE FOUNDATION FUND and the PALESTINE PHILHARMONIC. All these were Jewish organizations.

In America, Zionist youngsters sang "PALESTINE, MY PALESTINE", "PALESTINE SCOUT SONG" and "PALESTINE SPRING SONG" In general, the terms Palestine and Palestinian referred to the region of Palestine as it was. Thus "Palestinian Jew" and "Palestinian Arab" are straightforward expressions. "Palestine Post" and "Palestine Philharmonic" refer to these bodies as they existed in a place then known as Palestine. The adoption of a Palestinian identity by the Arabs of Palestine is a recent phenomenon. Until the establishment of the State of Israel, and for another decade or so, the term Palestinian applied almost Exclusively to the Jews. - Peacefaq

`

"....Arab activist Musa Alami despaired: as he saw the problem, "how can people struggle for their nation, when most of them do not know the meaning of the word? ... The people are in great need of a 'myth' to fill their consciousness and imagination. . . ." According to Alami, ar indoctrination of the "myth" of nationality would create "identity" and "self-respect."8

However, Alami's proposal was confounded by the Realities: between 1948 and 1967, the Arab state of Jordan claimed annexation of the territory west of the Jordan River, the "West Bank" area of Palestine -- the same area that would later be forwarded by Arab "moderates" as a "mini-state" for the "Palestinians." Thus, that area was, between 1948 and 1967, called "Arab land," the peoples were Arabs, and yet the "myth" that Musa Alami prescribed-the cause of "Palestine" for the "Palestinians" -- remained unheralded, unadopted by the Arabs during two decades. According to Lord Caradon, "Every Arab assumed the Palestinians [refugees] would go back to Jordan."9

When "Palestine" was referred to by the Arabs, it was viewed in the context of the intrusion of a "Jewish state amidst what the Arabs considered their own exclusive environment or milieu, the 'Arab region.' "10 ..."

EretzYisroel.org

`

"....From the time the Arabians, along with their non-Arabian recruits, entered Palestine and Syria, they found and themselves added to what was "ethnologically a chaos of all the possible human combinations to which, when Palestine became a land of pilgrimage, a new admixture was added."1

Among the peoples who have been counted as "indigenous Palestinian Arabs" are Balkans, Greeks, Syrians, Latins, Egyptians, Turks, Armenians, Italians, Persians, Kurds, Germans, Afghans, Circassians, Bosnians, Sudanese, Samaritans, Algerians, Motawila, and Tartars.

John of Wurzburg lists for the middle era of the kingdom, Latins, Germans, Hungarians, Scots, Navarese, Bretons, English, Franks, Ruthenians, Bohemians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Georgians, Armenians, Syrians, Persian Nestorians, Indians,Egyptians, Copts, Maronites and natives from the Nile Delta. The list might be much extended, for it was the period of the great self-willed city-states in Europe, and Amalfi, Pisans, Genoese, Venetians, and Marseillais, who had quarters in all the bigger cities, owned villages, and had trading rights, would, in all probability, have submitted to any of the above designations, only under pressure. Besides all these, Norsemen, Danes, Frisians, Tartars, Jews, Arabs, Russians, Nubians, and Samaritans, can be safely added to the greatest human agglomeration drawn together in one small area of the globe."2

Greeks fled the Muslim rule in Greece, and landed in Palestine. By the mid-seventeenth century, the Greeks lived everywhere in the Holy Land--constituting about twenty percent of the population-and their authority dominated the villages.3

Between 1750 and 1766 Jaffa had been rebuilt, and had some five hundred houses. Turks, Arabs, Greeks and Armenians and a solitary Latin monk lived there, to attend to the wants of the thousands of pilgrims who had to be temporarily housed in the port before proceeding to Jerusalem.4

"In some cases villages [in Palestine] are populated wholly by settlers from other portions of the Turkish Empire within the nineteenth century. There are villages of Bosnians, Druzes, Circassians and Egyptians," one historian has reported. 5

Another source, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911 edition (before the "more chauvinist Arab history" began to prevail with the encouragement of the British), finds the "population" of Palestine composed of so "widely differing" a group of "inhabitants" -- whose "ethnological affinities" create "early in the 20th century a list of no less than fifty languages" (see below) -- that "it is therefore no easy task to write concisely ... on the ethnology of Palestine." In addition to the "Assyrian, Persian and Roman" elements of ancient times, "the short-lived Egyptian government introduced into the population an element from that country which still persists in the villages."

. . . There are very large contingents from the Mediterranean countries, especially Armenia, Greece and Italy . . . Turkoman settlements ... a number of Persians and a fairly large Afghan colony . . . Motawila ... long settled immigrants from Persia ... tribes of Kurds ... German "Templar" colonies ... a Bosnian colony ... and the Circassian settlements placed in certain centres ... by the Turkish government in order to keep a restraint on the Bedouin ... a large Algerian element in the population ... still maintain(s) [while] the Sudanese have been reduced in numbers since the beginning of the 20th century.""

In the late eighteenth century, 3,000 Albanians recruited by Russians were settled in Acre. The Encyclopaedia Britannica finds "most interesting all the NON-Arab communities in the country . . . the Samaritan sect in Nablus (Shechem); a gradually disappearing body" once "settled by the Assyrians to occupy the land left waste by the captivity of the Kingdom of Israel."6

The disparate peoples recently assumed and purported to be "settled Arab indigenes, for a thousand years" were in fact a "heterogeneous" community 7 With No "Palestinian" identity, and according to an Official British historical analysis in 1920, No Arab identity either: "The people west of the Jordan are not Arabs, but only Arabic-speaking. The bulk of the population are fellahin.... In the Gaza district they are mostly of Egyptian origin; elsewhere they are of the most mixed race." 8

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/mixed.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu afak (talk • contribs) 00:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC) end abu_afak/abu_afak2@Yahoo.com

.
I think it's really destructive and misleading to have blatantly false zionist propaganda be the very FIRST thing people see when they visit the discussion board for this article. 213.6.0.188 21:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My/abu afak In response to just above. You are welcome to Rebut this "Zionist Propaganda", and debate me on it. SURELY you can take apart this "Blatant" stuff easily. To everyone reading this. Wiki staff and not.. My challenge will NOT be accepted as this "Zionist propaganda" is the truth. Further, it's my experience people who use the term he does, and I have wide internet debate experience, oft have a problem and/or emanate from a specific world region, where that term is used in broad form to describe virtually any information they don't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.183.132 (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Differences between Palestinians and Arabs?

This article ought to elaborate on what dfferentiates Palestanian culture from Arabic culture.


What "Diffferences"? posted by abu afak/abu_afak2@yahoo.com

"..There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another Recent Invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass. But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough....""

- Joseph Farah, Arab-American journalist

end abu_afak/abu_afak2@yahoo.com

`

  • They're about as different from other Levantines as Scandinavian nationalities are different from each other. Enough to make them distinct. Funkynusayri 18:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

>> WRONG! Scandinavians got different languages yet common history and cultures up to the point they were seperated from eachother. The "palestinians" dont even have That. (Y.S) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.210.38 (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The Arabic dialects are as different from each other as the Scandinavian languages are, if not more, so no, it's correct. Funkynusayri 11:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are editors trying to introduce a lead that omits mention of Samaritans and Jews? [1] There is a documented Samaritan community of 350 people living in Nablus who carry Palestinian ID cards and identify as Palestinian and there are some Jews who identify as Palestinian as well, for example Uri Davis. Further, there are Armenians in the Old City of Jerusalem that identify as Palestinian and they are not Arab. All of this needs to be discussed before being pushed through. There seems to be a rescoping of the article via changes to the definition of Palestinian and renames of the page that must garner consensus before being rammed through. Tiamat 17:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, though they are not mentioned much throughout the article, the Druze are said in the intro to be part of the Palestinian people. Are there any references to this notion? According to a book I have by Rabah Halabi, at least as far as Israeli citizens are concerned, Druze in general do not consider themselves to be Palestinian. Is there any significant Druze population in the West Bank?--Doron 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The most important part of any ethnicity is how people self identify. The languages people speak, their race and religion are irrelevant. Rktect 20:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Self-Identity and self-perception are NOT ethnicity. Smaug 21:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[Ethnicity] is how people identify regardless of the size of the group or whether they are a nation or a gang.Rktect 22:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Some Druze in Israel do identify as Palestinian. For example, the Arab citizens of Israel article notes that: In 2001, Said Nafa, who identifies as a Palestinian Druze and serves as the head of the Balad party's national council, founded the "Pact of Free Druze", an organization that aims "to stop the conscription of the Druze and claims the community is an inalienable part of the Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian nation at large." [2] The exact number may be in dispute, but that there are "Palestinian Druze" is not in question. Ditto for Samaritans, Jews, and even Armenians and others. Tiamat 22:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

These tiny minorities of 300 or even fewer individuals are not notable enough for the lead, especially the ones that are more political grandstanding that discernible reality. Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What number do minorities have to reach before they are notable enough for inclusion in the lead? And whose engaged in political grandstanding? Aren't politicians supposed to represent the identity, needs, and positions of their constituencies? Tiamat 23:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the population of Palestinians is 9,410,000 as claimed, then 300 people would represent 0.003 percent. Numbers significant enough to mention in the lead should be at least 1%, or 300 times as many as are mentioned here. As for grandstanders, a number of the people claiming to be Palestinians are certainly not being represented by Palestinian politicians, or, indeed, volunteering to go live among real Palestinians. Article leads should not be vehicles for political theatre. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a policy that says we cannot mention minority groups unless they constitute at least 1% of the population? Further, Druze Palestinians are certainly more than 1% of the population. Tiamat 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't wikilawyer around; sometimes editors have to use common sense too. The lead must contain the most significant facts about the topic; something comprising less than 1% isn't significant. O.K., if you want to argue if 1% is significant, or 0.75% is significant, or 1.25%, fine, have at it, but it is without question that 0.003% is not significant. Now, given that according to Identity Repertoires among Arabs in Israel, by Muhammad Amara and Izhak Schnell; Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 30, 2004 most Druze in Israel consider themselves to be Arabs, but not Palestinians, just how many Druze actually consider themselves to be Palestinians? Jayjg (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Because there are no definitive numbers that address that issue, I couldn't tell you. However, using common sense, knowing that there are some Druze who do identify as Palestinian (As per the source I provided you above) I can deduce that there there is a minority Druze population among Palestinians. Similarly, knowing that there are more than 300 Samaritans living in Nablus, I know that there is a Samaritan minority among Palestinians. The significance of these groups should not be restricted by their small numbers. Tiamat 00:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Using common sense, if, say, 10 Druze considered themselves to be Palestinians, would that be suitable for inclusion in the lead? How about 20? At what point do the numbers become significant? I think any sensible person would agree that 0.003%, or even 10 times as much, 0.03%, is nowhere near significant enough for a lead. Keep in mind, regardless of minor exceptions, the scientific literature has always been clear that most Druze do not consider themselves to be Palestinian - frankly, many don't consider themselves to even be Arabs, but, in fact, simply "Druze". As Salih al-Shaykh points out "their Arab identity emanates in the main from the common language and their socio-cultural background, but is detached from any national political conception. It is not directed at Arab countries or Arab nationality or the Palestinian people, and does not express sharing any fate with them. From this point of view, their identity is Israel, and this identity is stronger than their Arab identity". Nissim Dana, The Druze in the Middle East: Their Faith, Leadership, Identity and Status, Sussex Academic Press, 2003, p. 201. Jayjg (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
That is true of some Druze, but not all. For those Druze who do consider themselves Palestinians (for which I provided you one example of an elected Palestinian Druze leader in Israel), and considering the non-existence of solid numbers, I would argue that a mention of this minority in the lead in a line outlining what Palestinian minorities there are, is worthy of note. Samaritans are also definitely worthy of note, (even if they do number only 300 - 550 since their total community remaining in this area of the Middle East is only 700 max.) as are Jews. Tiamat 06:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
You're just making assertions at this point, not even arguments. I've already brought you the scholarly literature that said most Druze don't consider themselves to be Palestinians. I've pointed out that a group that comprises 0.003% of the Palestinians cannot possibly be significant enough for the lead. I haven't even bothered to point out that there seems to be only 1 Jew, Uri Davis, who calls himself a "Palestinian Jew" and is currently living in a Palestinian community; the rest are a very small number of extremist, Eastern European originated Jews who don't even speak Arabic (they mostly speak Yiddish, Hebrew, and English), and who make the statement purely for political reasons, and not because they actually want to live as or with real Palestinians. If you have any actual arguments, please make them. Jayjg (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Who is better to determine any individuals identity than the individuals themselves?Rktect 20:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering there are only 700 Samaritans worldwide, roughly half of whom live in Nablus and the other half in Holon, I would argue that they deserve mention in the lead. i.e., roughly half of this existing minority population are Palestinians. This is notable. I brought you material that proves that an elected leader of the Druze community in Israel defines himself as Palestinian (he also represents a constitutency); that is notable. Finally, I would ask that you drop the dismissive tone and attitude and try to treat others with the respect you demand for yourself. Tiamat 10:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources saying that these Samritans consider themselves Palestinians? Beit Or 18:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[3] Notables amongst the Samaritan sect in the city of Nablus have denied that a large number of Samaritans have acquired Israeli nationality, according to a news item published in the Hebrew paper "HaEretz" (25.4.97). Saloum al Kahen, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, said, on behalf of the sect, that the report concerns only a few dozen senior citizens who applied for Israeli citizenship about twelve years ago, in order to gain much needed pensions and national insurance allowances. Al Kahen affirmed that about 75 Samaritans have Israeli citizenship, most of whom were senior citizens, and that young Samaritans carry the same I.D. passes carried by all residents of Nablus. He added, "We are Palestinians and belong to Palestine, to Nablus and to Holy Mount Gerizim."
Farouk Al Sameri, the sect's secretary, vehemently denied that any members of the Samaritan sect in Nablus were in the process of obtaining Israeli citizenship. He said "We have no identity other than the Palestinian and Nablusi identity. Our existence is drawn from being here on this land on Mount Gerizim." The matter, he said, was no more than "a humanitarian issue," with no political overtones. "A number of senior citizens were compelled by their circumstances to obtain Israeli pension allowances in Israel by means of obtaining Israeli citizenship," Al Sameri said.
Members of the Samaritan sect in Nablus refused to accept an offer of citizenship from the Israeli government directly after its occupation of the town of Nablus in 1967. The people of Nablus remember to this day what the spiritual head of the Samaritan sect, Sidquh al Kahen, said in a radio interview with "Voice of Israel" after the occupation of the city. When the interviewer asked how the inhabitants of the town were treating them, he replied, "If our prophet Moses was with us to this day, I do not believe he would have treated us better than the way we are being treated by our own people - our brothers and sisters in the town of Nablus." The Samaritan sect is the smallest religious sect in the world, consisting of 680 individuals, half of whom live on Mount Gerizim whilst the remainder live in the Israeli town of Houloun, near Tel Aviv. The Samaritans believe in the sacredness of Mount Gerizim. Although they adhere to the ancient Old Testament, they deny the Jewish doctrines, believing them to be a corruption of the teachings of Moses.Tiamat 14:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that some of them consider themselves to be Palestinians is certainly notable information in the Samaritan article, but, again, they're simply not numerous enough to deserve mention in the lead of the Palestinian article. That irrefutable fact of 0.003% pretty much trumps anything else. Jayjg (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but no such proportion of Druse identify in that manner. TewfikTalk 19:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Says Tewfik, the Druse self apointed spokesman. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
No, that's what all the scholarly sources say, and I've cited some of them. Jayjg (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

why is Passia.com used as a source? Why is it reliable?

It refers to Palestinian "resistence", misses no chance in its chronology pages to count "massacres" of palestinians, and from it's chronoloy of 1967 one would think there was no war and Israel spontaneously annexed territory. It doesn't even substitute militant for terrorist, it calls them "activists". When Palestinians die on Sept 28 of 1996 they are "matyred". And finally, it calls Palestine a country. It clearly has an agenda. If this source is not reliable as I assert I will remove all "facts" that use this as a reference in a day or two. Smaug 21:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Having a POV does not make a source unreliable. There are no objective sources. That said, the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs certainly qualifies as a reliable source on information to do with Palestinians. See also their standards page: [4]. Tiamat 21:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
When a website calls people "martyrs", it crosses the line into too partisan to be reliable. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Because we Palestinians have a word to honor those who die, in Arabic, Shaheed, and we translate it into English accurately and use it, we are biased. This doesn't make any sense Jayjg. It's a cultural practice among Palestinians to call the dead "martyrs". PASSIA is not an American academic institute, it's a Palestinian one, and it has a right to name its fallen as it's community does. Respecting and faithfully representing the culture of the community it comes from doesn't make it biased. Tiamat 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Omissions and distortions concerning DNA evidence

Plenty of false information here on DNA information. No mention of the fact that overall Jews are far more associated with Haplogroup J2, common in the northern fertile cresent and Mediterranean basin, than J1, more associated with Arabs, including Palestinians, which you are trying to portray as the "authentic marker" of "Semitic speakers". Plus, the research on "CMH" is still inconclusive and hotly debated, despite the way you are trying to portray it. There is no credible reason to believe that CMH lies outside of the main Jewish distributions. Shoddy scholarship with a strong political motivation are profoundly evident here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 02:18, 16 July 2007 (talk • contribs) 151.200.35.152.

Its true that there were problems with this section which I tried to sort out. For one, it misquoted the data from the line below, and left out important information about the relevance of J1 and J2 to the populations in question (relative occurrence among Arabs, Jews; Levantine focus) while including general information unrelated to the discussion about the Palestinians. TewfikTalk 03:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
And yet this keeps getting reverted. Maybe someone knows of a different Semino? TewfikTalk 02:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Arabs and Arabians

Because I have noticed that there are some editors who are confused about the concept of Arab and the concept of Arabian. I would suggest you to read this [5]. It shows you how Arabs, and ancient Arabs classified themselves into three categories... Only one of them is the Ishmaelites, cousins of the Israelites. But the rest are really ancient Arabs with whom Ishmael whom were in Arabia even before the arrival of Ishmael. There is a good Arabic book about all this stuff, unfortunately I cannot find an English translation. Almaqdisi talk to me 05:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Almaqdisi. Unreliable stuff simply is not going to stay in this article, per WP:V. Please respect that consensus. Jayjg (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Almaqdisi, according to WP:V, you can use a source in a language other then English when no English equivalent is available. It's not surprising that detailed information on Palestinians or Arabs and their geneaology would be more readily available in Arabic. If you can translate the sections you want to use and post them here and cite the source you are using in both Arabic and English, we can use your source for the article. Tiamat 00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

New intro?

It now says there are "four different types" of Palestinians. The first definition applies to the term's use in the British Mandate period, whereas the second, third and fourth definitions are "Israeli Palestinians", "West Bank and Gaza Palestinians" and "Diaspora Palestinians". The terminology is confusing and the definition makes it same as though these different groups are mutually exclusive whereas they are all Palestinians, just in different temporal and geographic spaces. It has to be changed. Tiamat 00:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but if you insert the irrelevant stuff about Canaanites yet again I'll revert all your edits. Please edit accordingly. Jayjg (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe I was quite clear about this, wasn't I? Also, it's rather disingenuous for you to revert my edits, then put the onus on my to explain why I don't approve of your reverts. Jayjg (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You can be as clear as you want, but when your reverts wipe out my work wholesale, including edits that have nothing to do with any of the points you have raised, despite my clear requests to be more discriminting, your action can be seen as provocative as disrespectful of the work of others. Tiamat 12:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Except for the fact that every single one of your proposed changes has been explicitly and specifically objected to, often at great length, yet you choose to ignore that. In addition, some of your edits are, in fact, reversions of edits that others have made, yet you refuse to explain your reversions. It would seem hypocritical to blindly revert several people without even explaining why, when you complain that that others "reverts wipe out my work wholesale". Your actions are, in fact, "provocative as disrespectful of the work of others". Jayjg (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? Shall we go through them then, one by one? Here is the diff:

  1. Intro: I have added [[Samaritan and Druze and deleted "the region of" before Palestine since it is rather superfluous.
  2. I have restored the quotes around the terms discussed in the next paragraph that shows changes, as well as the wikilink to the 1948 war (and a more simplified version of the a sentence that basically says the same thing.
  3. I added one sentence to the footnote of Edward said's comment on Khalidi's book: "Khalidi's massive study of the construction of Palestinian national identity is a pathbreaking work of major importance.
  4. I have removed the unsourced sentence, "without a clear definition whom to count as a Palestinian"
  5. I added the following paragraph sourced to Franz Rosenthal to the origins section:

    Palestinians, like most other Arabic-speakers, combine ancestries from those who have come to settle the region throughout history; though 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. [1]

  6. I moved Kathleen Christison comment on Palestinian historians from her review of Kunstl and Albright's book to the section directly after the quote that they make since it is directly relevant there, so that the paragraph now reads:

    Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, author-journalists, write that:

    "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."[2]

    Kathleen Christison notes in her review of Kunstel and Albright's work that they 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."[3]
  7. I changed the sentence on increasing Arabization in the Umayyad era, based on Lewis as a source to read :

    Although various Arabian tribes inhabited Palestine since the 3rd millennium BC,[4], increasing conversions to Islam among the local population, together with the immigration of Arabs from Arabia and inland Syria, led to increased Arabization of the population in the Umayyad era.

  8. I added the following bolded material to this sentence, based on the source:

    According to Science, "most Palestinian archaeologists were quick to distance themselves from these ideas," viewing the issue of who was in Palestine first as constituting an ideological issue lying outside of the realm of archaeological study.[5]

  9. I restored and made corrections to the material in the DNA section to reflect the sources cited and not Tewfik's WP:OR interpretation which badly misreads the source material.
  • So, as far as I can recall, you have only actually raised issues around the first of these nine changes, and have not discussed any of the remainder with me. In other words, my assertion that your reverts are wholesale, is absolutely correct. Tiamat 13:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Said's kissing up to Khalidi, this is an article about "Palestinian people", not Khalidi's book. Save the back-slapping for the article about the book. Removing a link to the Establishment of the State of Israel article makes no sense, your wording was worse, the Palestine Post changed its name in 1950 so it's not clear why you would change this to the less accurate "after the 1948 war"). The "without a clear definition" stuff seems to have been slipped in there. The Rosenthal material is 40 years old, and he was a specialist in Arabic literature and Islam, not history; I've already explained at length why we need modern scientific works on this, as the science keeps changing. The problem with POV-pushing this irrelevant Canaanite stuff has already been explained to you by many editors here - your continued attempts to write revisionist history that not even Palestinian historians support are perverse. The Lewis material is dubious, as you haven't quoted him exactly. Your original research regarding the Science article is clear - you are quoting one person and attributing his views to many. Your reversions of Tewfik on the DNA material have not been explained, other than a claim that he "badly misreads"; it. Jayjg (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't address all the points I raised and what you have provided is not so much a response as a a series of accusations based on non-sequiters between new material I have introduced and old arguments you have made that are specious at best. Indeed, it seems that you are not interested in collaboration here, but rather enjoy promoting any-version-other-than-Tiamat's. It looks like we once again need mediation. Tiamat 13:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I have responded clearly with my objections to each claim; please avoid further violations of WP:CIVIL by referring to them as "non-sequiters". On the other hand, you have yet to provide a rationale for some of your reverts. If you want to set up Talk: page sections for each proposed change, so that it can be discussed in a way that is more clear to you, please feel free to. Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would I do that Jayjg, when I have already outlined the changes I want to make here? Why can't you respond to each of them (they are numbered after all and you can say, "#1 is an issue we have already discussed, number #3 is fine, go ahead and add it ... etc., etc. (I should mention I missed one change in that edit, which is an introductory paragraph to the culture section that I restored after Beit Or deleted it, which you redeleted again without explanation.) Could you please work with me here? Tiamat 09:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well #6 is a big problem. The Kunstel and Albright junk shouldn't be here at all. They aren't historians, they're not doing history, they wrote a non-notable, apparently out-of-print book, which made WP:REDFLAG claims. Sorry, but it's extreme WP:UNDUE for such a non-reliable source. <<-armon->> 12:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Christison calls them historians in her review of their work. What evidence do you have suggesting that they are an unreliable source? Their work is properly contextualized. My version makes no extraordinary claims regarding their expertise. It simply states :

The claim that Palestinians are direct descendants of the region's earliest inhabitants, the Canaanites, has been put forward by some authors. Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, author-journalists, write that:

"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."[2]

Kathleen Christison notes in her review of Kunstel and Albright's work that they 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."[6]
Tiamat 13:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want to include the Palestinian claim of Canaanite descent, and it's a widely held belief that we can properly cite as such, i have no problem with mentioning that people hold this belief. OTOH, presenting pseudohistory as history will be reverted. Kunstel and Albright are "rare historians" because they aren't historians. There's no point discussing this further. <<-armon->> 14:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Every source that puts forward the claim of Canaanite descent is a not a reliable to you which is hwy there is indeed no point in discussing this with you any further. You cannot decide that a source is unreliable without providing evidence to support your claim. The Christison source says they are historians. Do you have a source that says they are pseudo-historians? I didn't think so. The source stays. I've had enough of the automatic denials of sources by you and Jayjg simply because you don't like what they have to say. Tiamat 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, they're historians because some other non-historian says so. Give it up. <<-armon->> 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I see. So I provide you sources and you provide me with insults. And I'm supposed to defer to your position? Is this how you go about seeking consensus? Find a source that says they are not historians and then we'll talk until then, they are a reliable source per Kathleen Christison, who by the way, is a Mid-East expert, and is likely familiar with literature on the subject. Tiamat 16:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know where you think I insulted you. Pointing out your poor sources is not an insult. As for "Find a source that says they are not historians and then we'll talk", you're simply shifting the burden of proof. It's on you, for your edits. <<-armon->> 00:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Christison is an ex-CIA analyst and noted Israel-basher. She is in no way a historian, or even an academic, and her word doesn't turn Kunstel and Albright into historians. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, do you have source? For any of the allegations you are making (which by the way, violate WP:BLP). If not, what you think personally about Christison or Kunstel and Albright is largely irrelevant. Tiamat 16:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Which parts of what I said do you think are not accurate? Jayjg (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 1. Samaritans make up 0.003% of Palestinians, so they don't belong in the lead. Most Druze do not consider themselves to be Palestinian, and I have brought scholarly sources saying exactly that. We have been over this at length, your continued attempts to insert this material regardless is disruptive.
  • There are only 700 Samaritans worldwide and half of them Palestinian, per the source I provided in that section above. They deserve mention in the lead. I hope you are not suggesting that because they are so small in number that they don't deserve to be mentioned in other articles besides their own at all. As for the Druze, I provided you with a source that proves that a Druze Member of the Knesset in Israel identifies as Palestinian, he represents a constituency who voted for him and that that means there are a significant number of Druze who identify as Palestinian. They also deserve mention in the lead. Your continued attempts to pretend that you won and resolved that debate are getting tiresome. You don't have consensus for your position. 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • One 0.003% and one Druze member aren't significant. You have no consensus for your POV edit, and I will not comment further. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Half of all the Samaritans in the world, and a Palestinian Druze leader of a major political party for Arabs in Israel are not insignificant. You have no consensus for your removals of this information.
  • 2. Regarding Said's kissing up to Khalidi, this is an article about "Palestinian people", not Khalidi's book. Save the back-slapping for an article about the book.
  • The "back-slapping" provides context for the sentence that follows it. I made a revised version of it in this edit (which I self-reverted once I realized I had probably violated 3RR). It cuts out some of the backslapping while providing context for the quote.Tiamat 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This article is about Palestinians, not the book. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree. Why don't we just remove the whole footnote? The half a sentence fragment I provided was for context, but if you think it's not relevant at all. Let's take out the whole part that comments from the back of the book. Tiamat 11:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 3. Removing a link to the Establishment of the State of Israel article makes no sense, your wording was worse, the Palestine Post changed its name in 1950 so it's not clear why you would change this to the less accurate "after the 1948 war".
  • That's fine. Upon reflection, I agree with your version for this point. Tiamat 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 4. The "without a clear definition" stuff seems to have been slipped in there, I removed it.
  • Great. Tiamat 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 5. The Rosenthal material is 40 years old, and he was a specialist in Arabic literature and Islam, not history; I've already explained at length why we need modern scientific works on this, as the science keeps changing.
  • He is used to quote Ibn Khaldun's theory which is presented while referring to the genetics section and its findings, which you seem to be ignoring actually suggest that Palestinians are descended from the earliest populations in the Levant with more than 60% of them holding Haplogroup J markers. Tiamat 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Ibn Khaldun's theory is not relevant to modern science, nor is the 40 year old work of a specialist in Arab literature and Islam. I've been over this many times, I won't repeat it. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't share your view. His work is properly contextualized and there is no expiry date for historical works. Tiamat 11:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 6. The problem with POV-pushing this irrelevant Canaanite stuff has already been explained to you by many editors here - the material only comes from non-historians, approved of by other non-historians. Your continued attempts to write revisionist history that not even Palestinian historians support are perverse.
  • You are ignoring that the text as you keep restoring it actually debunks Canaanite ancestry without ever advancing the argument. My version does. Stop trying to censor out the opposite POV. Tiamat 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The debunking comes from reliable sources; the "advancing" does not. Avoid WP:CIVIL violations. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • No source that advances the thesis of Canaanite descent is ever reliable to you. I have provided you with almost a dozen in the last two months. You always find an excuse under which to disqualify them from inclusion. Tiamat 11:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 7. The Lewis material is dubious, as you haven't quoted him exactly.
  • I am open to being corrected should you have a copy of the text. That material is from an earlier version of the page. Tiamat 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If you don't have a copy of the text, then don't include it. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • So I shouldn't restore edits that others have added if I don't have a copy of the book? Where is that written? Tiamat 11:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 8. Your original research regarding the Science article is clear - you are quoting one person and attributing his views to many.
  • You are ignoring that that material was previously used in a very misleading fashion. My version corrects that problem, but I am open to changing the wording to be more representative of the source. Tiamat 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 9. Your reversions of Tewfik on the DNA material have not been explained, other than a claim that he "badly misreads" it.
  • Neither has Tewfik explained how his edits reflect the text more accurately. They do not. Check the footnotes, read, and you will see why my version (which was the earlier version largely provided by other editors and slighty corrected for readability) is better. 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Explain your revert. Jayjg <font
      • Tewfik's version badly misconstrues the sources to claim that second wave of migration of Arabs in the 7th century is associated with J1 among Palestinians. That's not true. The source says that is the case in North Africa for the presence of J1 there. Palestine is not North Africa. He also places the percentage of J1 at almost half of what it acutally is (in the 30s, instead of the 60s). Tiamat 11:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

color="DarkGreen">(talk) 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • 10. The introductory paragraph to the culture section was pure unsourced original research. Jayjg (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It is all sourced by the material provided by the articles in the culture section. It's an introduction that summarizes the content of the culture articles and was the intro for the Palestinian culture] article. It therefore doesn't need to be referenced. It's not even controversial so I don't see what the problem is actually. Tiamat 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it's unsourced original research. The section doesn't need that. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
An introduction to a section on culture that mentions that Palestinian share cultural customs with other Levantine populations, but also have unique cultural products is not necessary? Come on. Tiamat 11:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I will make some minor changes per my comments above.Tiamat 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tiamat. There is no consensus for your edits, as has been explained at length. Make uncontroversial edits first, and get consensus, and please stop this disruption. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jayjg. I have moved way beyond these edits now.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_people&diff=147644089&oldid=147629814] If you still have problems with some things I have added, as you indicate for a couple of things above, please make specific changes to those specific passages. Stop wholesale reverts. Alternatively, you can use fact tags and other tools. I am here working on the article and the pressing need you feel to automatically delete my additions can be moderated considering. Tiamat 11:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see, your latest version reinserts a lot of what was objected to, as well as bringing in new issues. For example, you've put the "Druze and Samaritan minorities" back in the lead, and now the Khalidi source appears to state the opposite of what it did before -which is it? You've been asked repeatedly to proceed step by step on your proposed changes, so instead of doing wholesale reverts yourself, please either start with uncontroversial changes, or get some kind of consensus beforehand. <<-armon->> 21:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I have gone to considerable to discuss the changes I want to make. I've been doing that for two months now. If you think that the Druze and Samaritan information should not be there, we can discuss that again, or you can remove it and we can discuss it again. Many of the changes I have made are not controversial at all and your wholesale reverts throw out improvements for flow and grammar and clarity, as well as new unrelated material. Please focus. And please explain further what you mean about the Khalidi quote. Tiamat 00:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Insert what you think are non-controversial edits first; your current method of editing is intended to be as disruptive as possible for other editors. Work with other editors, rather than trying to make life as difficult as possible for them. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I did that Jayjg. My latest edit made changes to accomodate some of the concerns you raised. I think I have been extremely patient over the last two months, during your repeated deletions of my work here. I have found new sources over and over again, only to have you find something wrong with them and claim they are controversial. I have reformulated additions I have made to take into account viewpoints. As such, I am going to restore my edit and I am going to ask you once again, to work with me not against me. Please place fact tags on items you think need better sources. Please go through the edit and mark out the things you think are controversial. I can't read your mind. I made changes per our discussion above. I've engaged in talk. The changes I keep trying to re-introduce are not static. They are dynamic and crafted in response to your objections. Please. I'm asking you nicely. Stop undoing my work. And do some of your own. Tiamat 13:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This seems crazy. Why does information on the Druze and Samartians have to do with this entry? How do they have ANY connection with the Palestinian people? What makes you think Palestinians are an ethnic group? They are not. They are a political entity, nothing more. So why are you are adding material on other sub-ethnic groups which have no connection to this topic anyway?
I don't understand why things have reached this point. please try not to remove Tiamat's material. If you disagree with his material, you can simply add your own counter-balancing refernces an/or note the disputed nature of some claims. Tiamat is a good-faith editor, and it seems unnecessary for well-sourced text to be so disputed. --Steve, Sm8900 16:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Steve. Thanks for your comments about my good-faith editing, I really appreciate it. About Druze and Samaritans, most view them as religious minorities rather than ethnic groups. Even if they were ethnic groups, there are many among both groups who identify as Palestinian as noted in the article body in the section on Religion. I tend to agree with you that Palestinians are not an ethnic group (if by ethnic group you mean racial group, since they are very racially mixed); however, that doesn't mean we should exclude information about the different religious and self-identified ethnic minorities that claim to also share in Palestinian identity or ethnicity. Nonetheless, for now I have refrained from adding to the intro, so as to pursue consensus. Having them in the body of the article is good enough for now. Tiamat 17:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to continue negotiating

Hi there. Glad to see you only deleted about 1,000 bytes of material here instead of 5,000 bytes as in your previous revert. Now we're getting somewhere.

I have a couple of questions for you about your edit. First the easy ones:

1) Why did you remove "national liberation movement". The PLO was one of a handful of national liberation movements to gain observer status. This is well-documented and relevant to the article.

2) Why did you restore Tewfik's edits to the DNA section. What makes his version more accurate than my own? I explained my edits above in response to your request to do so. Can you explain yours?

As for the ancestry section, we need to discuss that in detail once again once we finish these issues. You once again reverted all of my changes there, even removing a sentence sourced to Lewis regarding Arabian tribes.

But again, I appreciate you taking me up on my request. Please answer these two questions and we'll take it from there. Tiamat 16:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

According to whom were they accorded observer status as a "national liberation movement"? Also, your explanation of your reverts of Tewfik's edits were broad and non-specific. Finally, yes, we do need to discuss the ancestry section in detail. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I provided you with a source that explains that a bit. Read it.
I have re-read all of the DNA material linked, discovered both Tewfik and I were wrong in our versions, drafted a new version based on the sources that were already there that is clearer (I think) and much more accurate than what was there before (both my version and Tewfik's old version).
Can you acknowledge that the "national liberation movement" information is both accurate and verifiable and relevant to the article?
Can you explain any problems you see with the new version for the DNA section?
And then, can we move on the Ancestry section again?
Thanks. Ti;amat 02:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to review the DNA changes you've made. The "national liberation movement" source would have to be an official U.N. one. We can certainly move on to the Ancestry section. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I gave you the link to the source. It's a legal summary. Here's the diff showing my changes to the DNA section: [6]. I'm also going to add a link to the full text of the Semino paper available at another page to the article right now, since the link currently in place is not the full text. Tiamat 02:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, a simple google search for national liberation PLO UN observer status, brought up this UN document: [7]. Pretty clear no? So, reinserting "national liberation movement and appending this source alongside that already there is all clear. Tiamat 02:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The link doesn't work for me. Do you have a better one? Also, please review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages: Never address other users in a heading, and avoid provocative and pointless reverts in this regard in the future. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's another UN source - UN General Assembly resolution 52/260 from 2 July 1998, available here: [8] or if the link doesn't open, go here [9] and look it up by title, "Participation of Palestine in the Work of the UN", states:

Recalling also its resolution 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, by which it granted observer status to the Palestine Liberation Organization, Recalling further its resolution 43/160 A of 9 December 1988, adopted under the item entitled "Observer status of national liberation movements recognized by the Organization of African Unity and/or by the League of Arab States", in which it decided that the Palestine Liberation Organization was entitled to have its communications issued and circulated as official documents of the United Nations, Recalling its resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988, in which it acknowledged the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988 and decided that the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system ...

Also, did you get a chance to look at the DNA section? Tiamat 10:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The PLO was granted observer status at the UN, but it's incorrect to say it was recognized as a "national liberation movement" by anyone other than the League of Arab States and/or the Organization of African Unity. Maybe I missed it, but it was unclear if it was both orgs. <<-armon->> 11:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's another source that makes it clearer from the UN Security Council: It has been the practice of the United Nations since the early 1950s to recognize movements of national liberation and aid them in their quest for self-determination. However, as demonstrated by the situation in Israel and Palestine, despite this recognition, the UN has been unable to help procure peace in some of these situations.
And another from Tufts University: National liberation movements the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) prior to Namibian independence–were given observer status in the General Assembly.
It's quite clear that the PLO was granted observer status on the basis of its character as a national liberation movement. Tiamat 12:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry section negotiations based on this diff:

Questions for Jayjg:

1) Why would you put Kunstel and Albright at the beginning of this section if you claim that their opinion is not as valid as that of "real" historians?

As you can see from my version on the left of the diff placed above, I have put them at the end of this section and contextualized their argument. Your version gives them WP:UNDUE prominence. Further, you version uses Kathleen Christison's review of their book to make a generalized claim about how "most historians do not give credence to these claims." My version places her review after Kunstel and Albright's statement, properly attributing it the context in which it was produced.

2) Why are Ibn Khaldun's writings on Arab ancestry not relevant to this section?

Note that my version does not proffer his thesis as a fact. It refers to the genetics section and points out similarities in his thesis while consigning the determination of the debate to the realm of DNA studies (where it belongs, as per the Palestinian archaeologists statements and even Lewis himself. Genetic questions cannot be answered by historians or archaeologists.)

3) Why do you keep deleting this sentence opening:

Although various tribes from the Arabian peninsula had migrated into Palestine as early as the 3rd millennium BC,[7]

?

It is sourced to Bernard Lewis who you quote from extensively in this section. The reliability of the source, in other words, is not in question. So what's the problem?

I believe that covers the fundamental differences between the version you keep restoring and the one I do. Please answer the questions and we can take it from there. Tiamat 13:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

1) The Kunstel and Albright stuff is the earliest chronologically. You're right, given that they are not historians it doesn't really belong at all in the article, but given your insistence on it anyway, it logically goes first.
2) The theories of medieval writers, or even specialists in Arab literature and Islam who 40 years ago agreed with those theories, are not relevant to this page. Use recent material from relevant experts, in accord with WP:V and WP:NPOV.
3) Because the claim seems unlikely to me, as I've said before. I also asked for the exact quote, to verify, but you have not yet been forthcoming. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
1) I don't see how the Kunstel and Albright stuff should go first. It's chronologically first how exactly? Where does it say that we cite sources in chronological order? I think your point here is weak, evasice and pointy.
2) How are the writing of medieval Arab writer on the ancestry of Arabs not relevant to a section on the ancestry of Palestinians? Where is the Wiki policy that disqualifies sources based on their antiquity?
3)It's totally uncontroversial that Arabian tribes migrated out of the Sinai peninsula into Palestine in the 3rd millenium BC. As I explained to you before, I don't have Lewis' book to be able to give the exact quote, but a previous editor inserted this information, its not a far out claim at all, and it doesn't deserve to be deleted just because you think it might not be accurate. Get the book and check it. Or do some research. It's verifiable. Do some verifying if you have doubts.

In short Jayjg, I think your objections here are nitpicking. There isn't a solid argument that addresses why my version is unsuitable. Tiamat 10:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

1) It describes the earliest origins of the Palestinians. The alternative is to remove the musings of journalists entirely.
2) Because the writing of medieval writers is only a reliable source for articles describing what they wrote, not for any actual real-life scientific information.
3) It may be uncontroversial to you, but I don't trust the claim, and I don't see how its relevant to this article. When something is challenged, and cannot be supported, it is removed, not stubbornly re-inserted. Jayjg (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
what's that about medieval writers? I think you must be kidding. I regards to history or ancestry, it's totally acceptable. What about Josephus, and numerous other writers of antiquity? how do you think the historical record was created in the first place? Even if your point were right, this is not a Wikipedia rule. you can note your points in the text, without reverting or removing the material entirely. --Steve, Sm8900 18:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not acceptable at all. We don't rely on Josephus, or Herodotus, or any other ancient writer for reliable information. Now it's entirely possible that modern historians will use ancient writers as one source of information, but we can't, since we're not experts nor are we doing original research. WP:V is indeed a Wikipedia rule, and we don't "note your point in the text" regarding unreliable sources, you simply remove it. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely with Tiamat, in regard to all her points. I suggest to please stop taking potshots at her material, and simply add your own if you feel it needs more balance. For example, if you don't consider medieval experts convincing, simply note this in the text. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scholarly journal. It reflects overall amount of work on this topic, not necessarily the latest or the most current or developed. --Steve, Sm8900 13:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:V disagrees with you. The writings of Ibn Khaldun are fine for an article on Ibn Khaldun. Jayjg (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you point me to the passage in your bible (WP:V) that disqualifies the use of Ibn Khaldun? Also could you explain how you lack of trust for a claim requires other editors to go out to library and get a book when you could easily get it and check it yourself? Tiamat 17:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand your request; what bible are you referring to? Perhaps you can rephrase your question in a way that is more comprehensible. Regarding the material currently being attributed to Lewis, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The Lewis material is wholly uncontroversial. See The Catholic Encyclopedia online which says the same thing he does [10]. This is basic ancient history Jayjg, but whatever.
I want to know how WP:V disqualifies the use of Ibn Khaldun. And my question was partially facetious (as was your answer). What I'm trying to say is that your interpretation of policy can differ from my own. We're not dealing with holy texts here, so don't try and pretend that you can invoke a policy, pretend it's the word of god and the issue is then closed.
Finally, you still haven't addressed the problems with "your version" that I outlined at the beginning of this section. Specifically, why do you keep insisting on using Christison's review of Kunstel and Albright's work in a tendentious way to make conclusions about the views of all historians, rather than placing in context directly after their work? Thanks.Tiamat 18:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
You keep claiming the Lewis material is "uncontroversial", but that's simply not good enough; support your claims. And please don't bring articles from 100 year old religious works as "proof". Regarding the Ibn Khaldun material, WP:V states "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." and "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." I don't think that applies to Ibn Khaldun. Finally, I don't understand why you think Christison's review has been used in a "tendentious way". Frankly, it doesn't belong at all, Kunstel and Albright are journalists, not historians, and Christison is an ex-CIA analyst and anti-Israel activist, not a historian or academic. I think I'm being quite generous in accepting this material in any form. Jayjg (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
When the topic itself is rooted in antiquity, such as the movement and derivation of ancient peoples, you an use sourdces which are from antiquity. That is precisely why many historians rely on Josephus for information on historical Jewish events. --Steve, Sm8900 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
No, of course not. We use modern historians. They in turn might use some of what Josephus wrote, with caution, as one of their sources, but Josephus doesn't meet Wikipedia's WP:V requirements. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Accounts by ancient historians are too easily taken out of context, or may even be inaccurate, biased, or otherwise flawed. We have to rely on modern historians to put ancient writings in the correct context. Making our own interpretations of the material is original research. In any case, I don't see the value in quoting Ibn Khaldoun unless the comparison of his opinion to modern opinion is frequently made by historians. On the face of it, dropping his name adds no useful content. nadav (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the view of Nadav and Jayjg is that Ibn Khaldun is not notable enough or credible enough a source for this claim, there are others. For example, in the Nebel et al. study cited in the DNA section, the article clearly states that:

"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)."

I might point out that this is exactly what Ibn Khaldun says. But if you prefer that we use "modern historians", there is this quote. Is there any objection to using this source instead of Ibn Khaldun? Tiamat 11:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added the quote as a footnote to the text. I don't agree that Ibn Khaldun's view should be removed. Nadav seems to be ignoring that Rosenthal, a "modern historian" is citing Ibn Khaldun, he's not being cited directly. Jayjg is ignoring that Ibn Khaldun's thesis that Arabs are descendants of previous populations in the region is neither controversial, nor disputed. Even Lewis concedes that this is true, though he believes the contribution to be more minor than others. Throughout the article, DNA studies cite the historical record as saying that many of the Moslems in Palestine are descendants of Jewish and Christian populations that preceded them, and the pagan populations that preceded them. There are no sources cited in the article that dispute this claim. If you find a source that disputes it, we can juxtapose it against the others. However, to continue insisting that this is an extraordinary claim without acknowledging the myriad expert sources cited in the article that make it, is really rather ridiculous. The burden of proof was long ago met and it is stubborn POV pushing to deny it. Tiamat 12:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be ignoring the fact that Rosenthal wrote his stuff 40 years ago, and is not, and was never, a "historian". Jayjg (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Stop ignoring that this is not controversial material. Acknowledge the expert material in the quote above. Stop disrupting development of this article. When you delete 6,000 bytes of material and then explain your edit with this one sentence here, that's not discussion Jayjg. Nor is the making of general and inaccurate accusations against me discussion of the article, as per you comments in the section below. Are you being purposefully obtuse? Tiamat 16:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Demography

I have moved the section on demography from Palestine to this article. Logically the demography of a people should be discussed in the article on the people and not elswhere. I have made some minor changes to avoid duplications and to facilitate understanding. Benqish 07:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Shalom: it appears that the 'Palestinian people' discussed in this article may not be the same group of people that are discussed in the other article you mentioned. You also had few mistakes and interruptions in the flow of original content. Sory I didn't see this post of yours here before. 65.188.174.171 15:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

History

Where's the big part talking properly on Palestinian History? Oh wait, you don't have any.

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." [11]. 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)

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."

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)
I object to the move213.6.3.25 00:38, 11 September 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. JaakobouChalk 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)

page move

i wonder why it was deemed "no consensus to move" when, according to my count, 6 editors supported the move, 2 against, 1 neutral, and 1 suggesting we move the ethnicity box (similar to support move).

see: 'Consensus building'. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad faith deletion of a lot of people's hard work. It is inexcusable. I'm re-adding the most recent debate back here ... --GHcool 17:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF. I think the administrator noticed that many of the people who commented in the section that was above this one that you did not restore had concerns about the move and had not changed their position. Selectively restoring just this section makes it look like I'm the only one who disagreed, when in fact at least three other editors did not support the move as well. I think you should let it die. Tiamat 18:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to add the entire debate if you wish, but I see no reason to because all the other debates had similar outcomes. --GHcool 19:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
So, after two admins state that there's no consensus, you feel it's ok to revive the part where there was consensus, while the previous section where many objected is "left out". If you feel that you need to restore a debate then the honorable thing to do is restore the whole thing and not just the part that suits you. 65.93.135.181 19:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want to restore the whole debate, I won't stop you. I'm not sure why complaining to me about it is helpful when its just as easy for you to do it as it is for me. --GHcool 19:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Because the complaints are not only about the missing material-- they are about your actions.213.6.3.25 00:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Poll

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)

Support

  • 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. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, as this seems to be a more concise title that was previously moved without consensus. TewfikTalk 18:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - "Palestinians" is the most used term. "Palestinian people" is a tendentious construct akin to Soviet people. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support "Palestinians" is both more and more widely used. Beit Or 20:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support only because "Palestinians" is short, snappy, and a more common phrase (and from what I understand, the long-standing name of the article). I am disappointed that what I expected to be a quick discussion has degenerated into an intractable ideological debate. nadav (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support one of the rare cases where everyone agrees, for whatever their own reason might be. Amoruso 16:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support the Palestinians are people, but not a people (i.e. a folk). Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 20:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As a lot of the discussion was moved around and some major portions were deleted, some editor’s positions are missing. Therefore in order to get a clear and fair picture I'll compile them. Itzse 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • On July 11, Nadav wrote: "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."".
  • On July 13, Jayjg wrote: ""Palestinians" is approximately 10 times more common a term than "Palestinian people", at least according to Google."
  • Support, as the most obviously common. And it's mistery to me how moving to Palestinians can be seen as refusing the notion of a Palestinian nation, even in the most ethnic sense. I'm sorry, but some of the oppose votes seem really weird to me.--Aldux 00:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed or unclear positions

  • Here are Tiamut's and G-Dett's original and new positions. Itzse 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • On July 13, Tiamut wrote: "I don't have an objection to naming the article Palestinian. I do have an objection to naming it Palestinian Arab".
  • On July 30, Tiamut wrote: "I oppose the move to "Palestinians"".
  • On July 14, G-Dett wrote: "Palestinians is fine with me".
  • On July 26, G-Dett wrote: "On with the move already, for cryin' out loud".
  • On July 30, G-Dett wrote: "Steve has asked me to clarify my position... As long as there are other editors pushing for Palestinian people (Steve and Tiamut have made particularly astute observations in favor of it), my support goes to them.".
  • On July 12, Doron wrote: "I don't see why "Palestinian people" is controversial, but I suppose I could accept "Palestinians".
  • On July 27, John Z wrote: "I have no preference on PP vs Ps".

G-Dett and Tiamut made their vote pretty clear in this discussion - they opposed. As G-Dett wrote below "There was a moment early on when I appeared to be the only holdout, and I was prepared to accept Palestinians to get us out of the deadlock" and that's why when you ganged up on them they slightly gave-in - BUT THEY NEVER VOTED YES FOR THE MOVE - SO THEY NEVER CHANGED THEIR VOTE. On top of it you are twisting their comments. 70.48.106.42 00:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

70.48.106.42 Andrewa, first sign your comment so we'll know who is saying what. They can talk for themselves; they don't need you to speak for them. I am not twisting anything; I didn't say that they changed their vote; I said they changed their position; which they did. Why they changed it, is also clear as they wanted to punish me so they are punishing Wikipedia, Nadav, GHCool and everybody else. Isn't it interesting that Wikipedia is at the mercy of the goodwill of editors not substance? If you dare say what you think you get punished along with everybody else. What a system? Itzse 23:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not Anrewa - I just moved her vote since you moved some votes as well - I don't want to create an account because I am sure that you will accuse me of being a sock puppet. Them two never changed their position - what is the matter with you and your emotional outbreaks? If you think that Tiamut (a Palestinian) would agree on this issue with a Jew who doesn't recognize his people as anything more than some political issue - then you are hallucinating. Get it to your head - When someone is outnumbered then they won't argue with a number of people, but when the numbers are even they show their real stance.
The funny thing is that if you left out the political debate out of this move, that is just said "Palestinians seems more logical than Palestinians people" then a lot less would have opposed. But no, you come and belittle them to the point that the Palestinians feel insulted and don't want you to have the satisfaction of succeeding in pushing your political view on them. What did you expect? "Yea, you are right, we aren't a people and we are just a political result".70.48.106.42 00:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The way you placed Andrewa's comment without quotes and without labeling it as moving someone else's comment; just plucking down the words "I also objected" suggested that you are Andrewa and you are moving your comment to the right place. You should have made it clear that you "70.48.106.42" are moving Andrewa's comment. Now it happens to be that Andrewa also wrote that "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." So I would suggest that Andrewa speak for herself, but at least make it clear who is placing what.
I usually don't like to talk to an IP number, but I'll respond nevertheless. This whole matter should not have anything to do with Jew or Arab, Palestinian or Israeli, or Palestinian Jew and Israeli Arab. You're right I should have left myself out of the debate and debated diplomatically. The problem is that I'm a scholar not a politician and also not a diplomat; I say what I think. Those that put stones in the way also inserted themselves in the debate. For example ... Their personal views are all over the place, including quite a bit that have already been deleted. They went even further suggesting that the debate is if the Palestinians are people or animals; so sure they would feel insulted.
Let me make it clear what the debate is. Some people consider the Palestinian Arabs "a people" and some do not; they consider the creation of the Palestinian Arabs as a people was done for political purposes. Among other things they will point out that until 1964 when the PLO was created, the conflict was called the Arab Israeli conflict or the Middle East conflict; only as of late it has been renamed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They will also point out that the Arabs in Gaza, and the Arabs in Judea and Samaria; just like the Arabs in Jordan, have nothing to differentiate them from the Arabs in Syria and the Arabs in Egypt; so what makes them "a people"? (notice "a people" not "people"). So if the Palestinian Arabs are a people or not is a legitimate scholarly debate. Therefore we have three options: 1) is to call them Palestinian Arabs so we can differentiate them from Palestinian Jews and from other Arabs. 2) Is to call them Palestinians which will differentiate them from Israelis hence the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 3) Is to call them with the controvertial and POV title "Palestinian people". Now the first option is correct to everybody as everybody agrees that they are Palestinian Arabs. The other two options are controversial. So to me and others on this page it made sense to change the name of the article to "Palestinian Arab" which would be a completely NPOV. Those who want to push the term "Palestinian people" as fact and don't care for WP:NPOV; are pushing that the title should be "Palestinian people";, which is their POV. Nadav suggested a compromise that the article title should be "Palestinians" as they themselves and the world actually call them "Palestinians". Although it would still not be completely a NPOV title, I agreed to go along with it. GHCool placed it on WP:RM. Then started the foot-dragging and stone walling, which irritated G-Dett, GHCool, myself and I expect some others too. Not ONE administrator had the courage to do what is right in a case which had a fair consensus for the move and what's more, it didn't even need a consensus as this article was named "Palestinians" for a number of years and just recently in this year someone unilaterally and without consensus moved it to "Palestinian people". So fairness would suggest that if "Palestinian people" is a controversial and a misleading title, and "Palestinians" which was its original title is a compromise; that somebody would have stepped in to make the move. Instead on the WP:Move page we got stunning silence. Then someone finally arrives and says that hey, I don't see any consensus yet, and vanishes. So the arguing and bickering continues which is not healthy for Wikipedia. In the course of arguing, I took to arguing for the "truth" which angered those fighting IMO against the truth. I'll admit it's not the best way of arguing as who cares here for the truth; it's WP:rules and NPOV which has to be stressed not truth. So here we are almost four weeks later still arguing. But let me ask you; put Itzse aside; why does Nadav who proposed it, GHCool who argued and built consensus, and others who said that they thought of suggesting that the title should be titled "Palestinians" for various reasons; why do they have to suffer because Itzse, Tiamut, Steve and others spoke their mind? Why should Wikipedia have POV and misleading titles because one editor angered another? I hope those reading this will show their fairness and show that a fair and unbiased Wikipedia comes before their personal interests. So in a nutshell, leave Itzse aside; shouldn’t the title be changed back to its original name because there is a strong consensus here to do so? And also does it even need a consensus to turn it back to the title it had for a number of years before someone without any consensus unitarily changed it to a POV title?
If I angered anyone I apologize. My only interest is, in seeing a fair and unbiased Wikipedia for which I have labored so hard as my record will show. Itzse 20:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The discussion is closed Itzse. I don't know why you keep trying to reignite it. I made my position clear a number of times. I think this edit deserved repeating:

Over the course of the discussion many points were raised as to why "Palestinian people" is preferable. Yes people's position became entrenched by the offensive ideology underlying some people's advocacy for the move of the page to Palestinians, but that was an extenuating circumstances, not a primary one. While you pointed out that "Palestinians" gets 10 times as many hits as "Palestinian people" you did not mention that "Palestinian people" get over 1 million hits. The discussion also pointed out that the PLO uses the term "Palestinian people" and as their sole legitimate representative before the international community, that's a solid reason to name the article as such. Finally, as I pointed out in numerous posts, "Palestinian people" clearly defines the subject of the article. As the term "Palestinians" has referred to different people at different times, the specificity of "Palestinian people" and the formation of this collectivity makes it preferable, particularly since people often get confused as to who this article should and not cover in detail.

Tiamat 20:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
One more thing. Process matters. A lot. Three weeks were given for this discussion. Consensus was not achieved. I suggest, once again, that you let it die. I also object to you taking other's people comments out of context and pretending that this vote or subject is still ongoing. I've asked you not to do that before. But no matter. To each his own. Tiamat 20:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
None of the above reasons are sufficient because:
  1. Google rarely ever count in Wikipedia arguments, and even if this one does, it still is 10 times more common.
  2. Rashid Khalidi says the PLO was one of the organizations that invented the national myth of Palestinian peoplehood as part of its [progpaganda]] campaign in the 1960s. Its all in the article. The PLO was a political/terrorist organization at the time and in forming a nationtional identity, it could not be counted for historical/anthropological accuracy.
  3. The assertion that "the term 'Palestinians' has referred to different people at different times, the specificity of 'Palestinian people' and the formation of this collectivity makes it preferable, particularly since people often get confused as to who this article should and not cover in detail" supports the point that the article should be renamed more than it supports the status quo (even if the claims were true). --GHcool 21:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
GHcool. This discussion is over. The request for a move was closed. If you want to submit a new one, I won't stop you. But I'm not continuing when there is no open request. I will say however that your repeated insertion of the Khalidi material from page 149 into the article, inaccurately represents the material there. You obviously conflated Khalidi's discussion of Palestinian nationalism with Palestinian ancestry. I haven't removed it yet (again) but I will be. I suggest you re-read the page and revise and remove your comments accordingly. Tiamat 21:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Tiamut, this discussion is not over just because you want it to, and you have made your "position clear a number of times". You are actually part of the problem not part of the solution; my apology was not meant for you. It is clear to anyone who looks at your record that you are a biased editor. Before this move was suggested you had reverted wholesale all my edits on the article page without even bothering to explain in the edit summary. When I brought it up on the talk page you engaged in meaningless discussion. You have consistently shown such ill faith to other editors who don't share your POV. Your M.O. is to first revert and delete anything that isn't in sync with the Palestinian POV; then if you're challenged you'll use every trick in the book to get your way; including your latest that "the discussion is closed". When exactly did it close? To me you are a vandalizer who has learned the tricks and vandalizes "professionally".
I haven't taken anybody’s words out of context just because you want to say so. As I and also you have already said that a lot of the discussion has been removed completely or moved around and is already out of context, among them is Nadav's proposing to move back this page to "Palestinians" which got deleted among other things. I think for the fairness of the debate, I have a right to bring them back and show what the positions are/were even if it doesn't suit you.
As I have already pointed out, this move doesn't even need a consensus as it was moved unilaterally without consensus in the last year; while this suggested move will only change it back to its original name it had for a number of years which it should as a matter of fairness. Also if it does need consensus; does it also need the support of those who have a personal interest in opposing it? Does WP need unanimous consent? Is there such a thing as unanimous consent especially on controversial topics? Itzse 21:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
If the Khalidi 149 reference I inserted is not an accurate representation of what Khalidi actually said on page 149 (an accusation I deny), then the appropriate action would be to edit the sentence for accuracy while citing the same page number. Deleting the statement would be the least mature course of action and would only result in someone reverting the deletion. --GHcool 00:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  • 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)
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".Tiamat
  • Oppose There was not a consesus in the previous move debate. Why are some editors so determined to make this move that they keep bringing it up again? And I do not really understand the objection to the title Palestinian People. (Uneless we are arguing whether Palestinians are people or some lower form of animal, who only understand force etc. etc.) ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. I object ot the move. The Honorable Kermanshahi
  • Palestinians are not an ethnic group. That is why this article should NOT be called "Palestinians", and SHOULD be called "Palestinian people". The entry "American people" does make reference to citizens of the US. That is one reason why I feel we should keep the name of this article as "Palestinian people". Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There was a moment early on when I appeared to be the only holdout, and I was prepared to accept Palestinians to get us out of the deadlock. Palestinian people is however accurate, clearly compliant with policy, and more precise, and no serious objection has been raised to it by any editor minimally conversant in the relevant anthropological terminology. As long as there are other editors pushing for Palestinian people (Steve and Tiamut have made particularly astute observations in favor of it), my support goes to them.--G-Dett 19:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • On July 17, Andrewa wrote: "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."
  • Oppose. Although this poll is badly formatted, and both "Oppose" and "Support" !votes have been brought in from previous discussions, they actually mean something different. (The) "Palestinian people" is a singular noun, and "Palestinians" are a (disputed) plural now. I really think "Palestinian" should be a disambiguation page, with this one being one of the pages. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The reason many people do not seem to oppose this so strongly at first is because when you look at it, it is a boring thing to argue about, to most people they mean the same thing. However. I strongly oppose the change because it is done from a zionist POV with the idea that there were not a people living in Palestine before the 19th century, some editors have claimed above that there were no palestinian people. That is zionist POV pure and simple and I oppose with every number in my IP address.213.6.3.25 00:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of poll

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)

Discussion of usage

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)
For the record I did not intend to imply that the "Palestinians" aren't a people. They are indeed a people, the "Arab people" and they share the history and culture of the Arab people. What I and Golda Meir and thousands of others, Scholars and laymen who are familiar with the facts say; is that there was never a "Palestinian" people, and that the Palestinian Arabs claim to people hood started with the establishment of the PLO; (until then it was known as the Arab Israeli conflict or the Middle East conflict); and even they didn't push for "people hood" as they knew that they would be laughed at; but instead focused on denying the Jewish people's roots and attachment to the Holy Land and therefore by default claiming "Palestine" (instead of the Land of Israel) for the "Palestinians". Then after seeing that they got away with murder and they are being treated on the world stage as decent representatives of a (concocted) "people"; they decided to stretch it even further and claim "nationhood". Tiamut, you surely don't expect that the scholars of Wikipedia should go along with fraudulent pretensions of the world’s governments who for every person they saved, they caused the deaths and ignored the deaths of ten others from Africa to Antarctica. It is not truth that governments are after; their job (interests) are to protect their people, by every means (lies included) available.
Tiamut, all who know me know that I'm far from being a racist. But your giving yourself a "Palestinian" identity (similar to those Baltimorons) and then a concocted "nationality"; that is the cause of so much continued bloodshed in the Land of Israel/Holy land/Palestine. Again let me make it clear; you do exist; but not as a nation but as a group of people with a similar heritage, and that heritage is the "ARAB" heritage.
As has been pointed out by others; my motivations (which in my humble opinion) are noble, should not have any bearing on the discussion; what counts is the arguments. Painting me as racist or declaring yourself disappointed has nothing with the discussion; substance does. Also on the record, if it would be up to me, I would be willing to give the Arabs half of Israel for the sake of peace; and only for the sake of peace; which means that it is verified that their intentions are peace not a temporary springboard to annihilate Israel. Itzse 18:24, 30 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" [12] 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)
The "motivations" of other editors are irrelevant. There is a debate on the nature of the Palestinian identity, but that is also completely irrelevant to what we title the article. If we simply title it the most common name: "Palestinians", we don't have to make a "call" regarding the ethnicity debate. We can save that for the article itself where it can be properly discussed. <<-armon->> 22:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Poll discussion, section 2

[OUTDENT] Firstly, ease in finding the page clearly isn't a factor in the debate to move the page. Secondly, "Palestinians" is a proper plural noun that clearly refers to the group of people that identify with the Palestinian nationalism, whereas "Palestinian" could either be a proper singular noun or an adjective. Nobody suggests changing the article to "Palestinian" (singular), which could, in Tiamut's pathetic argument, "be used as an adjective for everything." There can be no confusion about what is meant by the article title "Palestinians" (plural). Thirdly, nobody denies that the Palestinians are a collective nationality. All we are saying is that the Palestinians are not an ethnic/racial "people," and that the article title "Palestinian people" unjustly implies that they are. Rashid Khalidi, James L. Gelvin, and several other historians in the "Origins of Palestinian identity" section all support this historical fact. It is time that the article title also reflected the same reality. --GHcool 18:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What am I missing here? There is no difference between an ethnic group page with the word "people" in the title and a page without one in it. Ashanti, Romanians, Armenians, Greeks, Cherokee, Georgians, and many other ethnic group pages don't have the word people in it. So strange.... Are you a person who just likes to stir up argument for its own sake? 205.212.72.21 20:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not, but thanks for proving my point. If the "Ashanti, Romanians, Armenians, Greeks, Cherokee, Georgians, and many other ethnic group pages don't have the word people in it," then what possible reason would the Palestinians, who are not a race/ethincity, have the word "people" in the title? --GHcool 21:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
...which makes "Palestinian people" a tautology. <<-armon->> 22:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't reply, was away for the weekend. To reply to a specific question posed by GHcool, what about the phrase "the American people"? That is used repeatedly, yet it does not ever imply shared ethnicity, ancestry, derviation, etc. it only implies shared political identity. that's why I believe that phrase is usable here. --Steve, Sm8900 13:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Palestinians are not an ethnic group. That is why this article should NOT be called "Palestinians", and SHOULD be called "Palestinian people". The entry "American people" does make reference to citizens of the US. That is one reason why I feel we should keep the name of this article as "Palestinian people". Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, as Sm8900 and everyone else who has seen the American people article knows, the American people article is a disambiguation page. Thus, Sm8900's example supports the current consensus that "Palestinians" is the better title for the article. --GHcool 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but I do not feel my example supports that point. Is there an article for "Americans"? No. so then there is no such usage of that term. My point was only that "American people" is a commonly-used phrase, and refers only to political affilitation, and not to any ethnicity at all. I realize it is not a major point, but I do feel it is of at least some relevance. --Steve, Sm8900 17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve has asked me to clarify my position. And not without reason, it seems: as I scroll down the page I note that my friend GHCool, of whom I am fond enough, is quoting me as saying that "Palestinian people" has "unwanted implications." Frankly, I don't know what the hell he's talking about. Palestinians are a people, and I think that's what the title should be. That Itsze thinks his opinion and that of his neighbor and Golda Meir has some bearing on the intellectual and editorial questions before us is amusing but irrelevant. A "people" or a "nation" is defined by self-identification. In the eyes of anthropologists, and in the eyes of Wikipedians. If Itzse and his neighbor and the Golda arrive with a geneticist and a historian in tow, and the geneticist unfurls some charts and proves that the DNA of contemporary Palestinians is nothing like that of the Canaanites, and the historian flutters his pencil through some archival records and shows that most Palestinians migrated to the Holy Land in relatively recent centuries, they may get a standing ovation from editors on this page but none of their fascinating findings will put a dent in the people-ness or nationality of the Palestinians. The idea that you can disprove nationality by debunking national myths is absurd. Myths of origins are a constitutive feature of peoples and nations, and they are by turns usually false, exaggerated, artificially tidied, or utterly fantastical. Doesn't matter. A people/nation is a large group of individuals who see their cultural, political, and spiritual fates as intimately bound together; that is all. The crucible of history that brings about this fusion is as irrelevant as whatever mythology may emanate from it.
There was a moment early on when I appeared to be the only holdout, and I was prepared to accept Palestinians to get us out of the deadlock. Palestinian people is however accurate, clearly compliant with policy, and more precise, and no serious objection has been raised to it by any editor minimally conversant in the relevant anthropological terminology. As long as there are other editors pushing for Palestinian people (Steve and Tiamut have made particularly astute observations in favor of it), my support goes to them.--G-Dett 19:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that people who hold clear Pro-Palestinian agenda views, such as the respected user:Doron, accept that Palestinians is a better name for the article says it all. The page should move to Palestinians right away... there seems to be (almost) a concencus that it's a good compromise for now, even if one or two users object (although I don't see anybody who objects...). Amoruso 15:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Second requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


This section is for comments regarding the page move. Opinions on the Palestinians do not belong here. This is section of the talk page should only be about the requested move and Wikipedia policy in compliance with Wikipedia:Requested moves. --GHcool 21:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ssupport: examine Australian people, American people, Iraqi people, even Chinese people, and most importantly Israeli people. Eleland 01:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Not only did Eleland put his/her comments in the wrong place, but his/her argument seems to conclude that he/she opposes, instead of supports the move. Furthermore his/her arguments are invalid anyway because his most of his claims are false (there is no article titled "Australian people," "Iraqi people," and certainly not "Israeli people"). And as explained above, "Chinese people" is an ethnicity that existed for hundreds of years in a specific place, a quality that the Palestinians do not share. In short, Eleland's reply was a complete waste of bandwidth. --GHcool 06:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
What the hell, guy? You make personal attacks when I try to agree with you? YES I KNOW, THEY ARE ALL REDIRECTS AND DISAMBIGUATION PAGES, THAT WAS MY POINT! That's why I think it should be moved back to Palestinians! Eleland 01:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Chill please. I don't think your point was clear to anybody. Wasn't to me anyway. <<-armon->> 01:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This naming issue has clearly been held up by argumentum ad nauseam. I also note that nobody has ever made any attempt to point at any consensus to move it away from it long-standing title, "Palestinians" in the first place. Just be bold and move it yourself. <<-armon->> 10:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Armon, when "Palestinians" was moved to "Palestinian people" by Khoikoi in January of 2006, no one reverted the change or even brought it up. The article has been named Palestinian people for over a year and half, with no objections. Conversely, when Itzse tried to move this page from "Palestinian people" to "Palestinian Arab", citing the need for specificty his move was reverted. Many editors took issue with "Palestinian Arab". It was then proposed to rename this page "Palestinians". Consensus was not reached after one month of discussion. Discussion only finished a few days ago. Now the debate is being reopened and you are advocating that others unilaterally move the page despite the recorded objections throughout this page. Are you trying to start an edit war? Tiamat 11:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
No, but I just think it's astounding that it's not just called by the most common name for the people in question. I don't support a move to "Palestinian Arab" or anything else. <<-armon->> 13:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to set the record straight. On January 5, 2006 Khoikhoi renamed this article from "Palestinian" to "Palestinian people" and for a reason he gave: "Moved Palestinian to Palestinian people to avoid confusion". On July 29, 2006 Khoikhoi finished off the cycle by redirecting "Palestinian Arabs" to "Palestinian people". There were no objections raised nor was there any attempt to form a consensus. Why there weren't any objections raised I don't know, and we can only speculate. I certainly would have raised it had I noticed it.
On July 10, 2007 Tiamut had suggested to discuss changes. I happened to see this page and suggested that before we make any changes, this article should be renamed to "Palestinian Arabs", and then there would need to be changes to the article to accommodate its new name. On the third day after bringing up on the talk page my intentions to rename this page to "Palestinian Arabs" with no objections, I went ahead and made the move.
Less then half an hour later; it was Tiamut who reverted the name change and made some other changes, lumping me with Jayjg together; and claimed that she didn't know it was being discussed and that it be discussed first. She went even further and bogusly claimed that "consensus was already reached once on this name" and "actually it is you that has to build consensus for the proposed move." Now the same person who reverted it in the first place uses her reversion as an argument that "his move was reverted", without telling you by whom. Since then it has been discussed extensively with most agreeing to its original name "Palestinians". The only thing missing is for an administrator to take an active part in the discussion. Even with any stretch of the imagination it cannot be claimed that this issue had been closed; closed by whom?
I don't know why this is dragging on so long. I would have imagined that an administrator actually reading this page and seeing that most people agree to its original name "Palestinians" (for numerous reasons) which has been its name for a number of years; would have had the fortitude to rename it. Where is fairness? Itzse 20:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Object See Wikipedia naming conventions on identity: [13]. 1) Palestinians self-identify as part of the Palestinian people, as indicated in the reference in the article that point to the PLO's definition of its constituency; 2) Palestinian people is more specific than Palestinians, which is a plural noun subject to a broader definition. 3) Palestinian people is a neutral term, widely used not only by Palestinians themselves, but also by Israeli officials and the international community. Tiamat 09:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The only question now is whether a "consensus" is defined as 100% of the people agree, or whether it is a majority of editors, all of whom have legitimate points, versus a handful of editors that come and go and use shaky logic. I'm hoping that the latter is the Wikipedia definition of consensus and hoping that an admin will come very soon as this consensus was formed many times over the past month and still remains strong today. --GHcool 15:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Itzse's question, "Where is fairness?" has been answered long ago. The more relevant question is where is the administrator to impliment the name change as agreed upon by most (except one major holdout) on the issue. --GHcool 00:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's about "fairness" per se. More likely uninvolved admins don't just don't want to get involved and then deal with the headache they think they'll get. Hence my point about argumentum ad nauseam. The page is move protected, otherwise I'd just do it. This silliness has gone on long enough. <<-armon->> 01:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I just got a message from Eleland telling me I interpreted his/her comment above incorrectly and that he/she actually did support the move. I appologize for the misunderstanding, though I must admit that it still was in the wrong place and it wasn't very clear. --GHcool 05:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

further discussion

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 11:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm done with this issue. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that User:Stemonitis read the wrong debate. It might take longer than most of Wikipedia hoped, but the brilliance of Wikipedia is that it can correct its own mistakes and through guidelines. --GHcool 17:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, did it occur to anyone here supporting the move to redirect this page to Palestinians, rather than waiting for an admin to move it? You could have done it when you had the most support, but you waited for the debate to come instead. Good one GH and armon 65.95.22.7 22:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Since a redirect already exists at Palestinians, only an admin could move the article history to that page. It's a technical thing. Someguy1221 22:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Copy/paste Palestinian People article here and the talk page. Who cares about the history - you'd know where to find it. But o well, this is over for now.

Stemonitis, can you please be specific and explain what kind of consensus you were looking for? Itzse 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There is significant disagreement here. Consensus would be where there was broad agreement. --Stemonitis 19:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
True, there is a significant disagreement here, and there always will be one; as this is a controversial issue. So in a controversial case like this, which by definition cannot have a true consensus; what would be construed as a broad consensus?
Also this move was suggested as a compromise which some thought it unfair but were willing to go along with it; and it had, I think; enough of agreement. In addition to that, this article had for years the proposed name, which was moved without consensus to the new, much more controversial name? So based on all this; what would be construed as having a broad agreement? Are there any guide lines for this? Itzse 19:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
the answer to your question is, "broad consensus" would be defined as, no significant disagreement between all the editors involved. It would not be defined as, major support from one large group of editors, and major opposition from another, slightly smaller group. --Steve, Sm8900 13:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical editor: but don't you see how unfair that is? and don't you see how that violates the principles here?

Sorry, but that is how consensus is defined according to Wikpedia precendents. --Steve, Sm8900 13:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Respond to poll please

it is getting a bit hard to tell where people stand on this issue topic in general. I would like to suggest that everyone please go to the "Poll" section (which I renamed), and post your response to the poll there, if you have not already done so, that way, we can get an accurate sense and an accurate count of whether people here agree or not. Again, as you may realize, I think we should use that section for poll responses only. if you want to make comments or discussions, please do so in another section. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 18:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, i believe that it is actually legitimate for editors to move other editors' comments into the poll section, in order to make things easier, by compiling existing answers into one place. However it might be seen as misleading, if it is not done across the board on an overall consistent basis. So therefore perhaps we should refrain from doing so for now, and give people a chance to read this request themselves, and wait for a while before moving anyone else's comments. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 18:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I do plan to place everyone’s vote for consistency. Those that have clearly stated their view should be moved to the poll but those that still want to understand or haven't clearly taken a stand have to be left out for now because maybe someone might make them understand. Itzse 18:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Moving people's comments into the poll section (extremely selectively at that) is just one of a series of rather disappointing tactics employed by Itsze (talk · contribs) and GHcool (talk · contribs) to advance their name change agenda here. I would note that while Itsze saw it fit to post his argument for a name change at WP:Israel on July 12th, the same day that GHcool opened the request for a move here, he did not post anything at WP:Palestine: odd for an article entitled Palestinian people. We have discussed this issue for about three weeks now and two admins have rendered their decision that there was no consensus here for a move. One of those admins closed this debate and the request. GHcool restored only the debate (only the second part of it where it "appears" that there is consensus.) Only after being challenged as to why he made this selective restoration did someone restore the rest of the debate. The whole "process" has been rather unfair actually. I think I will have to defer on "voting". I don't even think it's appropriate to call for a vote yet again at this point and under these circumstances. Tiamat 19:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. But don't you admire these guys persistence? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Amazing really. I share it but I know why its important to me have a page that properly represents my identity. But what is in it for them? Tiamat 19:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
One word "TRUTH"; and what might result from it which is the end to bloodshed. Wikipedia wasn't created for you to have a place which "properly represents your identity" the way you want to see it; WP was created to represent the truth or where there's more then one opinion, to also include those. Do you disagree? Itzse 19:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
So the "truth" you're peddling to end the bloodshed is that Palestinians aren't a people? That's what causing the bloodshed Itzse. (Both in the real world and here my friend.) That's what you don't seem to get. Tiamat 19:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Truth in labeling should not be called "peddling". Nobody is denying that you're a people. The debate is that some don't share your view of a "Palestinian people"; they consider the Palestinian Arabs as part of the "Arab people". And yes this insistence on a "people hood" which you now want to claim goes back to the Canaanites, has direct ramifications and is the cause of bloodshed. Because the minute the Arabs will accept the truth that there were two peoples in Palestine; the Arab people and the Jewish people, then peace becomes a possibility. But if the Palestinian Arabs are a people and claim all of Palestine for themselves and deny the Jews any connection to the Holy land; that indeed is the cause of all the bloodshed. Itzse 21:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The cause of all the bloodshed in Israel-Palestine is a semantic dispute about the concept of a "people"?--G-Dett 21:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Then why was there bloodshed prior to the Palestinians claiming themselves as a people, before the establishment of the PLO in 1964? From 1948 until 1964 it was the Arabs fighting Israel for an Arab claim not a Palestinian claim; what semantics played then a role in the bloodshed? Itzse 21:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It was a question, Itzse, based on your previous comment. Note the question mark.--G-Dett 21:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly the answer is there too, as to what is the cause of the bloodshed. It's what underlies the use of words, which in our case is a creation of a people to push out another people. If the Palestinians wouldn't have declared themselves a people but stayed the way they were looked at by the world and other Arabs as "Palestinian Arabs", then the original idea of partition would have been an option and peace would be a real reality; but since the annihilation of Israel is more important to the Arabs then a "Palestinian" country, the bloodshed will continue. Hence the semantic need of a "Palestinian people" to claim all of Palestine for themselves. Itzse 22:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Itzse, please stop placing G-Dett's comment in the poll section. Editors should decide for themselves whether they want to continue participating in this process or not. They should also select for themselves how they want to phrase their vote (rather than having you decide which of their comments is indeed a vote). Please try to understand that there is an issue of process here as well. Tiamat 19:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali asks "I do not really understand the objection to the title Palestinian People. (Uneless we are arguing whether Palestinians are people or some lower form of animal...)".
Where in this entire discussion have you seen a debate if Palestinians are animals or people? Can't you read plain English that the debate is if the Palestinians are "a people"? Read the entire page and you'll become smarter which I'm not sure you want to.
Tiamut, the words of G-Dett "On with the move already, for cryin' out loud" is clear enough for any one who wants to be fair. But for you, who were the one to make the first reversion without any discussion and ignored the "process", you will stop at nothing to achieve your goal. As for "selectiveness" which Steve correctly pointed out; you conveniently ignored my answer. As for why I didn't place it on WP:Palestine, I think you know the answer; not to invite more people like you, who are not in it for the truth but using the "process" and ignoring the "process" at whim to further your goals. Itzse 19:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
(NOTE:I'm currently moving some comments re the poll/article itself to the current section for discussion. I'd prefer if we could use this section for discussions of the polling process only. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Steve, I restored those comments to their rightful place. They make no sense taken out of context. I don't agree with moving around people's comments on contentious pages. It just confuses things more. Tiamat 20:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You obviously have not read G-Dett's post above where she has changed her vote. You also managed to make me change my position from on the fence, to wholly against. In the future, I think you should reflect on how to build consensus and how to make move requests based on practical or policy arguments rather than airing your offensive views about how Palestinians don't exist as a people. It's toxic to the discussion and does nothing to build agreement. You pretty much dug your own grave my friend. Over and out. Tiamat 19:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tiamat (and Abu Ali). the whole point of a poll is for you to indicate that there is disagreement over this issue. Obviously there is disagreement here. The purpose of the poll is to make that plain. So if you could please indicate your basic stance, if that's ok, that might be helpful. It needn't be anything elaborate, just a few words indicating there is contention here.
As far as people's past actions, it's a bit hard to rectify all of that now, of course. Obviously, most of what you said indicates why this issue is still in contention, and requires everyone's input to indicate that. --Steve, Sm8900 19:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Steve. I feel that a lot of people had already stated their objections and reservations (exacerbated deeply by the irregularities in the process, the lack of policy-based argumentation for such a move, the lack of answers to questions on how this improve the article or refine its scope, the offensive extreme minority POV motivating the nomination - i.e. that Palestinians aren't really a People or Nation - etc., etc. I think at this point it should be acknowledged that there is no consensus for a move (as evidenced by the comments of at least five editors on this page who just haven't been as pushy or vocal about their objections as the "opposing" side). I don't think it's necessary to compile a poll. It's rather self-evident at this point. If someone wants to re-open this discussion at a later date they are more than welcome to. I would hope that next time they think of policy-based reasons or even just practical ones related to improving or refining the article rather than using this as an opportunity to soapbox about how Palestinians don't really exist. Tiamat 19:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, if the Jew article was at Jewish people, I'd be working pretty hard to get it moved to "Jew", because that kind of wordy nonsense helps no-one. It's sad to see yet another example of people using ideology and personal animus as a reason to do what's worse for Wikipedia, not better. Jayjg (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's nice Jayjg. But in this case it's not personal animus at work. Over the course of the discussion many pint were raised as to why "Palestinian people" is preferable. Yes people's position became entrenched by the offensive ideology underlying some people's advocacy for the move of the page to Palestinians, but that was an extenuating circumstances, not a primary one. While you pointed out that "Palestinians" gets 10 times as many hits as "Palestinian people" you did not mention that "Palestinian people" get over 1 million hits. The discussion also pointed out that the PLO uses the term "Palestinian people" and as their sole legitimate representative before the international community, that's a solid reason to name the article as such. Finally, as I pointed out in numerous posts, "Palestinian people" clearly defines the subject of the article. As the term "Palestinians" has referred to different people at different times, the specificity of "Palestinian people" and the formation of this collectivity makes it preferable, particularly since people often get confused as to who this article should and not cover in detail. Thanks though for boiling everything down to a way to insult people who don't share your POV. It's classic. Tiamat 20:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


  • Lies, lies and more lies. "If someone wants to re-open this discussion at a later date they are more than welcome to". Are they Tiamut, really "more than welcome to"?
  • "irregularities in the process". Who used "irregularities in the process" more then you? You reverted without explanation the page move even though it had been discussed and made clear why it was being done. So you subverted the process. Furthermore the page was named back to a name which it had for a number of years and had been unitarily recently changed.
  • "offensive extreme minority POV motivating the nomination". Do you deny any motivation on your part? Please state another lie that you are looking for the truth and you don't want to deny Wikipedia's readers the truth. What exactly do you find offensive? Can you be specific?
  • "Soapbox". Seeking a Neutral and non-biased Wikipedia is to you soap boxing? Itzse 20:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, there is now officially absolutely no consensus for moving this entry from its current name. i suggest that we accept the current name as is, and move on to addressing the article content. I feel the last two comments were not that helpful, and I feel everyone here is clearly trying to show they are doing this only because of the side they happen to be on. so thanks to everyone who brought up the Arab or the Jewish people, the nature of the essential conflict and any other refernces which are only likely to simply further escalate this.
Again I suggest we get back to simply dealing with the content and subject matter of this article. --Steve, Sm8900 20:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Steve, although well intentioned, I am insulted to be considered Tiamut's counterpart and lump both of our comments together as "not helpful". While Tiamut and I, clearly have strong POV's; the difference lies in that I can understand her POV and what motivates it; but she cannot or rather doesn't want to understand mine. While she'll pretend to adhere to WP's rules; I actually do. It is not against WP's rules to point out an editor’s agenda and their steadfastness to their agenda at the expense of a fair and NPOV Encyclopedia; just as it not against WP's rules to point out a vandalizer and we don't play semantics with them. Tiamut has been given the benefit of the doubt until she removed all doubt. Itzse 20:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Itzse, my comment wasn't posted when Steve made his comment. He was talking about your post and Jayjg's. Although now I am surely contributing to this mess too. I think I'm done now. Tiamat 20:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree (Steve). In fact, I had initially opened an RfC to deal with content issues when Itzse made the proposed request for move. I would appreciate feedback in the sections above on Ancestry and other negotiations. Tiamat 20:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure you agree; because it gives you what you want and to hell with everybody else. Itzse 20:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You know Itzse, your attitude does absolutely nothing to win people over to your position. At one point, when I had almost agreed to the move, you failed to even notice and went on insulting me (as you have once again now). Please stop with the violations of WP:CIVIL. I've had it with your vitriol and offensive opinions about who and what I or my people are. Back off. Tiamat 20:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Tiamut, once again with lies. I have never insulted you, not here or anywhere. You actually called me a racist, called my arguments offensive, pretended as if I was debating if Palestinians are people or animals; so it was you who was uncivil and offensive. I still will not call you any names; but it is my right as a good standing and fair Wikipedian to point out that you have an agenda which you want to force on all of us. Itzse 20:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi folks. I'm still here. Tiamat, i appreciate your offer to suspend discussion, while it is in this counter-productive territory. I would suggest that is a good idea. At this point, there is little need for any further discussion, unless anyone here does want to argue that there is any consensus for a proposed move, which i seriously doubt. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 20:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Somebody mentioned that an admin "closed" this argument. I don't remember that ever happening. Could someone show me where it happened? The most I remember is that an admin said that there was not currently a consensus, which is not the same as closing an entire argument. Rather, it is encouragement for more argument until a consensus is found. --GHcool 22:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

this is getting a little bit crazy. this is starting to make me think we have lost our idea how Wikipedia works. You don't argue to achieve consensus. You achieve consensus by negotiating, putting a few ideas on the table, and gradually discussing various options until an agreable solution is found. There is absolutely no point to further discussion of this. The burden of proof is one the people who want the name change, to prove that consensus exists for the new name. If there is no consensus for a new name, then the current name remains.
I have gotten a bit tired of this ongoing discussion. We have reviewed the idea, and determined there is no support for changing the name. Now I fel it is really time to drop this topic entirely. That's all. If discussion of the article's content is needed, that can proceed, but I suggest we take a brief period to have a break. that's all. (Sorry for my earlier stridency. it was late and I was tired. This illustrates the rule WP:MASTODON Thanks.) --Steve, Sm8900 22:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Was there a consensus to move the page from "Palestinians" to "Palestinian people" in the first place? ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Humus, there is no consensus now. Not after three weeks of discussion. What possible gain is there in beating this dead horse any further? Tiamat 23:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
As for GHcool's comments, it's strange you don't remember this edit by an admin removing the entire discussion with the edit summary citing the lack of consensus? or this edit by you restoring the entire debate and accusing the admin of "bad faith" for closing the dicussion? Whatever you're smoking I want some. Tiamat 23:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I do remember that, but as far as I understand it,"no consensus for move" (an observation about the present state of affairs) doesn't mean the same as "there will never be consensus for move and therefore the argument is over" (which is a ruling). --GHcool 22:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

DNA Section (two different versions need to be reconciled)

Tewfik, would you care to join me in discussing the DNA section? This diff: [14] in particular. I spent hours reading the articles there to come up with a version that accurately and faithfully represented the material there to resolve an edit war with Jayjg over the issue and thought that the matter had been resolved. I find that your version is a little vague and selective in its presentation of the material. For example, you write: "The haplogroup, associated with marker M267, is a marker of the Arab expansion in the early medieval period." This is true, but only partially. It is a marker of Arab expansion in the early medieval period when it is found in North Africa. Not Palestine. It originated in the Levant area. So your version tends to imply that its presence among Palestinians is derived from Arab dispersal of the haplogroup rather than the opposite which is that the Arabs dispersed it among others. Is there anything in particular that offends with about my version? Thanks. Tiamat

By the way, could you explain why you also restored the old version of the ancestry section in the section devoted to that discussion above? Thanks. Tiamat 19:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

While I'm glad to see that you've stopped replacing the data with incorrect numbers (where I also spent hours poring over the literature), as I said in my edit summary, a general discussion of Haplogroup J (Y-DNA) is very nice, but not relevant to this entry. It certainly should not replace a more specific discussion of the relevance of the J1 subclade, since this is after all a discussion of the origins of Palestinians. As for the specifics, while the Semino study also discusses J1's spread through North Africa, that is in addition to concluding (as is stated outright in the abstract) that it is a marker of expansion from Arabia, citing as evidence the findings in Nebel's Galilee marker. Of course, incivil comments like these are not at all helpful. Do you notice how I manage to edit without attacking you, ever? TewfikTalk 22:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
JI is a sub-clade of J and Palestinians show high levels of both J1 and J2, which are sister clades. A discussion of both is certainly relevant. Is that your only objection to my version? Your comments on the Arabian expansion do not address my concerns above of how this is an oversimplifcation that tends to lead the reader to false conclusions. Tiamat 09:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a problem with this part:

"Bernard Lewis writes that, "In terms of scholarship, as distinct from politics, there is no evidence whatsoever for the assertion that the Canaanites were Arabs,"[67] and that, "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."[67]"

Huh? Claiming that modern Palestinians are descendants of the Canaanites has nothing to do with whether the Canaanites were Arabs or not (they of course weren't), so that part is irrelevant to the article and should be removed. Funkynusayri 11:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence misleads the reader as to the views of those who believe that Palestinians can claim Canaanite descent. Other editors like Al-Maqdisi and Al-Andalus have pointed this out before. Unfortunately, there are some editors here who seem to be more interested in proving that Palestinians are not Canaanites, than they are with giving a fair and accurate representation of the views of those who a) make the claim, and b) those who refute it and c) the fact that neither one of these groups can definitively prove their proposition. In the quote above, Lewis is refuting that Canaanites are Arabs, but none of the sources we have for the article (both in my version and the current one) actually make that claim. In fact, Ibn Khaldun and others indicate that Palestinians and other Arabs are descendants of Arabs and non-Arab populations that preceded them (like the Canaanites) that became Arabized after the spread of Arab-Islamic empires from the 7th century onward. Historians do describe the Canaanites as one of the Semitic tribes that emerged from the Arabian peninsula in the 3rd millenium BCE, but this does not mean they were Arab - a term whose use only came into regular currency sometime after the 9th century BCE. Tiamat 11:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of a single reason why it should be left in, so I'll remove it in some time if no one has a good argument for keeping it. Funkynusayri 12:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are just removing the Canaanite/Arab part and not the sentence after that, I have no objections. It's non-sequiter to keep it without anyone actually making that arugment. However, the sentence afterward is important to establishing the controversy surrounding the claims and the view of one historian as to why they are made. Tiamat 12:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Done, if anyone wants it back, say so. Funkynusayri 13:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of 5,000 bytes of material

Those who are removing material from the article that is sourced, are asked to explain their edits here before or after doing so. These edits: [15], [16], [17], [18] remove material without explaining why. The deletion of sourced material without explanation is considered vandalism. Please engage in discussion. Thank you. Tiamat 12:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert of everything but one sentence without explanation

Hi there Armon. In this edit [19], you reverted everything I have just restored and new information I had added. I agree with the note you left in your edit summary about how Nakba Day should not be wikilinked in place of 1948 Palestinian exodus (if you notice, I added it alongside the exodus link in the culture section. I think its kind of relevant. I didn;t notice however that it was already there, so I will take it out). I notice that you reverted out of existence some 6,000 bytes of sourced material unrelated to that issue. Would you care to explain your edit? Thank you. Tiamat 15:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) With all due respect, it would be far more appropriate if you instead explain the addition of "5,000 bytes"? You are not only continuing to restore the disputed content discussed in-depth above, but adding misrepresentations of sources, partisan statements, removing citation requests, making sources say what they don't, and pretty much restoring en masse everything that you previously added. Despite your declaration to the contrary, I explained the problems with your version of the DNA above, and addressed your concern about the 'North Africa' bit. Good day, TewfikTalk 16:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
No as of this time, you have not engaged in substantive discussion there, as anyone who reads the section can tell. You wrote a lot of words but they didn't address the points I raised. Tiamat 16:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tewfik. In this edit [20], you deleted about 6,200 bytes of sourced material. Would you care to explain your edit summary and its relationship to the material you deleted? Thank you. Tiamat 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Jayjg. In this edit [21] you deleted about 6,200 bytes of sourced material. Would you care to discuss? as per your edit summary? If this has to do with this ancestry section, could you respond in that section to my comments there? and refrain from combining issues by isolating the material in that section for restoration or removal as such should be the case? Thanks. Tiamat 16:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in bandying about the term "sourced material"; for literally months in this article you have been inserting material sourced to unreliable sources making dubious politically based revisionist claims, or inserting material that does not properly represent its sources, or inserting original research you've created from sources. I can't repeat this often enough; use extremely high quality sources only, represent their contents faithfully, do not insert material that is unsourced, and, above all, get consensus first. Jayjg (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Now to respond to Tewfik and Jayjg. Anyone who seriously reviews the edits on this page will see that your descriptions are unfair and inaccurate. I consider your editing style here to be disruptive. I have constantly taken your objections into account, have attempted to engage in substantive discussion only to stonewalled and reverted. I have found better and better sources, more and more experts, only to have you delete them or disqualify them for various reasons. I think we need yet another RfC on this matter. Tiamat 16:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, anyone who seriously reviews the edits on this page will see that your descriptions are unfair and inaccurate. "Taking objections into account" does not mean responding, then reverting in the identical, or near identical material. True, you have slowly upgraded the quality of your sources, but that's not saying much - instead of citing blogs/personal propaganda sites and romantic accounts written by wives of diplomats in the 1920s, you're now citing book reviews written by ex-CIA analysts/anti-Israel activists, reviewing the works of journalists. And even getting you to upgrade to that extremely low level of reliability took literally months of arguing. Get consensus first for everything. Everything. Your edit history here does not permit anything else. Jayjg (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. What was the point of discussing, for example, the poor Kunstel and Albright source, only to have it repeatedly reinserted? This won't turn them into a good source however many times you restore. What I reverted had been discussed and the problems explained to you at great length, if not by me, then by many others. <<-armon-&;gt;> 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Armon. When we discussed Kunstel and Albright, I told you "Find a source that says they are not historians and then we'll talk until then, they are a reliable source per Kathleen Christison, who by the way, is a Mid-East expert, and is likely familiar with literature on the subject. Tiamat 16:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)". As I said then, their book is reviewed in an academic journal by Kathleen Christison and she says they are "historians". At Wikipedia, we go with what the source says. If you have source that says that Kunstel and Albright are not reliable as a source or not historians, then I would consider removing them. Until then, you unsourced opinion of Kunstel and Albright is not a valid argument. It is also not a reason to delete another 4,000 bytes of material unrelated to that question. Tiamat 16:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, your revert deleted over 6,000 bytes of material. That includes the four edits above [22], [23], [24], [25] that I had restored, while posting that section to ask people to explain their deletions. It also includes new edits that have nothing to do with the stuff we discussed. I have asked you time and time again to be selective in your editing. To try to isolate specific problems. Instead, you have used every opportunity to smear my editing and research skills. Your descriptions are completely unfair and uncivil and your actions are doing nothing to build consensus. Please focus. Tiamat 16:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should discuss what you want to add and present your sources here first. That way, when it does get put in, it will have support. <<-armon->> 16:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I've already done that a number of times and I'm frankly offended at the suggestion. I am not a disruptive editor and the sources I am using are not unreliable. I don't think I need a special permit from you to access an article on Palestinian people. I may need one to get to gaza, but not here. Tiamat 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, when dealing with controversial topics, you need to always use high-quality sources and maintain a neutral tone. Frankly, you're not doing that. When you do, I'll bet you'll be surprised at who starts defending your edits, rather than reverting them. <<-armon->> 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Armon, I disagree. I feel that an editor does not necessarily need to maintain a neutral tone. Is it neutral to say that Israel is the legitimate expression of the Jewish people's legitimate national aspirations? Is it neutral to say that Israel's existence is perfectly viable, and is not intrinsically an offense against the right of local Palestinians? No; those statements are not neutral. They happen to be 110% correct, but they are not neutral. So in much the same way that I admit that statements which i accept and support are not wholly neutral, i am willing to accept that statements describing the Palestinians' views and concepts may not sound neutral, but they may still have a place here in this entry. --Steve, Sm8900 00:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Steve, I think it would be helpful to encourage Users to practice neutrality in their writing, even here. After all, their personal opinion is irrelevant to the article. Yes, non-neutral POV statements have a place in the entry. Nonetheless, POV statements ought not to be statements by Users but rather statements by Sources. Users should neutrally present POV Sources, when suitable, whether the POV happens to match their personal views or not. Do you see what I trying to express? Isn't it our role to encourage editors to be able to write about POV Sources/statements, regardless of their personal views? HG | Talk 19:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sampling of some of the now 6,000 bytes deleted

This is the diff where Jayjg deletes the material in question [26], (which Armon and Tewfik also deleted before him), let's take a look at some of what has been removed:

1) In his 1997 book, Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, Rashid Khalidi [8] states that 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.<ref name=Khalidip18>{{cite book|title=Palestinian Identity:The Construction of Modern National Consciousness|publisher=[[Columbia University Press]]|year=1997|page=18|isbn=0231105142}}</ref>

2)<ref name=WKhalidi>{{cite book|title=Before Their Diaspora|author=Walid Khalidi|publisher=Institute for Palestine Studies, Washington D.C.|year=1984|page=32}}Walid Khalidi echoes this view stating that Palestinians in Ottoman times were "[a]cutely aware of the distinctiveness of Palestinian history..." and that "[a]lthough proud of their Arab heritage and ancestry, the Palestinians considered themselves to be descended not only from Arab conquerors of the seventh century but also from indigenous peoples who had lived in the country since time immemorial, including the ancient Hebrews and the Canaanites before them.</ref>

3) In 1922, the British authorities over Mandate Palestine proposed a draft constitution which would have granted the Palestinian Arabs representation in a Legislative Council. The Palestine Arab delegation rejected the proposal noting that "the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration [Balfour] as a basis for discussion" and that the relegation of Palestine to a British "colony of the lowest order" was unacceptable.<ref>{{cite web|title=Correspondence with the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Zionist Organization|publisher=United Nations (original from ''His Majesty's Stationery Office'')|date=21 February 1922|accessdate=08.01.2007|url=http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0145a8233e14d2b585256cbf005af141/48a7e5584ee1403485256cd8006c3fbe!OpenDocument]}}</ref>

4) For example, Said Nafa, a self-identified "Palestinian Druze" serves as the head of the Balad party's national council and founded the "Pact of Free Druze" in 2001, an organization that aims "to stop the conscription of the Druze and claims the community is an inalienable part of the Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian nation at large."<ref>{{cite web|title=Balad's MK-to-be: 'Anti-Israelization' Conscientious Objector|author=Yoav Stern & Jack Khoury|publisher=[[Haaretz]]|date=2 May 2007|accessdate=07.29.2007|url=http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/854636.html}}</ref>

5) {{main|Palestinian literature}}

6) R.A. Stewart Macalister, in his work ''The Excavation of Gezer'' (1912), notes that {{cquote|... the division into periods [of Palestinian pottery] is to some extent a necessary evil, in that it suggests a misleading idea of discontinuity - as though the periods were so many water-tight compartments with fixed partitions between them. In point of fact, each period shades almost imperceptibly into the next.<ref name=Macalister131>{{cite book|title=The Excavation of Gezer: 1902 - 1905 and 1907 - 1909|author=R.A. Stewart Macalister|publisher=John Murray, Albemarle Street West, London|year=1912|url=http://www.case.edu/univlib/preserve/Etana/excavation_of_gezer_v2/title.pdf|page=131}}</ref>}}

7) Although various tribes from the Arabian peninsula had migrated into Palestine as early as the 3rd millennium BC,<ref name="Lewis2002p17">{cite book|title=''The Arabs in History''|author=Bernard Lewis|year=2002|publisher=Oxford University Press, USA, 6th ed.|page=17}}</ref>

8) "Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan..." Interestingly this is from Kunstel and Albright, who are still used in the version being restored but just this sentence is being deleted.

Is this unreliably sourced material and original research? No. Are any of the editors here willing to act in good faith? That's a question that they will have to answer. Tiamat 17:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Could the editors please discuss these changes individually? Large-scale changes in a complicated article are difficult to follow. --Ian Pitchford 18:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Tiamut needs to discuss her proposed changes individually, as her large-scale changes in a complicated article are difficult to follow. And Ian, it's nice to see you finally show up on the Talk: page; please review previous discussions where many of these proposed insertions have been discussed at length. Jayjg (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for working one piece at a time, Ian. Jayjg (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, you're being reactionary here. Look at the material above. Don't you recall that points one and two were already discussed at length previously? It's in the last two archives. After we agreed where to put them and how and the issue had died, they were removed (as I pointed out in Talk:Palestinian_people#Disappearance of 5,000 bytes of material). I restored them, along with other new edits and material that we were still discussing. And then you deleted them again along with everything else. This is wholescale mass reversion of work we discussed together and had come to an agreement on. You are destroying our own consensus building efforts this way. I have asked you time and time again to be specific about which parts of the article you have a problem with and avoid wholesale reversions. You just keep doing it. Anyone can look at the history and see that. Tiamat 18:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
No, Tiamut, you're playing a game here. People object to material, and instead of leaving it out, you revert it back in and add even more. You do that again and again and again until the total amount is "6000 bytes", then complain about "reactionary reverts". If you were editing in good faith, you'd insert any non-controversial material separately. But instead you mix everything together, to make it as difficult as possible for people to separate the wheat from the chaff. As I said, it's a game, and not a very pleasant one. When you stop playing games, and start editing collaboratively, you'll find much less resistance, and a much more pleasant experience. Jayjg (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Whatever happened to being bold? You'd condemn us all to bureaucratic paralysis. If someone's adding cited material, of mixed quality, remove the questionable parts, and leave the rest. You are being reactionary. --Eyrian 19:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Removing material is equally bold. If someone is playing a game about trying to make it as hard as possible to ensure that only good material is inserted into an article, then we don't have to play along, and that's not "reactionary". Jayjg (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I just posted some comments elsewhere on this very topic, which i am re-posting here.
Jayjg, you can add your concerns to all the well-written text which has been worked hard on. I would suggest that as a better option. please do not make war over whether his text meets some mythical standard just because another editor thinks so. I feel this process will get us nowhere fast. there is much potential here to reach clarity and informativeness, to a high degree, as Wikipedia frequently does. Please try to pursue such a process. your edits can play a valuable role in achieving balance, like other editors can as well.
I disagree with this process. I disagree with the whole atmosphere which is starting to emerge. I do not believe that editors should need to "seek consensus," as Jayjg has put it. What they need to do is provide well-written, well-sourced text. What any dissenters need to do is to provide their own counter-balancing facts, concerns, viewpoints or data. Some might call that too colloquial. however it has almost alwayts resulted in an orderly, well-intentioned and well-mannered process. In contrast, the approach of each sides accusing the other side of POV or not achieving consensus has almost always led to counter-accuasations and recriminations.
I am disturbed by the tone which is creeping into this and other articles on this conflict. There is absolutely no reason for contention or adversarial tones to exist. yes, i mean that. By allowing one good-faith editor to supply well-sourced text, and then simply providing valid sources showing the other side, we can gradually bring the valid concerns of boths sides to the fore, without any intrusion whatsoever or any denigration of anyone's beliefs, viewpoints or ideas. --Steve, Sm8900 19:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Steve, as I've explained to you before, when material is not suitable for inclusion in an article, then there is no point in trying to find "counter-balancing facts" etc. And "well-sourced" is meaningless - information must be relevant, for one thing. Please stop inserting red herrings into these discussions; there is no presumption that all material must be included in an article - on the contrary. This material does not belong, for many reasons explained above. I am disturbed by the preachy tone creeping into this and other Talk: pages on this conflict, especially when the objections raised seem related to some bizarre philosophy premised on the notion that material can only be added to a Wikipedia article, never removed. Jayjg (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I respect any concern which you in turn may feel about my approach, and I understand your dubious feelings about my approach in making these comments. I'm not asking you to necessarily accept anything I say as the final word on the right approach to Wikipedia either. So I am open to the feedback which you are giving me on my own individual approach. Also, I do realize you have contributed many solid things to Wikipedia, and extremely valuable facts and input. However, we do have some different ideas on the approach to editing, which i do feel are worth discussing here.
By the way, your last sentence raises a valid point. in answer, i am not saying that nothing can be removed. however, i am saying that most well-sourced, well-written text by a good-faith editor should not be removed, especially if the reason for removing it is that one disagrees with some aspect of the underlying philosophy or ideology. Obviously, text can be removed if one wishes to improve it, to tighten up the overall text, or if one feels the topic can be better approached differently. However, if it is a question of two differing philosphies, one can always add material which reflects a completely different approach or viewpoint, and which gives a more complete picture, I think. --Steve, Sm8900 00:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The issue here, and I believe I have repeated this several times, is not a question of differing philosophies, but rather that the material simply does not belong in this article - some is sourced to unreliable sources, some is unsourced editorial commentary, and some is simply irrelevant to the topic. Jayjg (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like comments on above items, here are mine. Let me know if this is useful or you'd rather I stay out.

Items 1 and 2) Seems plausible, maybe missing quote mark. I guess one question would be how well each Khalidi has done the necessary homework in backing up the claims about Palestinian identity formation. However, item (1) is also a bit confusing, seems like it might be a Foucaultian discourse/identity analysis that may need a fair amount of unpacking for a mere encyclopedia entry. I see that it leads off a section, which I think is confusing. Better to start with a general statement about how the origins of Palestinian identity are contested, both because identity formation itself is an arena of scholarly dispute and because of the perceived political stakes. Then roughly sketch two (or more) opposing views. Then start with one or the other view. (Side point -- The text has a Khalidi quote set up the other side, so as to refute it, which is a bit tendentious, esp since it doesn't identify who he is arguing against.) 3) Interesting info but worded somewhat POV, i.e., odd how terms "relegation" and "unacceptable" are dropped. What's the full original quote? 4) Druze. I suppose this statement needs to be properly contextualized as a minority viewpoint among Druze. If necessary, it could be added to footnote. 7) 8) Does Lewis call it Palestine for that era? (3000 BCE) Or is the writing pushing a particular viewpoint here regarding what gets to be called Palestine/ian? Don't see the problem with #8. Later: Ok, I see that the Canaanite issue has been debated above. In current version, the quote has been reinserted near top of Ancestry section. But it would be better to put it near the paragraph where the Canaanite issue is raised, and the mainstream and dissenting positions are discussed.

Thanks, good luck to all working on such controversial issues! HG | Talk 21:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So, 1) and 2) have been dealt with by your wonderful edits to that section. There's more work to do but we can discuss that below. 3) I changed the wording to be more faithful to the original text. Check it out and let me know what you think. 4) I placed this as a footnote per your suggestion. It was already contextualized, but I think a footnote with the quote is just as good. 7) and 8) I don't have the original Lewis, so I don't know what he calls it, but I don't think it really matters. If the name he uses is a synonym for the same region, he's talking about the same place and the information remains relevant to the ancestry of the Arabs of Palestine, now known as Palestinians. Also, I restored my version of the ancestry section which places Kunstel and Albright with the other Canaanite material instead of at the top of the section in the version minus the 6,000 bytes that some editors have kept restoring. Tiamat 12:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the positive feedback. #3) Looks better on NPOV, but others may chime in. Also, is this political history explained elsewhere in WP? Ciao. HG | Talk 17:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the major problems remain. Jayjg restored old versions of the ancestry and DNA section, and a number of sources and information in the list above continue to be blanked out of the article. (The uncivil comments about my editing style and motivations continue as well.) There's a lot of discussion about different issues, but it repeats the same old patterns often. I haven't tried to add anything to the article since Jayjg's reversion back to the two old DNA and ancestry sections again. I'm hoping that at least the discussions on the DNA section might bear some fruit, but there's reason to be a little pessimistic. Tiamat 19:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC) To see just one example of why, check out this section created by Jayjg to "address" the clearly numbered items here: Talk:Palestinian people#Canaanite civilization material.Tiamat 19:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Khalidi page 149

GHcool, you've added this twice now :

"Khalidi refutes the claim that the Palestinians are an ancient people as a national myth created by "Fateh, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and others ... in the mid- or late 1960s."[9]"

The quote from R. Khalidi on page 149 of his book reads:

...there is mainstream secular Palestinian nationalism, grouped together under the umbrella of the PLO and represented for the past three decades by a variety of constituent organizations including Fateh, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and others. These group, which have probably represented the views of a majority of Palestinians since some time in the mid- or -late 1960s, emerge from a relatively recent tradition which argues that Palestinian nationalism has deep historical roots. As with other national movements, extreme advocates of this view go further than this, and anachronistically read back into the history of Palestine over the past few centuries, and even millenia, a nationalist consciousness and identity that are in fact relatively modern.

As you can see, Khalidi is talking about Palestinian nationalism or a nationalist consciousness and identity as not having ancient roots, and not the Palestinians themselves. Like other societies under colonial or imperial rule, Palestinian nationalism and a unique Palestinian identity emerged only in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This does not mean that the people who now call themselves Palestinian were not there earlier or do not have ancient origins. Your formulation distorts the meaning of Khalidi's text. Tiamat 00:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(editconflict):Though it really should be up to you to make sure your additions properly represent the sources cited after you have been alerted to it by another editor who places a notice here with the specific item so as to get your attention and your reply, I went ahead and reformulated the addition, per the source and placed it another part of that section, where it flows better (being about the PLO and being largely chronological in organization there.) I hope it meets with your satisfaction. Tiamat 01:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to state the points of disagreement between Khalidi and Gelvin. It sounds like they both agree that Palestinian national identity originated in the modern period, with mildy different dates (Khalidi dating it to the late 19th C. and Gelvin to the early/mid 20th C.). They differ mainly on the cause, Khalidi relying more on the diffusion of nationalist discourse and Gelvin on a reaction formation to Zionism. After Gelvin, "The idea of a unique Palestinian state..." and following paragraphs seem to argue about the extent to which Palestinian identity has developed in contradistinction to Arab identity. (The evidence is given chronologically, but the article doesn't explain the point it's trying to make.) Towards the end of the section, the topic shifts a bit to how identity has been contested since 1948. Frankly, the writing is a bit evidence-heavy and doesn't tell the reader what to glean from section. I suppose that's a byproduct of POV disputes, so o.k. HG | Talk 01:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You know HG, I'm all into discussing this. But I gotta go to bed. It's 4:30am here. Go ahead and make some changes. I still have a copy of the diff with the other 5,550 bytes of material that I would like to get around to restoring as well. I'll take a look at what you come up with first chance I get. I'd appreciate if you and others would work to restore some of that material as well, now that more and more stuff is getting added and an easy revert to restore it will be impossible. Thanks for your interest and help here though. Tiamat 01:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Flow of argument/narrative in Origins section

Hi. Made a series of small edits to help readers follow the points in this section. Sorry for so many edits, but given the tension here, thought it would be better to disaggregate each move w/edit summary explanations. I tried not to change any information or weigh in on your content disputes. However, I wasn't quite sure how to handle the following two blocks of text:

The PLO was recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people by the Arab states in 1974 and was granted observer status as a national liberation movement by the United Nations that same year.[1][17] Israel rejected the resolution, calling it "shameful".[18] In a speech to the Knesset, Deputy Premier and Foreign Minister Allon outlined the government's view that : "No one can expect us to recognize the terrorist organization called the PLO as representing the Palestinians - because it does not. No one can expect us to negotiate with the heads of terror-gangs, who through their ideology and actions, endeavour to liquidate the State of Israel."[18]

In 1977, the United Nations General Assembly created the "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People", an annual observance on November 29.[20]

How do these paragraphs speak to the topic of how Palestinian identity originated/developed? Forgive me if I'm being dense. I'm not disputing the content. Maybe somebody could add sentence(s) to tell the reader what to infer from this evidence about Palestinian identity? If not, maybe these need to be omitted or moved to History of Palestine? Thanks. HG | Talk 02:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the paragraph after the Gelvin quote, Tiamut said in her edit summary: "it shouldn't say supporting Gelvin's view. The evidence is from Khalidi's book - and the nationalism isn't "tied to" Zionism, it's co-present with." Ok, fair enough. Gelvin could take this data as supporting evidence (Khalidi as our source is irrelevant) whereas Khalidi could say that the nationalism was already well underway. Do we want to explain to our readers about the dual interpretation of 1900-1920 data? Nah, let's just say that, with either interpretation, Palestinian national identity was apparent at that time period. Ok? HG | Talk 03:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What do folks think of adding subheadings to the Origins section? How about The emergence of Palestinian national identity Such as The relevance of modern nationalism and Zionism to Palestinian identity then Between Arab and Palestinian identities (1900 - 1967) then Recent developments in Palestinian identity (1967 - present). Also, am I right that this section should focus on identity formation, with political history as secondary? If so, then political history (whichever viewpoint) should be omitted if it doesn't serve as grounds/evidence about identity, right? Thanks. HG | Talk 12:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sub-headings sound like a good idea and the ones you have proposed are a great start. I should also mention that I went through the article, added things that were deleted that are reliably sourced and cited. I also removed one bit of prose by you that I felt didn't really add anything to the section. Good work though on making it flow better and improving the clarity to the reader. I generally agree with you that material in that section should focus around identity. However, I think the PLO information is important, as well as Israel's rejection of their recognition. It speaks directly to the issue of Palestinian identity since the PLO is the official representative of the Palestinian people. I guess that what I'm saying is that political representation is related to identity, particularly in this case since these bodies define Palestinian identity for a largely diaspora people. Tiamat 12:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. What you say about political representation and identity is utterly plausible. But let's make the connection crystal clear for the reader, who may not know how (or want to) draw these inferences. Plus, given the nature of this article, you probably want to find a scholarly source who can say how the political moves relate or express the identity developments. HG | Talk 12:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a very good point. I will look into more over the next couple of days. I'm sure Khalidi's book has something on it, but we've used him a lot already so it might be nice to get some other viewpoints. The advantage to him is he has written the authoritative work on the subject. But perhaps there's something as good or better out there. I would ask that you leave the material intact until we can find a way to tie it in better, unless you find it wholly offensive and out of place, in which case, you can post it here with the ref so that resinserting with new material later will be easier. Thanks. (PS. Nice first sub-heading!)Tiamat 12:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, want to ask about the reasons for some of your changes in the paragraph about Khalidi. You deleted the suggested opening: "Historians disagree about the timing and causes of Palestinian national identity." You also revised so that he is arguing about "the modern national identity." So, I gather you do not want to distinguish between a Palestinian "national identity" and any other kind of identity. Is that right? If so, do you think that Khalidi himself agrees with you? Or are you disputing with Khalidi as you describe his views? HG | Talk 13:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We basically have only two historians commenting on it, which is not enough to make a claim that "historians disagree" on the topic - it looks like original research. Also, the distinction between a "Palestinian national identity" and "Palestinian identity" seems entirely false; they both mean the same thing, and the latter is shorter. Jayjg (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You make two points I can agree with. First, "historians" may imply a larger debate. However, I think we still need a good contextualization/opening for the reader. Since both guys are cited at length, I infer that probably representative of other views (i.e., not pure fringe) and, at the least, they are making notable claims. So I will propose a revised opening for you to consider. Second, you say the distinction is false. From this I infer that it might be POV to put the distinction in the subheading. I agree and have done so. However, I do not sense that Khalidi agree with you (Jayjg) that the distinction is false. Given his wording, I would like to restore "national identity" to how we explains his argument. Ok? HG | Talk 13:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What is the difference in meaning, then? I'm not seeing any. And if we use inconsistent terminology, we just confuse the reader. Jayjg (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I suspect the difference is this: Some people claim that Palestinians have some type of identity (e.g., ethnic) before forming a nationalist identity. Khalidi appears open to that claim, so he focuses on the analysis of nationalist discourse. If we omit his wording, then he no longer appears to keep that (non-nationalist identity) option open. Right? HG | Talk 14:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What is the difference between ethnic identity and national identity, though? Palestinian nationalism is a type of ethnic nationalism. Jayjg (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
HG is totally correct here in his interpretation of Khalidi's argument and the distinction is hugely important. Without it, people like GHcool can insert summaries of Khalidi's work on page 149 (see that section on the talk here) that misrepresent what is under discussion. Tiamat 14:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What is the difference between ethnic identity and national identity in the context of Palestinians? Jayjg (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This is less a forum for discussing the topic, and more for how to write it up. (Briefly, some trace ethnic identity to Hellenistic conceptions of ethnos, whereas the national(istic) identity Khalidi discusses is emblematic of modernity.] If we agree that Khalidi finds the distinction relevant, let's keep it in our description of his reasoning, ok? Are we on the same page here, so to speak, Jayjg? HG | Talk 15:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I still think it confuses the reader to use different terminologies for the same thing. Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Next item. Jayjg restored this as a lead sentence (bold added): "The Israeli capture of the Gaza Strip and West Bank in the 1967 Six-Day War prompted existing but fractured Palestinian political and militant groups to give up any remaining hope they had placed in pan-Arabism and to rally around the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), (which was founded in 1964), to organize efforts to establish an independent Palestinian state." Two reactions. First, in context, the point of this sentence is in bold, that the Arabism discussed previously was now given up. Therefore, I would break this sentence so it ends nicely with this point. Plus, the next clause actually is a contrast -- what did they do without pan-Arabism -- which is why I would begin it with "Instead, they rallied...." I don't think this changes the meaning, only the style. Ok, Jayjg? Second, I personally feel that a simpler lead-in would help some readers. Why? Because the point of the whole paragraph is that pan-Arabism gave way to identifying with or self-naming via Palestinian nationalism. Does that make sense, even if the wordsmithing isn't there yet? HG | Talk 15:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

O.K. Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


Copyediting

This entire article, specifically the section entitled: DNA Clues is in need of serious copyediting. Anyone care to take a crack at it? Notecardforfree 03:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I took a crack at the DNA section. It probably needs more but the science is so complicated it takes hours to change the substance of the material. I restored an earlier edit I made there, cleaned up some stuff for clarity, deleted a paragraph at the end specifying the similarities and differences between Yemenis, Jews and Palestinians regarding sub-Saharan African gene flow (I left the summary, but not the in-depth examination. People can read the article linked for that). I hope it looks better. Tiamat 12:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. This needs work to tell the reader why all this evidence is put forward. Opening: what are the main points about to be proven? Then, tell us again each point before giving us the technical details. Also, it's just a hunch, but the opening seems a bit too one-sided and drawing a conclusion. Partly because "match historical accounts" are not her words, but mostly because she tells us the results and the reader doesn't know how she got there. Assuming the reader is inclined to doubt the conclusion, IMO it's more persuasive to raise the question, show how scientists resolve or debate it, and then give the outcome(s). HG | Talk 12:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey. The thing is that it's not just Oppenheim's study that draws that conclusion. Check out the restored ancestry section. There's a footnote there quoting a study by Nebel et al. (2000) that draws the same conclusion. It's attached to a sentence that refers to the historical thesis, the controversy, and then points the reader to the DNA section for more information. I think a lot of the information about the J Haplogroup is well composed. (I spent hours working on it, reading all the articles in question and it was very tough but I think I finally achieved some clarity there.) If you have an inclination to go through it all and make improvements along the lines you have suggested, that would be great. I'll keep an eye on how things develop and let you know what I think. Thanks. Tiamat 12:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Tried to give a start. But I don't quite see which data supports the prehistoric tracing claim and, honestly, I don't quite see what each piece of evidence demonstrates. This is partly my lack of genetics knowledge, but I think it's fair to assume that the typical reader is not better informed. So we have to spell it out for them.HG | Talk 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up. Jayjg (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You restored the earlier version that prompted this first editor to raise the issue of a dire need for a copy edit: [27] and took out all the changes I had made and those that HG had made too. Tiamat 13:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's an idea to help get this written/edited. (1) Put up a placeholder for this section -- an innocuous statement about how scientists are investigating and drawing preliminary conclusions and the genetic origins of Palestinians in relation to other populations from the region. (2) Move this section to new article. Put See main article... here. (3) This might encourage some NPOV nerds to help edit, without making them wade through all the political talk on this page. Of course, as the section becomes more readable, the political talk will get more heated about the scientific claims. But that's ok. HG | Talk 13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Tiamut, I didn't restore the exact same previous version, I incorporated the edits that were of value, as you keep requesting. I'm not sure why you are criticizing me for doing exactly what you have been asking. Jayjg (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It is my sense that you both deleted some of my edits, but kept others. I can live with that, since you are both willing to discuss specific changes with me here. HG | Talk 14:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? I think you should look at it again. Here is the diff that compares your latest edits to the DNA section with the edit Tewfik made a while ago: [28]. Here is the diff where you make this wholesale reversion of the DNA section (and the ancestry section) [29]. What did you keep? A set of brackets and a fix to the spacing? Tiamat 14:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? Do you think there is other material that should be added or removed? Jayjg (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, my point is that you deleted all of the changes HG and I made to that section with the aim of improving it by restoring an old version, thus repeating the same style of editing that prompted me to open the WP:ANI report on this issue. I would appreciate it if you would restore the section you removed and we can work on it from there together. Tiamat 14:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Which version did you start from when you started "improving" it? Jayjg (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
As you know, I have been working on the DNA section for some time. Since Tewfik did not respond to my questions regarding specific problems with the version I spent hours working on to improve, I went back to it, went through it again, read the whole section over, removed an irrelevant paragraph at the end, made some changes for flow and clarity and voila! Can't you just restore it as I have asked? You had a chance to raise problems specific to it in the section I opened above for discussion. You didn't. I am assuming that's because there were no problems with it. Do you have specific problems with it? If not, why not restore it and we can work on it together from there. Tiamat 14:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I see. So you reverted first, then made a few more edits. I've talked a lot about this exact style of editing before, and it seems rather hypocritical to complain about others reverting your work, when you consistently do exactly that to others. Please start with the original version, not your personal one, and propose changes here, so we can discuss them. As I've explained in several places, I'm tired of the "revert first, make a tiny change, then complain about 'wholesale reversion'" game. Jayjg (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Tiamat is NOT BEING hypocritical. She is compalining when others revert HER work. She is then reverting to restore HER OWN work. that is much different then reverting to erase someone else's hard-earned work. She is asking you to stop with repeated reverts of wholesale material. That seems fairly reasonable to me. --Steve, Sm8900 15:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
But Steve, Tiamut actually reverted a whole bunch of work that Tewfik did, and then complained that people were reverting her work. That seems hypocritical to me. Jayjg (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg is also ignoring a key point here. The editor who posted this section said the DNA section needed copy editing when it was under the version that Jayjg keeps restoring. I took that to mean that it was not a good version. So, I looked at my version again, made some copy edits for flow, deleted irrelevant material at the end and posted it. I then asked for feedback. Jayjg came along, restored the version that prompted this section to opened in the first place and claimed that he "cleaned it up". All he did was restore the exact same version that had prompted the initial comment. This is getting very very tiresome. I'm beginning to wonder if that's not the point. Tiamat 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
If a version needs copyediting, then copyedit it, don't revert to an entirely different personal version. The point is to accurately represent what reliable sources say. That is it. If you have an objection to the current version, then by all means, raise it. Jayjg (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we get back on task. How might we improve this section. (1) I'd again suggest an opening somehow indicates that main points to be covered in this section. Do you agree? (2) Whether or not you agree about the lead, please say what you believe to be the main points (e.g., three pts) and the order they should be made. You don't have to express the points perfectly, though it helps even here if it sounds neutral. Ok? HG | Talk 15:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) Agree. (2) I'm open. What do you think the top 3 points are? Jayjg (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll answer my own question. Caveat, I'd rather a NPOV genetic genealogist answer:
  1. A chronological claim. "They were descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times" Logically, this I think this should come after (2) and maybe (3). It also might be the most politically controversial.
  2. A geographic claim. "this region as the most probable origin of its dispersions" ... "its" = some stuff inside our bodies that is shared by Arabs esp Palestinian Arabs, and to a lesser extent Jews. somehow proving that these various people's came from the Levant. ( 2a) same finding confirmed by other DNA stuff. "The presence of this particular modal haplotype at a significant frequency in three separate geographic locales makes independent genetic-drift events unlikely." <Ta da, scientists rediscover geography! >
  3. We're all one big dysfunctional family! "Jewish ethnic divisions and the Palestinians — and in some cases other Levantines — are genetically closer to each other than the Palestinians to the original Arabs of Arabia or [European] Jews to non-Jewish European" < I need a scientist to tell me this?! >
  4. Who's less African? Arabs have more black ( but the word isn't used!) African "gene flow" than do most Jews, except for dark-skinned ( but the word isn't used) Jews like Ethiopians and Yemenites. Ok, this makes me feel uncomfortable. Logically could be placed in this article. But hey, maybe we only have room for 3 points?
Doesn't make my cut: Interspersed with all this, are underlying claims or interpretations that the above findings fit the historical record. Makes the section hard to edit. I'd omit this for now. HG | Talk 16:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I tried to isolate three points, but it is much more complicated than that. Below is my suggestion of a draft copy. If no one has any major objections, I'd like to post it and work from there, since it's complicated to see the footnotes on talk. For now, I will leave it here as a draft for your feedback.Tiamat 16:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi HG. It's an interesting proposal. However, I disagree about omitting what you termed "underlying claims or interpretations that the above findings fit the historical record." The reason? They are not underlying claims, they are specific conclusions made in the studies we have as sources. If you review the draft I composed again below, you will see that these are the conclusions as sourced from the studies, or as reported by secondary sources like Science Now. We could use some secondary sources that explain why the DNA debate is important here at all: i.e. the controversy over claims. I think we would benefit from an introductory paragraph like that on the draft I submitted below. I would appreciate it if people would acknowledge the sources and their contents and the efforts it takes to put a draft together and work with it a bit. I should just post it directly to the article since Wikipedia is about being bold. I'm kind of getting tired of having endless discussions that try to make the inclusion of information that is not really all that controversial into something so leperous that it should be avoided altogether. Sorry if my tone sounds sharp. :) Tiamat 17:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

DNA clues draft

Here' my proposal for a draft copy to work on. There are footnotes in here that are text as well, so take a look at them when you go to edit the page. Comments and sugestions on what to add or remove are welcome:

Studies in the field of genetics and genetic genealogy make comparisons with the historical record as it regards the populations under study, contributing to scholarship on human ancestral origins.

Results of a DNA haplotype study by geneticist Ariella Oppenheim were reported by Science Now to 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."[10] [11]

Other haplotype studies have explored the prevalence of specific inherited genetic differences among populations allowing for the relatedness of these populations to be determined and their ancestry to be traced back through population genetics. These also suggest that, at least paternally, most of the various Jewish ethnic divisions and the Palestinians — and in some cases other Levantines — are genetically closer to each other than the Palestinians to the original Arabs of Arabia or [European] Jews to non-Jewish Europeans.[12][13][14][15][16]

More recent studies focusing on haplogroup types have concluded that "Arab and other Semitic populations usually possess an excess of J1 Y chromosomes compared to other populations harboring Y-haplogroup J".[17][18]

Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) (previously known as J-M267 and Eu10) is one of two main sub-clades of the wider Haplogroup J (Y-DNA) group, thought to be the haplogroup of Semitic-speaking peoples in the Middle East.[19][20][21][22][23] Haplogroup J2-M127 is thought to be a genetic marker of the Phoenicians, the term used to refer to Canaanites after 1200 BCE.[30]

Palestinian Arabs and Bedouins exhibit the highest rates of Haplogroup J (Y-DNA) (Semino et al., 2004, pp 1029) (55.2% and 65.6% respectively),and the highest frequency of the J1 sub-clade (38.4% and 62.5% respectively) among all groups tested.[24]

The J1 (or J1-M267) sub-clade is more common throughout the Levant itself, including Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon with decreasing frequencies northward to Turkey and the Caucasus, while J2-M172 (its sister clade) is more abundant in adjacent southern areas such as Somalia, Egypt, and Oman. [25] Frequency decreases with distance from the Levant in all directions, reinforcing this region as the most probable origin of its dispersions (Semino et al. 1996; Rosser et al. 2000; Quintana-Murci et al. 2001).[25]

According to Semino et al. (2004), J-M267 (i.e. J1) was brought to Northeast Africa and Europe from the Middle East in late Neolithic times; whereas its presence in the southern part of the Middle East and in Northwest Africa was brought by a second wave, most likely Arabs who mainly from the 7th century A.D. onward expanded into northern Africa (Nebel et al. 2002).[24](See also J1 Haplogroup frequencies:[31]) Tiamat 16:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut: I gave my ideas for the 3 points for this section above. It was deleted accidentally, please look and respond to it. Maybe it will be helpful. HG | Talk 17:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sounds like you'd still like feedback. First, purely as a matter of style, I cringe at reading sentences here about haplothingies, subclades, and JM747s. Let's imagine I'm a smart US high school or college student, but not in the sciences. You're reading the article and suddenly you are hit with sentences that began as above, some with completely unfamiliar (grammatical) subjects and objects. Do I have to shift from reading an encyclopedia to reading a scientific journal? You need to tell the reader what you are explaining, bring it down to terms for an audience who groks the rest of the article, and don't make me draw the inferences... tell me clearly at the outset and afterwards what key points I've learned. Second, you are writing partly for a skeptical audience. So you need to persuade them that the evidence backs up the claims. Draw the reader in -- explain how the evidence works and then how it adds up to adds up to genetic-genealogy findings. Ok. Third. Now comes the tricky part, you want to let the scientists interpret their data within a historiographical context. Your readers are going to be even MORE skeptical. Why should geneticists making historical claims? Don't skip this step! Address the doubt, make some concession or explanation to assuage the doubt about the author's standing. With you and Jayjg bickering, I don't know that either of you have the frame of mind for this step. Maybe qualify it strongly: "Interpreting their genetics analysis, some scientists have gone so far as to claim XYZ and ZYX. These historical claims have been picked up by the popular media and some pro-Palestinian circles. However, the jury is still out on whether such claims will resonate among historical scholars." Of course, this shouldn't be about personalities. But if you keep pushing the third step, and Jayjg keeps pushing back, you'll sabotage productive work on the whole section.HG | Talk 18:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely with HG on this point, as providing straight technical discussion will be unhelpful for the majority of readers. That said, we have to be careful in how we vulgarise the text so that we are still only representing the science without inserting our own biases. On that note, my objection is the same as before, that a general discussion of topics like J is replacing specific discussion of its relevance to Palestinians. TewfikTalk 20:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Pottery found in Palestine vs. Palestinian pottery

Pottery found in Palestine is not the same thing as Palestinian pottery. It would be pure revisionism to try to claim, for example, that pottery produced by Canaanites in 12th century BCE was "Palestinian pottery", in the modern sense of Palestinian. Please make sure that material is relevant to this specific article, which is Palestinian people, not ancient Palestine. Jayjg (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The source says "Palestinian pottery". It's not OR to term it as such if that's what the source says. I've quoted the relevant section at the main page for that article. See Talk:Palestinian pottery. Please stop trying to change sources to read as you would like them to read, rather than as they actually do. Tiamat 13:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Pottery found in Palestine is also inaccurate. Pottery found in the region some people later named as Palestine is more accurate perhaps. Obviously Palestinian pottery can only relate to Poterry created by people identifying themselves as Palestinians (probaby after 1964 or so...) Amoruso 13:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You are taking advantage of an ambiguity in English; that "Palestinian" refers to items found in ancient Palestine, and that it also refers to the modern group known as Palestinians. Trying to equate the two is a kind of a-historical revisionism. Jayjg (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The source says on page 75:

Modern Palestinian pots, bowls, jars, jugs, and cups are similar in shape to their ancient equivalents and show how persistently the potter's craft clung to tradition through the centuries. Fabric and decoration also recall ancient methods; the clay is of much the same composition and is shaped, smoothed, and baked in the same way..."

And on and on. Needler uses "Palestinian pottery" to refer to modern pottery produced by Palestinians and ancient pottery produced at other times in the region. This is not ahistorical revisionism. The text is dated to 1949. Needler is the Deputy Keeper of the Near Eastern Department at the Royal Ontario Museum of Archaeology and the book is entitled: "Palestine: Ancient and Modern". Please explain why I should ignore what a reliable source says and go with you WP:OR opinion. Tiamat 14:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

They key difference would be that you inserted the a-historical editorial comment at the beginning "Palestinian pottery shows a remarkable continuity throughout the ages", with the aforementioned implication. Needler is quite careful to talk about "ancient equivalents" and "recall ancient methods". He, however, does not make the implication you have made, that it is all one amorphous mass of "Palestinian pottery". You'd be better off just quoting Needler; indeed, the current wording mirrors Needlers almost exactly. Jayjg (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The section currently reads:

Modern pots, bowls, jugs and cups produced by Palestinians, particularly those produced prior to the 1940s, are similar in shape, fabric and decoration to their ancient equivalents.[57] Cooking pots, jugs, mugs and plates that are still hand-made and fired in open, charcoal-fuelled kilns as in ancient times in historic villages like al-Jib (Gibeon), Beitin (Bethel) and Senjel.[58]

Notice anything wrong there? Like bad grammar for one.

My version read:

Palestinian pottery shows a remarkable continuity throughout the ages. Modern Palestinian pots, bowls, jugs and cups, particularly those produced prior to the establishment of Israel in 1948, are similar in shape, fabric and decoration to their ancient equivalents.[57] R.A. Stewart Macalister, in his work The Excavation of Gezer (1912), notes that “ ... the division into periods [of Palestinian pottery] is to some extent a necessary evil, in that it suggests a misleading idea of discontinuity - as though the periods were so many water-tight compartments with fixed partitions between them. In point of fact, each period shades almost imperceptibly into the next.[58] ” Traditional pottery, including cooking pots, jugs, mugs and plates that are still hand-made and fired in open, charcoal-fueled kilns as in ancient times in historic villages like al-Jib (Gibeon), Beitin (Bethel) and Senjel.[59]

Now, which one is closer to the wording of the original? Tiamat 14:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, you still have that inserted commentary at the beginning. In addition, you've gone back to quoting hundred year old works. I haven't so far objected that you're trying to use a 60 year old work, but 100 years old is simply outrageous. The science of archeology changes all the time, and conclusions from 30 years ago are all disputed, much less 60 or 100 years ago. Given my consistent objection to the use of ancient material in sections devoted to scientific and historical fact, your insertion of claims from these sources seems almost deliberately provocative. Jayjg (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
(Sigh) Again, I have asked you before, but where in Wikipedia policy does it say that we are forbidden from using historical works? How does a comprehensive archaeological study of pottery remains become useless simply because it was conducted in 1912 or 1949? Do you have a reliable source that says this material is incorrect or outdated? Do you have a reliable source that makes contrary claims regarding Palestinian pottery or the pottery produced in Palestine? Can you find a newer source if you have such a problem with this one?
You've also ignored the issue of the bad grammar, restored more than once now. Tewfik was the first to introduce it and with every wholesale reversion (or the wholesale copy-paste of sections, as the case may be) you have re-introduced it. But I like the way you deflected by making it all about me and my provocations. Very slick. Tiamat 15:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You are introducing the fallacy of many questions here. Policy is not maximally explicit, but it does say that reliable sources must be used. The science of archeology changes all the time, and conclusions from 30 years ago are all disputed, much less 60 or 100 years ago. I will continue to remove any material not sourced to reliable sources, and that includes 100 year old archeology. I'll fix the grammatical problem, though, but I'm not sure why your version is grammatically correct - they both have a sentence without an ending. Jayjg (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
About the grammar, my mistake. (Red-faced embarassment) About the other part, I don't agree. And I will restore any material deleted by you for being 100 years old when you don't provide a source that says it is outdated. Archaeology is a cumulative discipline. It should be easy to find a newer study that rejects such findings, if that is indeed the case. Go find it. Tiamat 15:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be dead-locked regarding ancient scientific writing. I suggest, as I always have, that it would be better to include material that is non-controversial, so the areas of dispute can be narrowed, rather than mixing controversial with non-controversial, so that the conflict is ever-widened. Jayjg (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Pottery from the historic region of Palestine is not the same as pottery produced within the modern Palestinian identity. Please don't use ambiguous language to conflate unrelated concepts. TewfikTalk 20:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, ignoring what the source says without providing an alternative source that supports your position seems to be a poor basis on which to forge your conclusions. Tiamat 10:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Canaanite civilization material

This article is about Palestinians, not ancient Canaanites, or even ancient Palestine. There have been persistent attempts to insert revisionist history implying that ancient Canaanites were actually Palestinians in the modern sense, something even Palestinian historians don't claim. Please stop inserting sentences like "Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan", which have nothing to do with modern Palestinians, and which come from a book not even written by historians, but rather by journalists. It's bad enough we're including material from non-historians, let's not compound the problem. Jayjg (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You are ignoring that other editors have agreed that Kunstel and Albright's work should be included with the other Canaanite material. In your latest wholesale revision (of only 2,000 bytes this time) you also deleted this (among other things) :

"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)... Thus, our findings are in good agreement with the historical record..."

It comes from a Nebel et al. (2000) study in journal of Human Genetics.

Why do you keep deleting reliably sourced information relevant to the topic of Palestinian ancestry? Tiamat 13:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which "other editors" you are referring to, or how that is relevant; "other editors" have also objected to this material. Kunstel and Albright are journalists, and the article is about Palestinians, not ancient Canaanites. Regarding Nebel, at least he's a scientist, but he is a geneticist, not a historian, so his expertise is in genetics. Genetics and history are very different fields. Finally, it's not clear why the number of bytes different between the material is relevant to this or any discussion; please stop filling the page with irrelevant verbiage. Jayjg (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the DNA section discussion above, your edit simply restored the version of the ancestry and DNA sections wholesale that you like. In the process, you deleted reliably sourced information and gave undue prominence to the view of Kunstel and Albright by once again placing them at the top of the section, rather than in the discussion surrounding Canaanite origins. Further, your argument regarding genetics and history is moot, because the text that was deleted was a footnote to a sentence that spoke of how there are historical theses that are being borne out by genetics research. This is proper contextualization for this material. If you think however, that this information more properly belongs in the DNA section, put in there. But please stop deleting everything unrelated to your issues with this section. It took me two hours to restore the material, piece by piece, so as not to delete the work of others. In one second, you go in, revert it all to an old version that you like, and then wonder why I get so cranky about it. Tiamat 14:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
My complete edit was not a simple revert to any version, as is quite clear. I did exactly what you asked, kept the pieces I thought were of value. Anyway, let's discuss Canaanite material here, DNA material and other material elsewhere, and let's not re-hash personal version of what we think was done, but instead propose ideas for what we would like to do. Are my objections to the Canaanite material clear? Jayjg (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It has always been clear that you are against the inclusion of material that traces Palestinian ancestry back to the Canaanites. Indeed, that's what seems to motivate your deletions of material here (the list above shows a certain commonality in the items removed). I agree with you that there is no way to definitively prove such a thesis. But there is no way to disprove it either. Considering that there are some historians who do make such claims, and that Palestinian themselves make such claims, I think their views are relevant to this article. My edits have always presented this material in context. In fact, the ancestry section in my version in the diff above makes explicit that such claims are outside of the realm of historical and archaeological study, deferring to the geneticists for more solid information on Palestinian ancestry. It is within this framework that any material on Canaanites is discussed. If you can agree to that, then we can continue. If you simply want to exclude all mention of Canaanites, then we cannot. Tiamat 15:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
My interest in deleting Canaanite material coincided with your sudden decision to start inserting it, particularly when you were using dubious sources to introduce an ahistorical narrative that even Palestinian historians reject. You have yet to really find any historians who make those claims; on the other hand, we do have sources indicating that most historians reject them. As was explained literally months ago, your modus operandi has consistently been to claim a Canaanite-Palestinian connection, and then search for material that supports your thesis, rather than simply reporting what reliable sources say about Palestinian ancestry. As I've also said, you've improved your sourcing, so that instead of using bizarre personal websites and religious screeds you've advanced to using the book reviews written by ex-CIA analysts and anti-Israel activists (and the book reviewed is itself not by a historian, but by two journalists). It's not appropriate even now, but I've been doing my best to compromise not my standards, but Wikipedia's standards, in order to accommodate you - but there is only so far that we can go. Canaanite material can be included when reliable sources, from historians, indicate that it warrants inclusion. Otherwise, the WP:UNDUE and WP:V strictures will preclude any such inclusion. Jayjg (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you read Jayjg. I ask because the Human Genetics article that I quoted you above refers to three historians, Shaban (1971), Mc Graw Donner (1981), and Gil (1992). For your benefit once again:

"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)... Thus, our findings are in good agreement with the historical record..."

It is quite clear to me that no matter how reliable the source, you simply do not like the idea that Palestinians are generally thought to be descended from earlier populations, including the Canaanites. You come up with every excuse in the book to disqualify such views. Stop trying to impugn my editorial credibility and acknowledge that there are reliable sources that support this thesis. Tiamat 15:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you recognize that a geneticist is not a historian, that they are different scientific fields? Do you recognize that a geneticist giving his view on what historians say is not the same thing as a historian giving his own views? Do you recognize that even if a geneticist summarizes a historian correctly, he might not have a good understanding of the consensus of modern historical literature on a topic? Do you recognize that we have sources that say most historians reject that thesis? Do you recognize that this material is not the same as the stuff from the book review? Jayjg (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you realize that rhetorical questions indicate the lack of real response? Seriously. You need a reality check. Why are you so adamantly unable to acknowledge that there is a wide body of historical, archaeological and genetic scholarship that says that present-day Palestinians did not come from the moon, but were actually likely to be descendants of people who lived where they lived before. This is not rocket science Jayjg. It's pretty damn logical actually. And the fact that Palestinians believe this to be true and acknwoledge these influences as part of their identity is relevant to this article. I've given you a tonne of reliable sources. You've given me insults and empty rhetoric. I don't think we will make real progress here until you stop insulting me, get off your high horse, treat me with the fairness and respect I deserve (as does any other good faith editor), and try to respect that there are POVs other than your own in this world that may have some legitimacy. Tiamat 17:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Tiamat, the sources themselves say that the theory of direct Canaanite descent is given little credence by historians. This isn't something I'm making up. So, why are you trying to promote that view anyway? 100 year old archeological digs, ex-CIA analysts, journalists, geneticists, are not reliable sources when it comes to history. Jayjg (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
(e/c) After returning from my holiday, I'm sorely disappointed to see this Canaanite stuff refusing to die. Tiamut, obviously, historians believe that many people who are now Palestinian are descended from Christians (and Jews and Samaritans perhaps) who converted to Islam or became Arabic-speaking after the Islamic conquest. It is also somewhat plausible that some of those people were from families that had stayed in Palestine since the biblical period or earlier. But then you make this humongous leap and assume that modern historians somehow explicitly relate modern Palestinians to ancient prehistoric peoples in Palestine. This is a sweeping claim of a sort that serious modern scholars seldom make. The only sources I found that make this connection are the Kunstel and Albright book and the Whitelam book (whose working def'n of Palestinian history is everything that happened in Palestine that did not involve Jews). Perhaps you can give the full bibliographic listing for the historical sources Nebel cites? I am curious to see what the originals actually say. Also, I think this fruitless debate on Canaanite origins is wasting time that would be much better spent on expanding and improving the Palestinian culture section and other more important parts of the article. nadav (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
And just to remind people what I pointed out back in May:

"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.

This should be clear to everyone, and, like Nadav, I thought we'd already solved this issue. Jayjg (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
(editconflict) Am I even using Whitelam Jayjg? I challenge you to point out an edit where I even used his material. I brought him up in a talk discussion months ago. All of this is designed as a strawman argument. You are using arguments from a debate over two months ago about those sources when I am not even using them! You created this section on "Canaanites" and made a number of false claims about my editing history and positions to divert the debate from the real issues. There are sources in this Ancestry section that you have deleted. Whitelam is not one of them. Never has been. The genetics source above used as a footnote is one of them. Your refusal to include Kunstel and Albright's opening sentence because it has the words Canaanite in it (as per note number 8 in my original outline on the material you deleted above) and your placement of them at the top of the ancestry section despite the recommendations of other editors like HG to place them with the other "Canaanite" material is an issue. Your insistence on including Lewis' refutation of the Canaanite thesis without even adequately presenting the thesis itself, is an issue. Stop trying to make me out to be unreasonable here. And don't insult my intelligence by talking about sources I'm not even using and recycling old debate material that doesn't apply here at all. Tiamat 19:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
But these people address the thesis that Whitelam raised, and which was rejected by all mainstream historians and archeologists, and which you too are raising. Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's yet another source that about the Canaanite thesis. An excerpt from a Jerusalem Report article about the controversy surrounding Palestinian and Jewish ancient historical claims to the land, which begins with a description of a tense seminar that drew Israeli and Palestinian participants:
"But another archaeologist, Dr. Adel Yahya, who also writes guide books and runs a tourism company, rose to assert a Palestinian claim to a presence in the Holy Land predating the Jews by more than a millennium. Modern-day Palestinians, he declared, are not the descendants of people who drifted here from the Arabian peninsula in recent centuries, as most historians believe, but are rather the direct descendants of the Philistines, Aegean sea people who settled on the coast of Canaan at the end of the 12th century BCE - 1,200 years before the date attributed to the earliest mikvah. Indeed, he went on, the Palestinians might even be descendants of the ancient Canaanites themselves, whom even the Bible acknowledges were present in the land before the Israelites arrived.
"Such assertions have been percolating in Palestinian circles for at least a decade. There is no physical evidence to back them up, and mainstream international archaeologists flatly reject them. Even Sandra Scham, an American archaeologist at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Jerusalem and author of "Archaeology of the Disenfranchised" - a paper describing how dominant Israeli culture has used archaeology to subordinate Palestinian culture - is politely dismissive. Such talk, she says, lies in the realm of 'popular imagination and folklore.'
"When Yahya sat down, a predictable argument broke out among the assembled Bible scholars, archaeologists, teachers and journalists. Some Jewish participants assaulted Yahya's claims as absurd. Others, including Reich, sat silent, stunned and embarrassed at the Palestinian rejection of their scholarship, and at the absence of any academic basis for the counter-arguments." Gross, Netty C. "Demolishing David," The Jerusalem Report September 11, 2000. Pg. 40 nadav (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for this. I will be incorporating it into yet another revised ancestry section. For the first time in this long discussion, you've finally provided something useful to the development of the article. Tiamat 19:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
To elaborate: I am not against the inclusion of material that refutes the thesis that Palestinians are descended from Canaanites. In fact, there is some already in the article. What is not in the article is the presentation of that thesis. While I have tried to add it, you have reverted it out. Luckily, this article presents both the thesis and the refutation of it and since you provided it, you shouldn't have any problem with me using it (and other reliable sources that you keep deleting) to adequately present this thesis and its anti-thesis. My problem is with your one-sided portrayal of the issue and your denial that it has any relevance, when it clearly does. NPOV requires that all opinions are presented in the debate. While I'm sure the Jpost opinion is relevant, it's not the only one. Give space to others Jayjg. That's all I'm asking. Stop trying to make your view the only one. Tiamat 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

New proposals

Thanks for giving these excerpts, Jayjg and Nadav. Based on these sources, it is clear that there is a notable view to be put in the entry -- notable not as good scholarship, but nevertheless "percolating" and published. So, let's agree on (1) this non-mainstream opinion belongs in the article, and (2) we need to figure out how to characterize this evidence. Do you guys agree with these 2 points? Forget about Tiamut's specific edits and efforts for a minute, step back and tell me this: What kind of qualifying yet NPOV language would you accept to describe the kind of [IYO scientifically indefensible] views that some Palestinians believe? HG | Talk 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::Sorry HG, but on what basis do you think this is a non-mainstream view? The Jerusalem Post article? I would take that with a grain of salt. I don't think the JPost or Israeli archaeologists are disinterested parties in this debate. The views should be treated with equal deference I think, based on the sum total of the sources we have. We're not here to decide that the Jpost has more authority than a Palestinian archaeologist or that Israeli archaeologists have more authority than Israeli geneticists. These are all views that should be represented, side by side, and the reader should decide. Tiamat 19:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, T. I have no opinion to express on the thesis. Nor do I know yet how I would characterize the thesis, though I'm trying to tease that out of you guys.
The excerpt I gave was the from the centrist Jerusalem Report magazine (which I respect), not the rightist Jerusalem Post newspaper. nadav (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, the people I have brought to the table are not Israeli. William G. Dever is certainly not. Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The fundamental problem with presenting much material about the Canaanite theory is the danger of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. This is a theory that is not accepted by any mainstream scholars, so I am very hesitant about including much material on it in a general article about Palestinians. My feeling is that anything beyond a few lines should be moved to a separate subarticle on the theory. I am especially concerned about the suggestion to give a long detailed exposition of this fringe theory in the ancestry section, which I think should detail the mainstream opinion. nadav (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, excellent! I hear that you agree (1) some discussion of this thesis is appropriate in this article. Furthermore, you recommend a separate article because you sense it could end up too long and disproportionate here. Personally, I like it because it allows Tiamut to make progress without interrupting the flow here. Regardless of my opinion, Nadav, can you answer the (2) question: What language would you propose to characterize the thesis. Do you like your phrase: "a theory that is not accepted by any mainstream scholars"? HG | Talk 20:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
First, let me commend you on the attempt at mediation. Concerning point (2), I have no special preference about the particularities of the language. I am OK with letting the mainstream sources (Science, Jerusalem Report, Lewis, Collins, etc) speak for themselves through quotes or paraphrases, which is the basic approach of the current revision [32] (though I don't understand the point of dropping the Kunstel and Albright blockquote at the start of the section). nadav (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you base your determination that this is a "fringe" theory on Nadav?Tiamat 19:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I base my determination on the large quantity of modern, reliable, scholarly sources that discount the theory, and the lack of similar quality sources that advance it. nadav (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Tiamut... Did I miss something? Of course, I don't know the whole history of Talk on this topic. Let me ask you 2 questions. (1) How would you characterize the thesis in a neutral tone, whether for this or a separate article? (2) Could you accept a separate article, per Nadav's suggestion? Regardless, how would you title a relevant subsection or article on the thesis? HG | Talk 20:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:Geez, who cares. let her put in her text and sources. then you put in some of your text and sources, saying "somepeople dispute these claims." does that sound so hard? upon further reflection, I realize my comment makes it sound like I am discounting HG's valuable effort at mediation. So i don't want it to appear like i am suggesting that tiamat should not answer such reasonable, useful questions. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 20:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because it violates WP:V and WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Jayjg (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. To you it does. To her it doesn't. And she seems like a hard-working, diligent and honest editor. Every opinion and ruling here is the result of one good-faith person's heartlfelt beliefs. So I say we simply accept it. Big deal. --Steve, Sm8900 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You keep insisting we work from some paradigm that has nothing to do with policy, and instead posits that if anyone ever inserts something that is in accord with their "good-faith, heartfelt beliefs", then it can never be deleted from an article. Frankly, that's nonsense. If something fails WP:V, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE then it should be removed it from Wikipedia. Please don't continue to make arguments based on the notion that "if the edit is made in good faith, then it can never be deleted, only responded to". It flies counter to policy and common sense, and only wastes time here. Jayjg (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Glad you're in on this Steve. They did mention Undue above. Anyway, we have a responsibility to iron out some neutral language so that this doesn't drag on, right? HG | Talk 20:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thanks for your helpful comments. it never hurts to try to work things out. you seem to be offering a pretty good job. keep it up. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 20:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg -- If you don't mind, what's your response to the 2 q's. (1) Agree that some role of the thesis in the article. (2) How would you characterize the thesis in article-suitable prose? Also, you agree w/Nadav's proposal for a separate article? HG | Talk 20:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a fringe theory that all mainstream historians dismiss. It should be presented in exactly that way, here. I don't think it warrants an article of its own. Jayjg (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I gather you all have debated this in the past so I appreciate your response. (1) you agree about a limited role in this article, and (2) you use language similar to Nadav's characterization above. (3) You disagree about a separate article, though. If no separate article, then this would benefit your wish to keep the coverage of the thesis limited (owing to UNDUE proportionality). But I wonder, wouldn't it leave us all vulnerable to constant edit wars? Every time any User came by to add to coverage of the thesis, somebody has to step in and explain UNDUE to them. On the other hand, a separate article would provide sufficient space for you (et al.) to refute the thesis, without distracting from this heavier traffic page. Am I properly gauging your interest and viewpoint here? HG | Talk 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion:

there are some analysts who assert that palestinians have some ancestry among ancient Canaanites. there are other experts who assert that such studies are wholly driven by politics, and have no factual basis whatsoever.

hope that helps. --Steve, Sm8900 21:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Could people actually look at this diff: [33]. In the Ancestry section there, the version on the left is what I proposed to deal with this issue. On the subject of Canaanites, it reads:

The claim that Palestinians are direct descendants of the region's earliest inhabitants, the Canaanites, has been put forward by some authors. Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, author-journalists, write that:

"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."[2]

In her review of their work, Kathleen Christison notes that they 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."[26]

In the journal Science, it was reported that "most Palestinian archaeologists were quick to distance themselves from these ideas," and some of those interviewed expressed their view that the issue of who was in Palestine first was an ideological issue that lay outside of the realm of archaeological study.[27] Khaled Nashef, the director of the Palestinian Institute for Archaeology, emphasized the importance of developing the nascent Palestinian archaeological school, arguing that, "Archaeology here has concentrated on historical events or figures important to European or Western tradition. This may be important, but it doesn't provide a complete picture of how local people lived here in ancient times."[27] Bernard Lewis writes that, "In terms of scholarship, as distinct from politics, there is no evidence whatsoever for the assertion that the Canaanites were Arabs,"[28] and that, "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."[28]

Isn't this a fair formulation? If not, what is specifically wrong with it? Tiamat 21:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not, because it gives WP:UNDUE prominence to this Canaanite theory, based on a book review written by an ex-CIA-analyst/anti-Israel activist, and the book itself is the work of two journalists, not historians. Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Tiamut, you've definitely done your homework on this and I'm not doubting at all your good faith. Before discussing whether it's fair or not, though, let's step back and figure out a framework for editing this. Should there be a separate article? If not, how do we define/explain how we plan to constrain the text (especially for those who would apply UNDUE proportion to this thesis)? HG | Talk 21:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Whatever approach is taken, the reader of the text should come away with a clear understanding of the fact that mainstream modern scholarly opinion rejects the Canaanite assertion. This is the clear directive in WP:FRINGE and it is the way we treat other theories with faithful adherents in the realms of astrology, alternative medicine and the paranormal. This understanding can be conveyed through the large number of mainstream sources that have been provided on this page that debunk the theory, though it would unfortunately mean dedicating too much space to it for what should be an overview article. nadav (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's assume you're right about scholarship. From The Jerusalem Report and other sources, would you grant that there is a notable belief or experience of (some) Palestinians that the thesis fits into the overall narrative of their identity and collectivity? Also, how do we deal with a cultural-historical thesis, which is assessed differently by a given group, and isn't quite falsifiable (compared to paranormal IMO)? HG | Talk 22:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. WP:Fringe does differentiate non-scientific theories and I wonder if the Canaanite thesis straddle this divide. HG | Talk 22:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I completely grant that fact. A few sources I looked at (Benevisti, the excerpt from Lewis, Science, National Review) discuss how the Canaanite origins thesis has been adopted as a national myth (the PA, for example, organized a Canaanite folklore festival in the mid 90s which included retellings of how the Canaanites bravely fought off the Hebrew invaders). It is similar to how other nations have their own origin myths, though this one is admittedly newer. I believe the thesis deserves mention if only for the anthropological angle, but it should be put in proper perspective (i.e. the opinions of the mainstream experts must be included).nadav (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I just thought I would editors know that I will be taking a wikibreak (from this article in particular) for a little bit since I have real-life editing to do on a book for a professor and this has been diverting my energies from there for too long now. I hope that when I come back, some industrious editors will have made improvements to the ancestry and DNA sections as they are are currently poorly composed and inaccurate (the diffs I have provided above and the draft for the DNA section might be useful to those who wish to do some integrative work. I have tried to correct those problems myself, but since there is resistance by selected editors to the versions I have proposed, I don't want to engage in edit wars to restore the information as is (even though I believe that everything there is adequately sourced and cited and gives a rather fair treatment of the issues involved). I'll be looking it over when I have the time and come back with some new ideas and improvements of my own. I appreciate the comments and suggestions on how to break this deadlock. Happy editing. Tiamat 14:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiamat, before you go, it appears to me that we do have a compromise on the table right now. Would it be possible for you to at least agree to that for now, with the reservation that you could be able to review it further when you come back? that way, we can get at least some of your material into the entry now. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 15:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
What compromise is that? Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
the one discussed by HG and Nadav, two comments above; the one which ends with the sentence "I believe the thesis deserves mention if only for the anthropological angle, but it should be put in proper perspective (i.e. the opinions of the mainstream experts must be included)." --Steve, Sm8900 22:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Steve. I explained on HG's talk page (after he encouraged to post my ideas there, rather than here, to allow other spaces to respond) that the proposals here oversimplify the situation in that they do not distinguish between the different disciplines that have chimed in on this subject. So far, we do not have enough evidence to conclude what consensus is among 1) archaeologists, 2) historians, 3) anthropologists, 4) geneticists. In the diff I provided above that shows the material deleted by Jayjg, one thing I also tried to convey in those edits was that some historians and archaeologists believe that making definitive conclusions about the ancestry of given populations throughout history falls beyond the scope of their work. Currently, tt falls to geneticists to test the historical, archaeological and anthropological theories put forward by examining DNA in a kind of living archaeology of the body.
The view that Palestinians are descended from other peoples who were in and passed through Palestine throughout history is a widespread and rather mainstream one. It is not a "fringe" theory. In fact, when you read The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem, a United Nations publication dated 1990, the introduction states:

During the period of the Mandate, the Zionist Organization worked to secure the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The indigenous people of Palestine, whose forefathers had inhabited the land for virtually the two preceding millenia, felt this design to be a violation of their natural and inalienable rights. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during their war. The result was mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, followed by resort to violence by the Jewish community as the Second World War drew to a close.

Now, I know the UN is not an expert in any one of the disciplines cited above. However, this is an official document summarizing the Palestine problem and that it includes a sentence referring to at least two millenia of ancestral connectedness by Palestinians to Palestine indicates that the view that Palestinian are descendants of previous populations is not at all a fringe one, but rather mainstream. This is the broader context in which the debate around "Canaanite" ancestry is not being framed here. Currently, there is no way to definitively conclude that Palestinians or anyone else were once Canaanites. But there is no way to disprove it either. I think we should give equal space to both views, while explaining why the debate is even important (something the Lewis quote already does partially) and how it cannot be settled, barring a study that samples the DNA in Canaanite tombs and cross tests them against the DNA of Palestinians today.
In other words, to sum up, I have never been against the inclusion of the debunking of the Canaanite thesis (it's there is both the current version and the version I was proposing). What I do object to has been the attempts to delete material that express or support this view, and when that failed, to attempt to marginalize this view by claiming it's a fringe theory (based on one source, only now provided, from the Jerusalem Report that conveys the opinions of Israeli archaeologists). I think we should place the information side by side, contextualized as I stated above, explaining the different views of different disciplines and the inability of anyone to make a definitive conclusion and let the reader decide. Deeming an opinion a fringe theory based on one's dislike of it, or lack of familiarity with its currency in circles outside of our own, is not fair. I honestly don't see how anyone can make such a wide sweeping determination on the basis of the sources we have seen so far. Tiamat 10:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Tiamut, thanks for sharing this clarification (and data). I can't be sure, but there may be grounds for agreement between you and Jayjg. You want to (1) include the Canaanite thesis in the main article, though conceding that it has been (scientifically) debunked, to integrate it somehow with the description of Palestian identity, esp in relationship to ancestry, (2) an opportunity to fully present the sources that support the theory and its importance. Am I close? I sense, w/o speaking for him, that Jayjg is willing to (1) include the Canaanite thesis in the main article, with recognition that it has been (scientifically) debunked,(2) but limit its inclusion in the main article. As a result:
For opposite reasons, even though it's neither of your 1st choices, you might both accept (1) a mutual understanding about describing the Canaanite thesis in the main article, and (2) a Move of the materials to another article. Needs a neutral name, like Canaanite thesis of Palestinian identity. It is in Jayjg's interest to accept this move so as to avoid undue emphasis in the main article, because he believes the thesis is fringe and spinout is a reasonable WP way to handle such topics. You, on the other hand, believe the opposite -- it's not fringe, and the Move may be in your interest because you seek an opportunity to more fully describe and critique the sources, without having to constantly deal with UNDUE objections. If you successfully show the importance of the theory (vs. fringe) in this spinout article, you would then have grounds to revisit how it is presented in the main article. Of course, you should think this over because I may have misjudged your interests, how well you think you can overcome the fringe objection here, etc. Nice to see you back. HG | Talk 04:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi HG. I should mention I'm still not back from my editing break. I'm just popping in from time to time to make sure I keep abreast of discussion and developments at articles I have been working on. While I appreciate you suggestion, the idea that the "Canaanite thesis" is my main preoccupation in the article has been fostered by Jayjg's focus on that part of my edits. But it's not really a main subject for me. As I stated above, I don't understand the resistance to its inclusion based on the general historical consensus that Palestinians are descendants of populations that passed through Palestine over the millenia. Since one of those groups was Canaanites, it makes sense to me that they would be included. Now, it is clear that the Canaanite issue in particular is controversial to some. I found some links to articles that summarize that controversy (both for and against it). I would like to retain the information here, because as I said to you on your talk page, I think discussing the issue of Canaanites should take place within the context of the general historical consensus (and growing genetic consensus) of historical and genetic continuity in Palestine. So I don't really want a separate article to discuss a "Canaanite thesis" since I think that we can discuss that issue and its controversy in a section on Palestinian ancestry, without giving it too much space by quickly summarizing the discussion, why its an issue, the pro and con positions, and its relationship to and implications for Palestinian identity.Tiamat 10:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely with Tiamat. Her proposal seems reasonable, well-worded, and well-sourced, and a constructive compromise. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Tiamut. It now more clear to me that you "don't really want a separate article to discuss a "Canaanite thesis" " because you believe that you will be able to have a satisfactory treatment of the topic within the main article. Let me know if that changes or if I might otherwise help out. Enjoy your break. HG | Talk 12:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

New source(s) to work with

  • This article discusses the origin issues with a focus on the Canaanite theme in a fairly reasoned fashion. Interestingly, it notes that the early Zionists believed the Palestinians, particularly the fellaheen, were descendants of earlier populations, including the Canaanites. For example:

...the chief ideologue of the Zionists, Borochov, claimed that Palestinian Arabs had no crystallized national consciousness of their own, and would likely be assimilated into the new Hebraic nationalism, precisely because, in his view, "the fellahin are considered in this context as the descendants of the ancient Hebrew and Canaanite residents 'together with a small admixture of Arab blood'".29 Similarly Ahad Ha’am wrote that "the Moslems [of Palestine] are the ancient residents of the land…who became Christians on the rise of Christianity and became Moslems on the arrival of Islam".30 In 1918, David Ben Gurion and Yitzhak Ben Zvi, writing in Yiddish, tried to establish that Palestinian peasants and their mode of life constitute the living historical testimony to Israelite practices in the biblical period. But the ideological implications of this claim became very problematic and were soon withdrawn from circulation.31

Tiamat 12:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job! This is much better. I'm not sure that what early Zionists believed is particularly relevant, but it does give an overview of the narrative (even when it's being pooh-poohed):
This search for nativist ethnography stands in stark contrast to the post-Nakba folklorist revivalism among Palestinian intellectuals such as Nimr Sirhan, Musa Allush, Salim Mubayyid, and the Palestinian Folklore Society of the 1970s.23 Among the latter writers we witness a keen attempt to establish pre-Islamic (and pre-Hebraic) cultural roots for a re-constructed Palestinian national identity. The two putative roots in this patrimony are Canaanite and Jebusite cultures.24 More recently, the former was clearly symbolized by the celebration of the Qabatiya Canaanite festival by the Palestinian Ministry of Culture, and the latter by the annual Music Festival of Yabus.25 Writing against what he termed “Canaanite Ideology”, the critic Zakariyya Muhammad suggests that it is an intellectual fad, divorced from the concerns of ordinary people:
We are witnessing today [end of the 20th century] the height of Canaanism. Its metaphors have dominated our poetry, graphic arts, journalism and festivals. The Palestine International Festival, for example, has adopted the Phoenix as its emblem, assuming that it is a Canaanite bird. The Sebastiya Festival in Nablus concocted a procession of Canaanite cities in its opening celebration. Even Iz Ed Din al Manasra, the poet, has recently launched a ‘Canaanite initiative’ to reconcile the Association of Jordanian Writers to the Union of Palestinian Writers. It looks like a holistic ideology. Its heroes are: Baal, El, and Anat - imported from our antiquity to energize the symbolism of this new movement…
...anyway, I'm still reading it...<<-armon->> 13:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what is allowing anyone to completely exclude this material. it is clearly a significant concept in cultural parlance, and deerves to be included here. the sooner we include it, the sooner any skeptics can find the genuine flaws in this admittedly questionable theory. --Steve, Sm8900 13:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The issue was the sourcing, and the presentation of the narrative as "fact". I think this fixes the first issue, so I think it should be included. <<-armon->> 14:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) FYI Steve -- I don't believe I heard objections to inclusion, but rather policy considerations concerning how to characterize the inclusion, and how much to put in. HG | Talk
Ok. So i assume if Tiamat is now citing several published works, and doing so in a neutral objective way, there are no further objectiosn to her inserting the material? --Steve, Sm8900 14:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I've always been citing several published works in a neutral and objective way in the actual article edits. Tiamat 14:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I suggest you go ahead and add your proposed edit to the article. --Steve, Sm8900 19:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
If I recall, the concerns were Undue and Fringe, at least for scientific claims. If this deals more with (folk NPOV term?) narratives and consciousness, etc, perhaps you might want to clearly differentiate it and ensure no confusion w/the more scientific claims. I'm agnostic about whether to edit article, as long as you feel relaxed about getting reverts. Ciao. HG | Talk 19:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, we still need to work those issues out. Maybe we should sandbox the Canaanite stuff first? <<-armon->> 02:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
If Tiamat still needs a break to deal with more important matters, there's not much point to doing that. once she's available, she can let us know if she would like to do that. --Steve, Sm8900 15:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this valuable new source. All I managed to find in my search were sources that spoke negatively about the Canaanite narrative without providing a serious examination of how it originated. This source will prove useful when we rewrite the material about the narrative (and maybe place the material in the Identity section?). I think I'll work on it in a few days when I get back to regular wikipedia editing. nadav (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to hear you like it. There is also "Palestinian Cave Dwellers and Holy Shrines:

The Passing of Traditional Society" by Dr. Ali Qleibo [34]. This perspective is important to the article in that it discusses how identity is self-constructed and fluid:

Identity – whether personal or collective, individual or cultural – is fiction; a construction and merely a codification of past events, real or imaginary. Identity is first and foremost a discursive narrative that validates the present by selecting events, characters, and moments in time as formative beginnings.

He continues, describing Palestinian self-perceptions as influenced by Islam:

In Palestine, Moslem historiography has assigned the advent of Islam, seventh century AD, as the beginning of Palestinian cultural identity. Pagan origins are disavowed. As such the peoples that populated Palestine throughout history have discursively rescinded their own history and religion as they adopted the religion, language, and culture of Islam.

He then puts forward his opinion as an anthropologist that:

The diversity of the customs and manners of the Palestinian social landscape bears witness to the multiplicity of the early Semitic peoples’ ancient waves of migration and settlement in the various regions of the land of Canaan. Research demonstrates that mosques in the countryside are modern phenomena. Until the end of the nineteenth century, in lieu of mosques, people turned to local patron saints, each of whom had his own maqam, the typical domed single room in the shadow of an ancient carob or oak tree. Each village has its own narrative that describes its holy man, his special grace with God (karamat), his power of intercession (shafa’at), and the miraculous context in which the maqam was built … Holy men, awlia’Allah, were the centre of religious life at a time when the absolute transcendent other was deemed unreachable. These saints, tabooed by orthodox Islam, mediated between man and the Supreme One. Saints’ shrines and holy men’s memorial domes dot the Palestinian landscape – an architectural testimony to Christian/ Moslem Palestinian religious sensibility and its roots in ancient Semitic religions.

It continues on in greater detail. A lot of this last part might be useful in the religion section since it is a local form of religious worship. (Shahin discusses it in her book Palestine: A Guide as well). Tiamat 15:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Also from this source is this passage, very relevant to Palestinian identity and ancestral origins:

Urban centres and peasant and Bedouin communities date back thousands of years - to the early beginnings of the nascent Canaanite city-states. The Bedouins did not suddenly burst forth from the Arabian Peninsula, and the peasants are not simply a step in the social evolutionary ladder to urbanization. Rather through time the Palestinians, who are descendants of the ancient civilizations of the Near East, have diversified economic tactics in overlapping ecological zones. Over the past four millennia, the native Palestinian population has developed socially strategic adaptive tools of survival within an extremely harsh ecological system.

Throughout history a great diversity of peoples has moved into Palestine as their homeland: Jebusites, Canaanites, Philistines from Crete, Anatolian and Lydian Greeks, Hebrews, Amorites, Edomites, Nabateans, Arameans, Romans, Arabs, and European crusaders, to name a few. Each of them appropriated different regions that overlapped in time and competed for sovereignty and land. Others, such as Ancient Egyptians, Hittites, Persians, Babylonians, and Mongols, were historical “events” whose successive occupations were as ravaging as the effects of major earthquakes.

The Philistines fade into oblivion after the fifth century BC. The Nabateans survived through Roman Palestine. Herodia, the mother of Salome, was Nabatean. Like shooting stars, the various cultures shine for a brief moment before they fade out of official historical and cultural records of Palestine. The people, however, survive. In their customs and manners, fossils of these ancient civilizations survived until modernity - albeit modernity camouflaged under the veneer of Islam and Arabic culture.

No other anthropological sources have been presented that contest this view. The hubbub that ensued based on the notion that the premise that Palestinians are the descendants of earlier populations who settled in Palestine is a fringe one, seems to heavily misplaced. Tiamat 10:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made some preliminary edits to the ancestry section incorporating Qleibo's work and the Jerusalem Report source provided by Nadav above. The other source on Canaanism is probably better suited to the identity section (as pointed out by Nadav). Editors are welcome to review the changes and make suggestions for improvement. Tiamat 09:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I made some editing suggestions at Tiamut's Talk page here. Feel free to copy any or all here, if you wish. HG | Talk 04:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Defined" or "defines"

"Defines" means they define it now; "defined" means they defined it then. The second part of this paragraph states that the most recent draft of the Palestinian constitution now includes those that weren’t included forty years ago; hence "defines" is wrong and "defined" is correct. Itzse 17:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Objective intro versus a non-objective intro

Much of the introduction is based on the Palestinian view of themselves. The Palestine national charter and the constitution for a State of Palestine are POV of how the Palestinians want to view themselves. It has no place in a neutral Encyclopedia, and if for completeness it has to be quoted then it must be clearly labeled and not part of the introduction. Itzse 19:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't self-definition a key component of nationhood or peoplehood? Or is Palestinian a "race" that you either belong to or don't? The subject of the article is the Palestinian people, as distinct from Israelis, Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, etc. We go by the definitions used by the people themselves to determine who is or is not a part of those identities, because identity is constructed, not inherent or innate. Since the PLO is the official representative of the Palestinian people and its charter provides a handy definition for whom the Palestinian people view to be Palestinian, it seems logical to use and respect and that definition. Tiamat 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What seems logical to you might not seem logical to someone else. The whole concept of a "Palestinian people" and even the term "Palestinians" are disputed issues and very controversial. We, and a dozen of other editors have gone over this extensively ad nauseum in the past. This self-definition is by one side of the controversy; which makes it a non-objective POV and has no place in a neutral Encyclopedia. Respect, is irrelevant to the issue. Itzse 20:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Itzse, would you like me to go over to the article Jew and start adding loads of information on how "Jew" is an English term of fairly recent origin and that while Jews claims to be connected to the ancient Israelites, they are not, and while they claim to be an ethnic group, this is totally disputed and only one side of the controversy? This article is about "Palestinian people". It is not just about the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict", as much as you might see it that way. Try to be respectful here. Your viewpoint is a fringe one. I'm sorry to have to be the one to break it to you, but most of the world accepts that Palestinians exist and have a right to define themselves as they see fit, just like any other human beings in the world. Please stop trying to prove that we don't. It's getting very tiresome. Tiamat 20:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
If you do edit that article then you won't be the first to try to destroy it. I have noticed that you do edit articles about Jews; that have nothing with the P-I conflict. I disagree with you that my POV is a fringe one. This debate has been discussed ad nauseum on these pages? Do you consider everybody who disagrees with you to be on the fringe? I think that your way of thinking is on the fringe. Itzse 22:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Itse, could you stop bothering the Palestinians? Really. Who cares? there are so many articles on useful works such as literature, etc. or a million other topics. You seem extremely knowledgable and articulate; I'm truly not kidding when I say that. don't you think that would be more fun.
Every ethnic group has some leeway to build its own articles as it sees fit, within certain guidelines. The Palestinian article shoiuld reflect som e acceptance of the idea of "Palestinians." there should not be a war over every minor assertion in this article. --Steve, Sm8900 21:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Steve for your compliment. By now you know where I stand on some things and you should know that I'm not here to bother the Palestinians or to push my POV. As you already know that I'm not a Zionist and my family has lived in the Holy land for many centuries. Therefore if Tiamut who is a Christian Arab women is a Palestinian then I'm no less a Palestinian.
You ask who cares? The answer is I care. All the other articles of my expertize can wait for me or for some other editor. So it will take a little longer for Wikipedia to have an article on everthing under the sun. But this topic needs to be correct now for many reasons including for the integrity of Wikipedia.
I totally object to your assertion that "Every ethnic group has some leeway to build its own articles as it sees fit, within certain guidelines.". No, according to all Wikipedia rules, no such a leeway exists. The reason such a leeway doesn't exist is because it would make a mockery out of Wikipedia and compromise this whole project. Again such a leeway doesn't and shall not exist.
My edits are not minor at all; witnessed by the opposition it encounters. Most of my edits are trying to straighten out and turn tainted articles into NPOV. Not many people are doing it and my work is rare and should be welcomed. I am a very reasonable person who will admit if I make a mistake or compromise if needed. I really wonder at you; why do you feel a need to stick up for Tiamut? Haven't you followed her record on Wikipedia where she has been accused by many editors of POV pushing? Why don't you ask her to leave the Palestinian articles alone and instead focus on articles pertaining to the Arabs and their culture. There are very few English writers doing that. I also wonder why you have become a spokesman for Stemonitis; can't he talk for himself?

Please Itzse, spare me. How does the sub-heading "Palestinian views on Palestinians" make the article more NPOV [35]? It's totally redundant. I retained your insertion of the newer source for the proposed draft constitution of the state of Palestine and formatted it and accept the new quote. But the other changes were not improvements. Tiamat 22:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Very simple, by labeling it as the POV of the Palestinians, that makes the article NPOV. On the other hand, leaving it the way it is, means that the holders of one POV get to force Wikipedia to define them according to their view; which makes the article POV. Itzse 00:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
*The whole concept of a "Palestinian people" and even the term "Palestinians" are disputed issues and very controversial."
Itzse, could you provide mainstream academic sources which say this? I realize that this "dispute" or "controvsery" exists within the right wing of Israeli and Jewish-American politics, but that's the only place I think it exists. Extreme-minority viewpoints are generally not included in an article at all, let alone allowed to disrupt and dominate the entire narrative. Eleland 21:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
This sentence that: "We, and a dozen of other editors have gone over this extensively ad nauseum in the past." was meant for you. I have no intention of regurgitating it again; sorry. Itzse 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I simply ask for some reliable sources, not coming from extreme-minority POV, which question the existence of Palestinian ethnicity. Do these exist or don't they? Don't try to deflect the issue. Eleland 22:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Itzse, I have to disagree with your approach to this issue. Wikipedia strives to take the mainstream academic approach on topics it covers, and within that sphere, there is definitely a consensus that the Palestinians now exist as a people and nationality. I'll leave to others the question of to what extent Palestinians could be called a nationality or "people" (an ambiguous term, apparently) 100 years ago, but in the present time, there is no doubt in my mind that the consensus mainstream opinion is that they fulfill all senses of the word. N.B that I haven't yet reviewed the edits in question; I just feel it's important that we agree on this starting point, or else there'll be a lot more edit conflicts in the future. nadav (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Itsze, did you just say that you are a Palestinian? I assume you were srious when you said that, or perhaps you were being ironic. Then why dispute that "PAlestinians" exists? Clearly, the term is used widely and repeatedly by many groups and peridodicals including pro-Israel sources like AIPAC, ZOA, the ISraeli government, the US government, the UN, jpost.com, the entie world political community and the world journalist community. So I'm not sure what the dispute is here. --Steve, Sm8900 13:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Steve I used to say so, and people misunderstood what I mean; that's why I phrased it this time differently as: "if Tiamut who is a Arab Christian women is a Palestinian, then I'm no less a Palestinian". That the Israeli government, American government and the UN call them Palestinans still doesn't make them such. Let me remind you that none of them are necessarily scholars. Their hired scholars will say whatever is dictated as the present interests of those governments. Correct and incorrect is not part of their vocabulary; it is always what is good for us now that drives their semantic decisions.
On the other hand, Wikipedia is a scholarly project; with the participation of many scholars and must be correct not pleasing or appeasing anyone. It is the job of the scholars on WP to make sure that WP is correct. That is my understanding of Wikipedia. If anyone thinks that I misunderstand WP; please be so kind and explain it to me.
How many times do we have to go over this? Most participants on this page and I suspect including Steve agree with me on how the term "Palestinians" then "Palestintian people" came into being. It is elementary history of the last century. Those like me who come from there know it even better as we or our parents first handedly witnessed it happening. There isn't much debate among scholars on this. I watch the world and wonder how is it possible that the world would rather believe Arafat, a terrorist who never was a scholar; and make the victims defend themselves? The answer is obvious; it is interests that the world is interested in, not truth. "Truth" is only used when it's on their side; the minute it's against them, then the truth becomes what they want it to be. That's what life is and we have to live with it; but when truth is stood on its head and the inseminators of false information demand that the truth, not falsehood needs to be proven is when they have taken it too far.
Nadav, out of all those engaging in this part of the discussion, I respect you the most. I do not see academia saying that there are a "Palestinian people". Even Stemonitis and Steve have admitted that the only reason this page still has a POV title is because it didn't in their mind get a good enough consensus; but some form of consensus they admit was formed here, where the majority of its editors were for renaming it to "Palestinians" and some respected editors agreed with me that it should be renamed to "Palestinian Arabs". Still so many people agreeing with me is called by Tiamut unashamedly as a fringe view, and along comes Eleland and with rightous indignation demands, that I am the one who needs to bring proof for a NPOV.
So what is your solution Nadav? Should I, like Jayjg just give up and throw in the towel and take a hike. I was told that WP is not about truth versus false but about POV versus NPOV. Now I'm being lectured that everyone has a right here to define themselves the way they would like to; and that falsehoods and POV not labeled as such, are perfectly ok here because it makes some people feel good; I'm totally confused. Itzse 00:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Itzse, melodrama and soapboxing are not the ways to establish "truth" at Wikipedia. You have not provided a single scholarly source to support your opinion. When you were asked by Eleland to provide one, you evaded the request. When he asked you again, you accused him of "righteous indignation". Also, are your reading the article? I ask because you seem to be ignoring the almost 100 references cited in this article, almost all of which use the term "Palestinian" or "Palestinian people" to describe the subject of this article. If you are serious about improving this article, please provide sources that you would like to see incorporated into the article and we can discuss if, where and how they may be useful to the development of this article. Failing that, I will have to assume that your interest in this page has nothing to do with serious editing, and everything to do with your desire to vent your POV on this subject. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Tiamat 13:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice try Tiamut to turn around what you’re being accused of, on someone else. I noticed that you use my words about yourself to accuse others. I guess "Imitation is the best form of flattery", and you sure learn quickly, as you have added them to your bag of 1000 tricks.
My record speaks for itself, and I have no need to defend it; it is your record of open POV pushing that you need to defend. For someone who believes that ""Jew" is an English term of fairly recent origin and that while Jews claims to be connected to the ancient Israelites, they are not" I do not need to defend myself. Assume what you want and believe what you want as long as you leave it out of Wikipedia. It is quite interesting that you have taken every fringe view regarding Jews; but it comes not as a surprise after watching you at work for the last two months.
There is no need to bring scholarly sources to "prove a negative" on the talk page. If you have any problems with what I edit on the article page and it needs a scholarly source, I’ll be happy to supply it. Your style of completely ignoring my edit summaries or give lip service with vague edit summaries are unacceptable. If you disagree with my edits; then bring them up on the talk page or at least give a clear explanation in the edit summary. That’s the least to expect from a serious editor who doesn’t want to deny our Wikipedia readers her beliefs which are always neutral point of views.
Tiamut; if we are going to debate what is or isn’t correct in this article; we need to first know what we are arguing about. I also, know that the words "Palestinian" and "Palestinian people" are written everywhere; but what exactly does this mean. Let’s start from the beginning. Let’s see if you can honestly answer questions pertaining to the subject of the article and we’ll take it from there. Here are the questions: In the year 1850, what did your ancestors consider themselves? If you were to ask an Arab living in Palestine in 1850, of what people is he a member; what would he answer? Can you answer this question honestly? Itzse 20:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. There is no reasoning with you Itzse. You took something I wrote out of context to make further baseless accusations. (I was presenting you with a hypothetical scenario. Remember?: Itzse, would you like me to go over to the article Jew and start adding loads of information on how "Jew" is an English term of fairly recent origin and that while Jews claims to be connected to the ancient Israelites, they are not, and while they claim to be an ethnic group, this is totally disputed and only one side of the controversy? This article is about "Palestinian people". It is not just about the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict", as much as you might see it that way. Those are not my beliefs. I was picking hypothetical ones I was sure you would find offensive, to exemplify how your views offend me. Get it?) You are ignoring that the article already discusses the emergence of a Palestinian national consciousness as a late 19th - early 20th century concept. Your obsession with writing this all over the article is offensive and tiresome. The information is there. The reader can read. A rose by any other name smells as sweet Itzse. I don't give a f-ck whether my ancestors called themselves Palestinians or not. I know what I call myself now and I know who my ancestors are and where they came from. What is your point? Tiamat 21:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
This is just turning into invective, and we're not making any ground. I suggest we all take a break from this article for a while. nadav (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Tiamut, I give you more credit then that. You full well know the power of choosing the right words. If it's true that you really believe otherwise then you should have phrased it differently and you would have made your point. Your choice of words illustrates your fringe POV; and I stand by what I said about you that you have taken a fringe view on everything pertaining to Jews (I checked your record FYI). You might be used to talking yourself out of a situation but not with me; I can see right through you. I have encountered many people like you in my lifetime and you aint fooling me.
I am not interested in pleasing you. My interest is having a NPOV article which states the truth or where fraudulent views abound, those views need to be in the context of who is saying it. You can't at all be honest by saying that the PLO and the PA gets to define who is a Palestinian. You don't have to answer my question anymore, for you have already answered it by saying: (Tiamut's words) "I don't give a f-ck whether my ancestors called themselves Palestinians or not. I know what I call myself now and I know who my ancestors are and where they came from." In other words, Tiamut admits that her ancestors not considering themselves "Palestinians" doesn't make a difference; it is what she wants to be considered now that counts.
Therefore we already have the answer and we all agree that in 1850 the Arabs living in Palestine considered themselves Arab people just like the Jews living in Palestine in 1850 considered themselves Jewish people. There was no such a thing as a Palestinian people. We also know that Tiamut in 2007 wants to be considered a "Palestinian". So this article has to tell us how it came to be that a non-people in 1850 wants to be considered a people in 2007. Is that asking too much?
This question is meant for all those who are lecturing me to leave this article alone and abandon it to Tiamut and her like who they trust will give you a NPOV article.
For those who would like to lecture me on assuming good faith, I would like to remind them, that for editors who are unknown what they are, we must assume good faith. But for those who it is clear what they are up to, for example vandalizers, we admonish openly. Similarly I consider Tiamut a professional vandalizer and have no hope for her to change her stripes for she has shown her true colors. Itzse 17:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's be clear here. The article already says, "The timing and causes behind the emergence of a distinctively Palestinian national consciousness among the Arabs of Palestine are matters of scholarly disagreement. Rashid Khalidi argues that the modern national identity of Palestinians has its roots in nationalist discourses that emerged among the peoples of the Ottoman empire in the late 19th century ... In contrast, historian James L. Gelvin argues that Palestinian nationalism was a direct reaction to Zionism". The arguments raised above are simply not relevant to the article. The article already covers this information. What's really being attempted here is a POV push: Palestinian identity was secondary or tertiary to clan or ethnic identity in 1850, therefore Palestinian identity is an evil fraud and must be denied. This viewpoint is probably too extreme-minority for inclusion at all, yet Itzse wants it to dominate the article. Eleland 19:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That is not what I'm saying at all. I guess everybody sees what they want to, and Eleland confuses my personal POV on the talk page as an attempt at article POV pushing. While Tiamut clearly says that she doesn’t want to deny the world her POV and that let the Palestinians define themselves because they know best. I am clearly saying that I DO NOT want to force my POV on WP; but I also DO NOT want her, forcing her POV either. Let me make it clear what I am saying. I am saying that we all agree that in 1850 "Palestinian" wasn't the national identity of anybody; neither the Arabs nor the Jews. Eleland finally agrees that the current national identity of a "Palestinian people" is a scholarly debate and has no problem with it further in the article; it’s my POV, which he doesn’t want in the intro. So far I think we agree on everything.
Here is what I'm arguing and is very relevant to the article. I am arguing that the current national identity debate which has two opposing point of views, and the Israeli POV isn't necessarily limited to the right-wingers. The left-wingers like Golda Meir and a non Zionist like myself and many left-wingers agree with them. So why should the introduction be dominated by the POV of one side by bringing the POV of the PLO and PA to define whom they consider a Palestinian, and leave the scholarly debate to a few sections later? Does asking that the intro be neutral make me and my request extreme? Itzse 20:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
All those who have decided not to get involved, should be aware that first the title was changed to a clear POV title. (I wonder where everybody was then, didn't anybody notice?) Then the titles POV extended to the introduction where not many people seem to care. Then the debate was taken on the content of the rest of the article where if we're lucky they’ll throw us a bone and let us have the NPOV thrown in somewhere. I wonder where are all the POV patrollers; laying in ambush and snoring? Itzse 20:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, what changes do you envision? Are we talking something to the effect of inserting "Palestinian national identity was secondary to Arab or tribal loyalties until at least the nineteenth century, leading some Israelis to argue that Palestinian identity is illegitimate or mythical"? (Assuming that the above rough idea is modified according to what good sources say.) Or do you want to tear out all of the PLO, PNC etc, or place the Palestinian self-view on some kind of "equal footing" with the Israeli view of them? Eleland 20:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) On the title I happen to agree with you, established WP practice seems to be that "Frobnian people" is only used if the Frobnians are a broadly distinct and well-established culture that has existed in some immediately recognizable form for hundreds of years; Japanese people and Germanic peoples but not Brazilian people. Oh, wait, I picked that example out of the air and it doesn't say what I thought it would. Well, now I don't know. Eleland 20:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Eleland, I applaud your candor and neutrality, even on personally-sensitive issues. I believe WP procedure is that 'people' is used if there is some coherent group, based on any ties, of national identity, political identity, or any sort of cultural ties. this can be, it seems either a recent development or a long-standing thing. so this is more of a flexible area. --Steve, Sm8900 20:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Finally we have come full circle and discussing the issue that prompted me to start this section. It might have been forgotten so here is again my initial argument: "Much of the introduction is based on the Palestinian view of themselves. The Palestine national charter and the constitution for a State of Palestine are POV of how the Palestinians want to view themselves. It has no place in a neutral Encyclopedia, and if for completeness it has to be quoted then it must be clearly labeled and not part of the introduction."
Among the changes I envision is that the intro should give a neutral explanation on the term "Palestinian people" with all POV's given "equal footing" and described neutrally. Also the PLO's national charter and the PA's draft constitution have absolutely no place in the intro, they are not neutral documents nor are they neutral institutions. The loyalties of all the populations of Palestine can be described in the article as well, but only neutrally by describing all the inhabitants of Palestine. Itzse 21:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
We have indeed come full circle. As it were, I will repeat what I said to you when you first made this proposal:

Isn't self-definition a key component of nationhood or peoplehood? Or is Palestinian a "race" that you either belong to or don't? The subject of the article is the Palestinian people, as distinct from Israelis, Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, etc. We go by the definitions used by the people themselves to determine who is or is not a part of those identities, because identity is constructed, not inherent or innate. Since the PLO is the official representative of the Palestinian people and its charter provides a handy definition for whom the Palestinian people view to be Palestinian, it seems logical to use and respect and that definition. Tiamat 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about those individuals who might still call themselves Palestinian, without identifying as part of the Palestinian people. Those cases are covered in Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian and Palestinian Jew. Your proposed rename of this article is a rescope that would result in the duplication of existing material. Tiamat 22:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Noticing that this discussion is not a perfect circle but slightly elliptical, I’ll first respond to your new edit.
Fine, you want the article all to yourself and leave everybody else out; I can go along with that, although I'm not exactly sure if it’s ok POV wise and suspect you have ulterior motives for wanting that. What surely isn't ok is your original response which resulted in my response as follows:
"What seems logical to you might not seem logical to someone else. The whole concept of a "Palestinian people" and even the term "Palestinians" are disputed issues and very controversial. We and a dozen of other editors have gone over this extensively ad nauseum in the past. This self-definition is by one side of the controversy; which makes it a non-objective POV and has no place in a neutral Encyclopedia. Respect, is irrelevant to the issue."
Tiamut, you have already made your point once and we know already what you think; now let others have their say. Itzse 22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's my say: I support Tiamut 100%. (I do appreciatre the more helpful tone here right now, though.) --Steve, Sm8900 03:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Steve, What about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? Itzse 17:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I feel Tiamat's view is logical and in line with NPOV, as well as other Wikipedia principles, as it is based on logic , common and accepted usage, and objective sources. --Steve, Sm8900 18:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Are the PLO's and PA's view on who is a Palestinian objective to you? Itzse 18:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. my opinion is pretty much simply what I stated above. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If you don't know, then why do you get involved and support blindly Tiamut? Itzse 19:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the answers to your questions. i know my own opinion. I support Tiamut. I don't have much more to add. I don't feel much more can be gained in this little discussion between us. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody agree with Steve and Tiamut that the Palestinians get to write and define who they are, and the article should be the point of view of the Palestinians? Itzse 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just joining in here, it's hard to sort out the discussion, but let me give it a shot.
  • (#1) If you're talking about how to name and define the people, then a self-identifying definition is the WP-accepted way of dealing with controversial cases. See WP:NCON 3.1 and 4.1.1. So WP policy expects us to use self-identifications for titles and, accordingly, for the dominant, most neutral definition used within the article, esp its introduction. Such self-identifying definitions need to be verifiable through reliable sources. (Hence, the PLO definition is useful in demonstrating how Palestinians identify themselves. This is because the PLO can be "objectively" shown, by non-Palestinian sources, to be a notable and significant source of representation for Palestinians.) Granted, the article might refer somewhere to other definitions, or critiques of the mainstream self-identifying definition, whether by Palestinians or Israelis or anyone, as long as fringe viewpoints are not given undue weight. Still, the article does this somewhat already, e.g. Arabist views. Perhaps Itzse or others would propose in Talk specific critiques of the mainstream definition, their sources and where he would place them (without insisting on equal footing within the intro, for WP Policy reasons stated above), perhaps in the paragraph beginning: "The identity of Palestinians has been a point of contestation with Israel." It sounds like you've found useful (ad nauseum? and "extensively" discussed?) sources in the past with which to improve this paragraph.
  • (#2) If you're talking about the article overall, then the answer is similar but not quite the same. The title and definition would tend to shape the content of the article. But the scope of the article may cover matters of history, culture, demographics. Such matters need to be presented neutrally based on the best sources. Here even a Palestinian view may need to be subordinated to, say, archaeological evidence, as with the Canaanite claims section. Likewise, an article might favor scholarly rather than insider descriptions of religious beliefs, clothing, pottery, etc.
  • (#3) If you're talking about whether "Palestinians get to write" the Wikipedia text, then the question is rather tendentious off topic. I doubt that either Steve or Tiamut are saying that editors get some kind of priority here because they are Palestinian. I think they're only saying that, per #1 above, self-identification by notable Palestinian sources is central.
  • (#4) Generally, it would help if everybody can de-personalize the discussion. Let's not try to agree or disagree with Tiamut or Itzse themselves, only with their statements and reasons. HG | Talk 04:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are sincere in de-personalizing our discussion, it would help if you stop agreeing with Steve who agrees with Tiamut one hundred percent; and take this discussion on its merits. I do not appreciate the tone in your comments; I find them tendentious; frankly I find you in cahoots with them, which you have, a right; but don't pretend otherwise.

Let's see if we can have a discussion of substance instead of obfuscation such as: I agree 100% with ...", "My opinion is ... what I stated above", "I support ...".

You state that: "(Hence, the PLO definition is useful in demonstrating how Palestinians identify themselves. This is because the PLO can be "objectively" shown, by non-Palestinian sources, to be a notable and significant source of representation for Palestinians.)"

Are you saying that their changing the definition of who is a Palestinian, can be "objectively" shown by non-Palestinian sources? Whom are you kidding?

You state that: "(without insisting on equal footing within the intro, for WP Policy reasons stated above)."

Where do you see such a WP policy? Please read again WP:NCON 4.1.1. which states that "Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name." It states explicitly that it applies to the name. Where do you read that it extends to the article? Are you really suggesting that WP policy states that one POV gets to define itself because the article is about them and they have a right to self-identifying?

You state that: "Granted, the article might refer somewhere to other definitions, or critiques of the mainstream self-identifying definition, whether by Palestinians or Israelis or anyone, as long as fringe viewpoints are not given undue weight."

Your granting that the article might refer somewhere to other definitions, is really very nice of you; although you qualify it with a "might" and a "as long as fringe viewpoints are not given undue weight". What would I do without you?

You state that: "I doubt that either Steve or Tiamut are saying that editors get some kind of priority here because they are Palestinian. I think they're only saying that, per #1 above, self-identification by notable Palestinian sources is central."

Then you haven't read what they write. Tiamut writes that "Since the PLO is the official representative of the Palestinian people and its charter provides a handy definition for whom the Palestinian people view to be Palestinian, it seems logical to use and respect that definition." Do you agree with her? She also writes about me that "Your viewpoint is a fringe one. I'm sorry to have to be the one to break it to you, but most of the world accepts that Palestinians exist and have a right to define themselves as they see fit". Do you agree with her? Steve writes that "Every ethnic group has some leeway to build its own articles as it sees fit, within certain guidelines." Do you agree with him? Eleland writes that "Extreme-minority viewpoints are generally not included in an article at all, let alone allowed to disrupt and dominate the entire narrative." Do you agree with him that the opposing view of the Palestinians is an extreme-minority viewpoint? Steve writes that he's "not sure what the dispute is here". Do you agree with him? Tiamut un-tendentiously writes that (her words) "I don't give a f-ck whether my ancestors called themselves Palestinians or not. I know what I call myself now and I know who my ancestors are and where they came from." Do you accept that?

If you find my words sarcastic; it is only because of my disappointment on this particular page where I haven't found many a true word, including your unfair involvement; but the real disappointment is of the other editors who for whatever personal reasons they have; derailed everything I tried to do, starting with summoning Stemonitis; and the disgusting silence of others. They may as well give the Palestinians everything on a golden platter. With such brothers, who needs enemies? Itzse 20:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed the personal nature of your remarks on your talk page. Substantively, my point #2 does not seem far apart from what I gather to be your point about not necessarily extending self-identification to the article overall. You also ask whether WP:NCON on naming carries implications for definitions. I think there are some unavoidable logical and editorial implications. (E.g., folks get to call themselves "Reform Jews" and thereby shape an article's lead definition, even if numerous sources refer to them as "apostates".) But perhaps we should try to get an outside opinion on this? Also, the point about undue weight is based on WP Policy that's been discussed above, for instance by Jayjg re: Canaanite claims. HG | Talk 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Among the established reliable sources accepted for Wikipedia purposes, I think only a very small minority will say that the Palestinians, in the 21st century, have no distinct identity as a people. It will bias the article to give equal weight to this fringe opinion (see WP:UNDUE). Itzse, if you feel differently, it will help your case to base the discussion on sources. You should begin by bringing forth some texts that support this position. Also, you might be interested in the article Israeli-Palestinian history denial. nadav (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hyperlink

Is it just me or is putting in "Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" as a hyperlink in a article about the Palestinian people unnessesary and kind of biast? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddytheceltic (talk • contribs) 15:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not just you. I tried to remove it along with a number of other links that are only remotely relevant to this article, but that edit was reverted. Perhaps this time someone can explain why it (and others) should be included. Tiamat 15:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Gilabrand has already reinserted it in this edit. Perhaps he would care to explain how it is relevant or what criteria he is using for the external links section? His WP:OR comment that Palestinians are "proud" of this, is not only somewhat ignorant, but is also an unconvincing rationale. Tiamat 15:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah good im happy atleast someone else noticed it. Your right to critise the person. Clearly hes ignorant and biast towards his most likely Zionist beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddytheceltic (talk • contribs) 21:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who added that link among another 30 or more links. I chose all relevant links that I could find without bias, be it good, bad or ugly . I don't see why this particular link should be singled out for deletion. If there are any more relevant links not yet included, they should also be added. Itzse 21:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I see you have reinserted it again, along with Nakba Day. While I agree with the inclusion of the latter, I don't really see the relevance of Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to an article on the Palestinian people. Is House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict an appropriate article to link at the Israelis page? If the answer is yes, then by all mean re-include it. But I think you will find that that kind of loose criteria for inclusion might result in thousands of articles being linked to this or that page. As I said earlier, I tried to remove a number of irrelevant links earlier. People didn't like that edit. But this is one link that I would to begin by removing, on the way to paring down the list in general. Are you on board? Tiamut 21:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I've changed my comment. Nakba Day is already linked in the main text so there's no need to include it again. Though, on a side note, the article could use a section on commemorative days. Tiamut 21:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
All articles that refer to Palestinians are relevant to this article and I don't think that the link to that article should be omitted. By deleting it, it gives the impression that it is not wanted in this article. I have no problem with including House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Israelis article. I believe in not censoring any article, even if it says things that I don't like. The only way we can pick and choose which links are relevant is if we can decide on a criterion of what is to be included, otherwise the more the merrier. Itzse 23:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's a wise approach in that the see also section becomes unwieldy, as we can see here. Take a look at Israelis, it has no see also links. Consider also Armenians and French people, very few links mostly related to identity issues. I don't see why the see also section of the Palestinian people article should be a dumping ground for random links focusing on specific phenomenon that have emerged in its conflict with Israel. Perhaps we should delete everything, start from scratch, and agree on a baseline for criteria. Anything significant enough to the subject of Palestinian people would already be wikilinked in the article anyway (or should be). The endless list of tag-ons is unnecessary. Tiamut 00:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It's fine with me to delete all links, but honestly starting from scratch is inviting a fight for every link included; either all or nothing; I'm for all links but I'll go along with none. We can solve the unwieldiness problem by having them in small script; or other solutions. Itzse 00:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've left only two links in place List of Palestinians and Arab diaspora. I think the baseline criteria for pages on peoples/nations/ethnic groups is that the link be directly related to identity and people and not random political trends and the like. Tiamut 00:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Reverting

Itzse has reverted my latest edit to the article so as to remove the word nation along with a slew of other unrelated changes. I have explained my position to him on his talk page that the use of the word nation is appropriate given the many reliable sources who use the term in reference to Palestinians, some of which are cited in the intro itself. I would appreciate help from other editors in reasoning with Itzse on this issue. We have discussed the question of Palestinian nationhood or peoplehood several times, and other editors have pointed out that his view that Palestinians are not a people or nation is a fringe one. Your assistance and input are welcome. Tiamut 19:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Itzse, in this diff you added the same material, (though in a less concise and neutral fashion), that is in the paragraph that followed it. Then you deleted that paragraph. Then you again deleted the word nation [36], despite the message I left on your talk page explaining its use. Then you added this redundant irrelevancy (note that the link you are adding is already a disambig header at the top of the page), and finally you erased links to the 1948 Palestinian exodus and the 1967 Palestinian exodus [37]. I fully disagree with all of these edits. I think they are unnecessary, inaccurate and rather provocative actally. Would you care to discuss the matter? Tiamut 19:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit conflict! Your order of events isn’t correct; I deleted the word nation at (18:46) before you left your (19:31) message, not after, as you accused. These extensive diffs are neither here nor there and it doesn't need explaining as everyone can see that those edits were done in good faith.
What I am going to address is this; that you say that I reverted your edits when it’s actually the other way around. I made some edits yesterday and the day before and explained it clearly in the edit summary; but along you come after being unblocked and the first thing you do is to revert all my edits under the umbrella explanation of "reorganization". Is that right making a reversion without bothering to explain? So I for the second time in a few days made those edits again, even throwing in some extras for you; and explained them once again; only to be accused that I am the reverter!
Now to the substance of the issue. The Encyclopedia Britannica, you would admit that it doesn't give fringe views; and they in their definition and explanation of Palestinians and how the term Palestinian people came into being, don't speak at all of a "nation". It’s quite a jump from a "group" to a "people" to finally a "nation". I think that calling the Palestinians a "nation" and putting it in the intro as a fact and not as an opinion is POV. However you have mentioned Nadav; so if Nadav himself will put the word "nation" in the intro then I will yield; fair? If you put it back, then I would consider it POV pushing and picking a fight.
All the other edits; I clearly explained them in the edit summaries, which you're welcome to respond.
I don't have anymore time now as I have to leave WP for Shabbos; so the floor is yours. Itzse 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, you have misrepresented what happened altogether. Your edits to the introduction were made after I made significant edits there as anyone who explores the page history can see and these edits deleted much of what I added. Also, I have not reinserted the word "nation" even though I vehemently disagree with its exclusion, precisely because I am not trying to pick a fight with you. Instead of acknowledging that, you have made many bad faith accusations that I am POV pushing and edit warring. Bullshit. And excuse my bluntness, but I am mighty pissed off. You and I have intractable differences exhibited all over this page and you are baiting me Itzse, fresh off of my last 3RR block. It's not right. And it's not fair. Tiamut 22:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
No Tiamut; your first edit after you were unblocked was to revert my edits of the previous two days; and to avoid explaining yourself, you gave an umbrella explanation of "reorganization". I then painstakingly redid my edits in no less then six edits with clear explanations in the edit summaries, so that you can/should respond to each one individually; and you call me the reverter? It's not nice to lie. I had absolutely no intention of baiting you, for what? I made my edits in absolute good faith and hoped that after your 5 day block will be lifted, you will change your ways; only to find that the first edit you did after being unblocked was to undue my edits and showing total disregard by not even bothering to explain. The evidence is there for all to see. Itzse 21:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have restored some of the material you deleted, deleted some of the material you added and retained and some of the rest. For now, I will not include the word "nation" (not because I think you are in any correct - but because I think it's important to get the feedback of other editors given you comments on my talk page where you say that if I reinsert the material you will "fight" it.) I hope that these changes meet with your satisfaction. Tiamut 20:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Here you go again, you write that you're waiting for my reply; and I tell you that I'm in the process of giving it; yet you can't wait and impatiently revert my changes again without explanation. PLEASE EXPLAIN EVERY STEP YOU TAKE or I'll take it that you are again POV pushing and edit warring! Itzse 20:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If you feel you are compromising (which is a good thing) then please explain what those compromises are. All I have seen is a rewrite with the removal of my edits. Itzse 20:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Itzse, this is what we call at Wikipedia a "blind revert". It's something people do when they engage in an edit war. I do not, as you said in your edit summary, have to "wait for input from others or explain every step not to be considered POV pushing." Particularly not when my last edit omitted the word "nation" and incorporated part of your additions (You can see the difference between the next to last edit and the most recent one I made that you blindly reverted here). You are being manifestly unfair in your approach to this matter and exploiting the fact that I was blocked for 3RR to try to gain an editing advantage here. That's not very nice.
Further, I outlined my problems with your edit at the top of this section above. Instead of engaging me on the substance of the matter, you have avoided that kind of discussion. You have yet to explain to me what it wrong with my edits, outside of your objection to the word nation in the intro (and in contradistinction to all the evidence in the article attesting to the appropriateness of that term). Even though I omitted the word from my latest edit, so as to work with you towards achieving some kind of consensus and/or getting the feedback of other editors, you still blindly reverted my edit.
No, Tiamut; it wasn't a blind revert. I asked you to explain each step you take, the same way I broke up my edits to explain each edit individually; but instead of going step by step; you made one big change calling it a compromise by ruining most of my edits and compromising the way you chose. Sorry but a compromise needs to be agreed to, otherwise its a ploy of getting your way by going two steps forward and one step back. That's not compromise, that's strategy; and you have learned it well. If you are talking of blind reverts, here is a blind revert you made ignoring user 6SJ7’s correction so that you can do a quick revert. Itzse 21:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Finally, to the heart of the matter. In my latest edit, I:

1) moved the paragraph on population figures and religion back to where it was after the introductory paragraph. It is more appropriate to place it there per the format of other leads on peoples or nations (See Armenian people for an example).

I don't see why the population figures are that important, that it has to be the second paragraph, when the definition of the article hasn't yet been clearly defined; unless you want to create an impression of a "nation" of "11 million" in the mind of the readers. I call it POV pushing. Itzse 21:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

2) I changed "11 million" (as in your edit) to "between 10 and 11 million" since it better reflects the data in the article.

This isn't an honest answer, as after you removed one of my edits then surely the wording has to be changed to "between 10 and 11 million" since it better reflects the data in the article. Your answer is good enough to throw off someone reading this, but it is the reason for the need to change the wording (the words "depending on who is counted as a Palestinian") which is due to POV pushing. Itzse 21:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

3) I replaced your version of this paragraph:

The idea that Palestinians form a distinct people is reltively recent.[29] Until the establishment of Israel, the term Palestinian was used by Jews and foreigners to describe the inhabitants of Palestine and had only begun to be used by Arabs themselves at the turn of the 20th century.[29] At the same time most saw themselves as part of the larger Arab or Muslim community.[29] The Arabs of Palestine began widely using the term Palestinian starting in the pre-World War I period to indicate the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people.[29] and the first demand for Palestinian independence was issued by the Syrian-Palestinian Congress on 21 September 1921.[30]After 1948, and even more so after 1967 the term came to signify not only a place of origin, but a sense of a shared past and future in the form of a Palestinian state.[29]

with this version:

The first widespread endonymic use of "Palestinian" to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine began prior to the outbreak of World War I,[29] and the first demand for national independence was issued by the Syrian-Palestinian Congress on 21 September 1921.[31] After the exodus of 1948, and even more so after the exodus of 1967, the term came to signify not only a place of origin, but a sense of a shared past and future in the form of a Palestinian state.[29]

Why? Let's see. the first two sentences of your version are already covered in the etymology section directly below the introduction rendering its inclusion here redundant. I also feel the use of endonymic (I was inspired by the Armenian article) in my version of the same material covered in the sentences following those, is useful to the reader. Further, I find my version to more concise, less repetitive, better structured (without spelling mistakes) and more in line with the overall article.

Again dishonesty. you removed the first two sentences that "The idea that Palestinians form a distinct people is reltively recent" and "Until the establishment of Israel, the term Palestinian was used by Jews and foreigners to describe the inhabitants of Palestine and had only begun to be used by Arabs themselves at the turn of the 20th century." because it doesn't fit your agenda. At least be honest about it, not give misleading reasons of "redundancy", "inspired", "concise", "less repetitive", "better structured" and "more in line with the overall article"; instead of the real reason that you want the paragraph to be more in line with your agenda. Itzse 21:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I also don't see why links to the 1948 Palestinian exodus and the 1967 Palestinian exodus are not appropriate in the lead, or as you put it in one of your edit summaries to be "gruesome details", so I reincluded them in the last sentence of your version of that paragraph above, which I retained in my edit.

I gave you the reason in the edit summary; the part that you chose to omit; which is that "The Palestinian refugees article already gives all the details. The words "Gruesome details" I added to the explanation the second time around to point out that the reason you want those two words and links is exactly to show "gruesome details" to paint a picture of the Palestinians as victims; which again is your agenda, and to us Wikipedians is called "POV pushing". Itzse 21:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to reinstate this edit soon if someone else does not (which is still without the word nation and very much to my chagrin at that I might add). I don't feel you should be able to blindly revert my compromise edit and then demand that I discuss after I've made such extensive efforts. Please discuss which parts you would like to see changed before blindly reverting the edit again. Thank you for your time and have a nice night. Tiamut 22:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have aready explained above that I didn't blindly revert; you were the one who reverted my edits without discussion and without explaining; and it is you who needs to explain why. You also need to explain who gives you the right to push your agenda. Because Jayjg is gone, shouldn't mean that you get a free ride. Again compromise means that both agree not that you choose what to take and what to give for now. Itzse 21:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Itzse, I'm confused by this sentence of your edit (which I retained for the sake of compromise):

After the exodus of 1948, and even more so after the exodus of 1967, the term came to signify not only a place of origin, but the sense of a shared past and future in the form of a Palestinian state.'[29]

Can you provide me with the text in the ref cited that discusses this? I find the wording (in italics, mine) to be a little awkward and unclear and I'd like to see the original to determine how it should be modified. Thanks. Tiamut 00:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The exact words in Encyclopedia Britannica are: "Henceforth the term Palestinian will be used when referring to the Arabs of the former mandated Palestine, excluding Israel. Although the Arabs of Palestine had been creating and developing a Palestinian identity for about 200 years, the idea that Palestinians form a distinct people is relatively recent. The Arabs living in Palestine had never had a separate state. Until the establishment of Israel, the term Palestinian was used by Jews and foreigners to describe the inhabitants of Palestine and had only begun to be used by the Arabs themselves at the turn of the 20th century; at the same time, most saw themselves as part of the larger Arab or Muslim community. The Arabs of Palestine began widely using the term Palestinian starting in the pre-World War I period to indicate the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people. But after 1948 - and even more so after 1967 - for Palestinians themselves the term came to signify not only a place of origin but, more importantly, a sense of a shared past and future in the form of a Palestinian state."

Now give a look at how Encyclopedia Britannica writes an article about Palestinians (tries to be fair) and Tiamut writes the article. If anybody thinks that Tiamut doesn't have an agenda and is not a POV pusher, I have no desire to go into a meaningless debate; you can choose between me and her; one of us is gotta go.

I'm taking a Wikipedia vacation and leave it up to you. Bye for now my friends. Itzse 21:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Itzse, doesn't your EB source support Tiamut's view? EB says that Palestinian now indicates "the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people," but isn't that simply spelling out what "nation" means here? A nation is a nationalist concept of a people. I wouldn't want to choose between two Users, as if in a personal duel, but but doesn't Itzse need to provide a more convincing reliable source to dispute "nation" as a descriptor? HG | Talk 00:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
He has no such source HG. Otherwise he would have provided it by now. In any case, one source isn't going to enough. Even the Israeli government has recognized Palestinian nationhood. Those accusing me of POV pushing, might look in the mirror. Tiamut 01:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC

One editor believes that the introduction of this article should reflect the fact borne out in the citations throughout the text that Palestinians are a nation. (Note that nation here is not to be confused with nation-state.) The other editor disputes idea that Palestinians are a nation and wants no mention of it in the lead.01:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Here for the RfC. This is a non-issue. Both in terms of Wikipedia policy (see this) and anthropological theory, nationhood is self-defined. That is, there's no such thing as a group of people that sees themselves as a nation but isn't a nation. It's not he said she said. That said, of course it's good (neutral, encyclopedic, interesting) to historicize this self-identification. With respect, end of story.--G-Dett 03:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The example of Wikipedia policy given above does not support saying that any group calling itself a nation is a nation. It says that any group giving itself a proper name should be considered possessed of that name. Bsharvy 13:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

my take: the clear cut nation is arabs, palestinians are a mishmash of arabs and some ottomans (and very few others), i'm not sure on what really makes them into a nation other than them being held by the arabs as pawns (without citizenship or rights) in the arab-israeli conflict... i've seen the ottoman maps from 1860 and i honestly believe that without israel (now or in the future), there would be no palestinian "self identification" only clandish identification (iraq anyone?) within' the arab national. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confusing ethnicity and citizenship in different nation-states or empires with nation-hood. These are all distinct concepts and while it is arguable that Palestinians are "ethnically" Arab, it is undeniable that they constitute a nation. Please read the sources in the article. Tiamut 12:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly.--G-Dett 12:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree 213.6.3.25 08:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the use of the word "nation" in this sense is not controversial at all, e.g., Britannica "People whose common identity creates a psychological bond and a political community" --Ian Pitchford 13:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
An outside comment for the RFC. I agree that, absent any specific arguments to the contrary, we should edit on the understanding that nations are self-defined. Resolving this matter should simply be a matter of providing sources that demonstrate that Palenstians are a nation or are not a nation. Is this RFC now satisfied or would people like comments on individual sources? Eiler7 14:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
My take is that a group of people who identify as a nation (with sourcing) should be presented as such. With the controversy over the Ottomans and so on regarding what ifs, that material can come later in the article. Ngchen 15:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you to everyone for your comments. I have reinserted the word nation into the first paragraph of the article. There are tens of sources in the article (and even in the intro itself) that support the usage of this term. The objections raised have not been policy or source based. Editors who may disagree with this inclusion are asked to discuss specific policies or sources that challenge or fail to uphold the use of this term. Thanks again. Tiamut 16:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It's nice to see that after I told you that I'm going off Wikipedia for my Sabbath; with me out of the way, you chose to go for a Wikipedia:Requests for comment and quickly became judge, jury and executioner. Itzse 22:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose a bold new experiment, a type of experiment which has never been tried on the Wikipedia and which might actually be considered unWikian in character. But I am going to propose it anyway:

It is clear to me that the two parties in this debate are not nearing any kind of agreement. While the disagreement is concentrating on a few words, it is clear that it goes much, much deeper than that. I will try to summarize it thus (correct me if I am wrong): Tiamut believes that the Palestinians are a nation, with all the characteristics of a nation. Itse believes that the Palestinians are not a nation, and that the claim to nationality is simply a political ploy in a sophisticated attempt to undermine Israel's legitimacy.

Because of this chasmic difference in POVs, there is no way that they will ever agree. The dispute goes to the very structure of the article - this argument over the word "nation" is just the tip of the iceberg.

So here is my suggestion. Itse, leave Tiamut's article alone. Write a separate article on the same topic, and give it a temporary name (Palestinian Arabs?). You both must commit to writing fairly, and to representing both viewpoints as accurately as you can. You both must commit to documenting thoroughly and being generally scholarly in approach. I realize, Itse, that Tiamut has a big headstart on you, but I think it will be worth your while.

When you have both finished, and your articles - as fair and unbiased as you can make them - are completed, let's have a public review - another RfC. Let's see if the editors of the RfC see a possibility of merging the articles, or of settling the differences. My guess is that the two articles could be combined.

But, in the event that, even after an RfC, no reconciliation is possible, I say let's leave both articles. We could write a meta-article, which would say, in effect: "Dear Wikipedia reader, here are two unreconcilable views of this topic, read them both and you will come away with a real understanding of the nature of the dispute." Under the circumstances, I think this approach - while very unencyclopedic - would best serve the users of our work. --Ravpapa 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed your proposal. I must say that it is a brilliant and honest approach and look forward to it when I get back from my Wikipedia vacation; but in the meantime someone else can start that second article from a neutral point of view and I'll join in later. At least someone here is using their brains. Itzse 22:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Ravpapa, but I don't see the value in this or the point. This is not about my view vs. Itzse's view. This kind of equivalency between our positions is unfair. While there are more than 50 sources in the article discussing Palestinians as a nation, there are none contesting that. My position is based on the sources and policy. And the article does not express my POV. (Believe me, if it did, it would read quite differently.) So thanks but no thanks. I think I will stick to community consensus regarding sourcing and NPOV on this issue rather than spending my time writing an article that expresses my POV to compare against Itzse's POV so that what? We can throw them both away and write an article together collaboratively? That's what we are supposed to doing now. We'd make a lot more progress though if we stuck to specifics, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:AGF and other wonderful guidelines and policies that help make our work here easier in just these kinds of situations. Cool? Tiamut 01:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree here, this gives too much weight to Itzse's radical fringe beliefs, it gives him a personal soapbox for his racist propaganda, simply because of his persistence. You notice he fights so hard on the smallest things, making it nearly impossible for actual discourse to be had about real content. 213.6.3.25 08:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Propose - that this RfC, having been open 3 days, be closed, and that "Palestinian people" be accepted as a nation (assuming we have RSs who say that is what some believe themselves to be). I propose this on the basis that (so we're told) "peoples" are free to self-identify as "nations", and I don't see any contra-indications to this claim. PalestineRemembered 12:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I feel that Palestinians are a nationality, but not a nation, as they do not have a nation-state which is formally declared by them or recognized by anyone else; this is in accordance with the official view of all parties, including Palestinians themselves, I believe. They do not claim to have a formal nation, since they consider themselves still occupied by Israel. They are like the Kurds, Basques, etc, as being an acknowledged nationality, with some aspirations to formal political status as a fully-recognized nation. --Steve, Sm8900 14:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
As I told you on my talk Steve, there is a distinction between nation and nation-state. Tiamut 01:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly sources (besides those already listed in the article) for those hold-outs on the issue of Palestinian nationhood:

Hi. sorry, "nationhood" does not equal possession of the status of a nation. Do you see then, any difference between being a distinct nationality, and being a nation-state? i know that you said "nation" does not equal "nation-state". However, if you say to the average person, please list some nations, they would say the US, France, Brazil, Greece. They would not say Basques, Catalans, Kurds. So when people say nation, they usually mean nation-state. Not national group. As you admit, there is not a Palestinian state. This is a significant point.
as you may have noticed, there has been an altercation going on in the Mideast for about several decades or so. This behooves us tor espect the finer points of each other's sensitivities. I would always like to try to respect yours. I would also ask that you respect mine as well. Of course, you have not said anything which I found disrespectful at all; I am just pointing out that this is one reason for both of us to pay attention to minute details like these. --Steve, Sm8900 13:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
(Sigh). Steve, please read this essay. Nationhood is the state of being a nation. A nation is not a nation-state. I will add a footnote explaining exactly this. But I'm not removing the word from the intro when Palestinians identify themselves as a nation, the world community recognizes them as such, and even the Israeli government has conceded as much, as evidenced in the sources I provided you with above. I'm not removing a well-sourced, established fact that no other sources here refute simply because of the "sensitivities" of a minority of people. Tiamut 14:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you both repeating yourselves (and thus resorting to mild sarcasm)? Let me ask Tiamut something. I think maybe you put in "nation" to replace the role served by "people" in the intro (though 'people' does appears later now). To what extent do Palestinian self-identifying sources (e.g., you've used PLO) rely on 'people' versus relying on 'nation' as a term? Whether 'nation' or not, might it be possible that 'people' is still the predominant term overall, and that 'nation' is used less commonly and can be discussed later in the article? Well, whatever your personal judgment, maybe this question is disputed enough that you might check for secondary (or primary, if need be) sources support the notion that 'nation' is preferable to 'people'. I'm sorry that it sounds as if I'm making you work for this one-word edit, but I hear doubts being raised here. Thanks! HG | Talk 15:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the last part of your request is a little ridiculous HG. I don't think there is any scholarship discussing the difference in use between "nation" and "people" since they often function as synonyms. The "controversy" here is frankly farcical and not rooted in any Wiki policies or guidelines. The bar is being set unreasonably high to "prove" Palestinian nationhood, despite the preponderance of evidence in the article sources and sources presented here to the contrary. Like I said, the "sensitivities" of a minority of people whom it irks to hear that Palestinians are a nation is not a policy-based reason for us not to use it in this article.(See WP:NPOV#Article naming which by the way Itzse (talk · contribs), whose objections were the reason I opened this RfC, recently tried to change to read otherwise.) The only real necessary qualifier for nationhood is that the people in question view themselves to be a nation (a process which is outlined and sourced in the article already). Nevertheless, I already provided evidence that the academic community, world community and even the Israeli government itself, acknowledge that Palestinians are a nation - at your request HG. So I'm going to have to decline this latest request for now since most of the info you are asking for is already in the article which people can read. I'm also going to have to remind you that not a single source has yet been put forward that says that Palestinians are not a nation (either primary or secondary). Those who don't agree should now provide their own evidence (not opinions) as to why it is not appropriate, if they are interested in continuing this discussion.Tiamut 17:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Tiamut, I'm only trying to indicate what type of scrutiny might be expected if there is a legit and not fringe controversy. (Also, the use of perjorative terms such as ridiculous or farcical do not strengthen your case, perhaps you could rephrase?) Personally, I'm inclined to trust your judgment but this doesn't mean that scrutiny isn't merited. So I did check the Kelman article you cite above, in which he states:

What would be the meaning of an Israeli acknowledgment-or, for that matter, an acknowledgment by the United States or other third parties-of Palestinian nationhood? Most important, nationhood implies certain attributes and rights; thus, to acknowledge that Palestinians are a nation would carry with it certain implications for issues that are currently matters of contention between the parties. (p.31)

Kelman here indicates that (recently) various major parties did not acknowledge the Palestinians as a nation and that it is/was a contested matter. Later, he says: "Acknowledgment of Palestinian nationhood, with all of the implications that I have outlined, could hardly be described as a trivial exercise. While Israelis-in government, the media, and the general public-now freely use the term "Palestinian," they do not necessarily conceive of the Palestinians as a nation with the attributes and rights that such a designation implies." (p.32) Kelman thereby seems to contradict your view that the scrutiny of the 'nation' designation (i.e., your edit) is farcical because he says it is "not a trivial exercise" and that Israelis "do not necessarily conceive of the Palestinians as a nation..." Also, I would caution that, while Kelman advocates acknowledging nationhood, his article rarely uses the word "nation" and he deploys 'nationhood' in relation to political rights (tho' not nec. sovereignty), not as synonymous to people. In short, while I gladly concede that 'nation' might be accepted by all editors based solely on your reasoning, I don't think you should be surprised or uncharitable if some editors ask for various degrees of verification. Also, it's unfortunate that you happened to bring a source that seems to undermine or even contradict your claim. (You clearly did so in good faith, but it may raise doubts about the other sources.) Thanks for hearing me out on this. HG | Talk 18:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I just noticed you quoted the Kelman article from 1992. Did you read the other one provided you with from 2004, i.e. 12 years later, where he says that the Israeli government recognized Palestinian nationhood? Something called Oslo happened and their letter of mutual recognition no? Anyway, I just thought I should point that out. In other words, the source does support what I said that even the Israeli government has recognized Palestinian nationhood. Tiamut 00:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I can't access your second Kelman article, which is from Intl Negotiation in Feb 1997, not 2004. Still, I did find his 1998 "Building a Sustainable Peace: The Limits of Pragmatism in the Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations" which is more recent and likewise post-Oslo.[38] Again, Kelman says that the Israeli government does not recognize the rights of Palestinians "as a nation" (p.47), in a section that begins: "Over the decades, the parties have engaged in systematic denial of each other's national identity, with the aim of delegitimizing the other's national movement and political aspiration." He distinguishes between the "pragmatic accommodation" of Oslo and principled recognition of Palestinians "as a nation" etc. Ditto with "nationhood." So Kelman likewise demonstrates that 'nation' and 'nationhood' are quite contested concepts to apply to the Palestinian people, even post-Oslo. HG | Talk 20:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, your other article (M Klein) does not support 'nation' either. I finally got access to it. Klein does not seem to discuss the USA or Israel etc view. In Klein, Palestinian sources use 'Palestinians' and 'Palestinian people' (as we already know), but Klein doesn't quote even the PLO etc using 'nation' as a term. From my personal reading of WP policy, 'nation' should work as a self-identifying concept via WP:NCON. But if you hold via WP:V (verifiability) that 'nation' is as good as 'people' for the article intro, it's still fair for folks to ask for your sources. HG | Talk 20:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Forgive the frankness HG but what's your point? That because some Israelis do not necessarily conceive of Palestinians as a nation we shouldn't describe Palestinians as a nation? That's all that your reading of this source establishes. Should we we fail to mention that Kurds are a nation because some Turks don't think so? Tiamut 19:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Frankness is fine, Tiamut. I won't recapitulate all my points above. In terms of your clarifying question, I'm noting a rebuttal to your remark (above, to Steve) that "... the world community recognizes them as such, and even the Israeli government has conceded as much, as evidenced in the sources I provided you with above." As shown by the quote (my emphasis added previously), your Kelman source suggests that "United States or other third parties," besides Israel, might not concede that the Palestinians are a nation. Frankly, I'm fine with 'nation' because (like G-Dett, above) I would apply WP:NCON and accept "Palestinian nation" as a self-defining concept for Wikipedia purposes, even if it is rejected by outsiders. However, I've found that my interpretation of WP:NCON is disputed in principle by some Wikipedians, as we saw in response to my view that "Israeli apartheid" fails the self-defining criterion. For such Wikipedians, 'nation' may need to undergo more scrutiny. Such scrutiny isn't unreasonable per se and it may lead to questions about supporting sources. Ok? HG 19:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Oops, my "Israeli apartheid" example may be distracting. As I trust Tiamut knows, I didn't mention this in bad faith to prove an unrelated point. So let's say this: some Wikipedians narrowly construe WP:NCON to names and not concepts. Calmly on topic, yours truly, HG | Talk
And staying on topic then, can we acknowledge that the sources in the article establish Palestinian nationhood? The PLO was recognized by the United Nations as a "national liberation movement" (need to be a nation if you're moving toward liberation of such), the Palestinians put forward their claims for "national independence" in 1921 (need to be nation if you're seeking national independence). In fact, isn't that a large part of what the whole conflict with Israel is about? The struggle for national self-determination? Palestinians are nation without a nation-state. Most of the world has recognized that. Even if they had not however, Palestinians define themselves as such and self-identification is all that is really required. That some Israelis deny Palestinian nationhood is not something new (indeed, it's already mentioned in the article on the discussion of Israeli textbooks). That some Americans also share this view is unsurprising. However, I don't see why this minority viewpoint should be allowed to prevent us from using the word nation to describe Palestinians. If someone wants to add more to the article about the contestation surrounding Palestinian nationhood using reliable sources, I'm all for it. In fact, I might do so myself soon. Perhaps then we could add a line to the introduction about how Palestinian nationhood has been contested and by whom. Until then however, nation should be used in the introduction. It's established by the article it's WP:V and WP:NPOV given what sources we do have. Tiamut 23:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
We're discussing whether to use 'nation' instead of 'people' in the introduction. Since 'nation' appears to be the far more contested term, it's use is not clearly established via WP:V verifiability, at least not from the sources cited so far. (On problems w/the Kelman and Klein, see my concerns above.) Of course, in the body of the article, the mainstream view can be 'nation' as contested by a (minority) view of Israel (and USA?). I appreciate your flexibility about looking into wording for the lede about how nation/nationhood is or has been contested. For others in the RfC, I wonder how many agree that WP:NCON would be sufficient to allow 'Palestinian nation' as a verified self-identifying concept, aside from the route of relying upon non-Palestinian sources and conceptions. Thanks. HG | Talk 21:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, the definition of "nation" is problematic. Secondly, the first sentence loses nothing when the word nation is removed, so I just proceeded with that. Beit Or 18:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not a good enough reason. It defies Wiki policy and the sentence does lose something by losing nation. It's not clear what this group of people we are talking about are or how they identify to one another without it. Your removal also goes against the points raised here by many impartial editors as to why it should be used. Please self-revert. Tiamut 18:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your edit myself Beit Or (talk · contribs). "Redundant" (as you titled your edit summary) it is not. It provides WP:NPOV balance, particularly since some editors insisted on emphasizing that Palestinian nationalism is relatively new. Let's make it clear to the reader that we are indeed talking about a nation. (See Armenian people for an example of how it is appropriate to include this in the lead.)Tiamut 18:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Adds "NPOV balance" to what? Armenians are possibly called a "nation" because there is a state of Armenia, so the word "Armenians" applies both to an ethnic group and the citizens of Armenia. The same cannot be said of Palestinians. Beit Or 19:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Read it again. Nation, as it is used in the Armenian people article refers to the people and not the nation-state of Armenia. See also Basque people and see my comments to HG above. Tiamut 23:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
And by the way, Palestinians are also recognized as an ethnic group or ethnicity, as per this source which discusses how Palestinians in the Diaspora accommodate their "ethno-national" identity with citizenship in other countries . Tiamut 00:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul Schiemann, who championed minority rights during the period between WWI and WWII, pioneered the concept of separation of nation (Volksgemeinschaft—national community) and of state (Staatsgemeinschaft—state community). "Nation" is used to denote an "ethnic/cultural nation" which does not require land; what it does (at least from my readings) require is a sense of nation, that is, a demonstrated sense of common cultural heritage, unity, and purpose; of self-identity as a community of people, etc. I should also clarify that neither does "nation" imply "nationalism" in terms of striving for territorial acquisition, political gains, etc. And I should add that "Palestinian people" (people indicating shared origin) is not a substitute for "Palestinian nation."
      So, with reference to Steve, Sm8900's contention that the Palestinians are nationality but not a nation, the proper usage is reversed. "Nationality" is the term aligned with nation-state (country), not "nation". To indicate identity without implying "country-hood" one would say the Palestinians are a nation; to indicate country-hood/territory one would say anyone who is a citizen of a country "Palestine" is of Palestinian nationality.
      The editors might consider leaving "nation" and inserting "(national community)" after its first use to disambiguate, and to use the unambiguous "nation-state" when referring to territory or the potential outcome of territorial aspirations. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba

Sorry. i disagree with your premise. "Nationality" clearly can refer to a national group, with or without an established nation-state. this seems clear simply from common usage. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 22:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Outside view via RFC - nation is an ambiguous term, and can mean either a people in general, or a country. People is a nonambiguous term. In this instance, the desired meaning of the word nation is exactly the same meaning as the term people. There is no reason not to use the word people; nation appears to have serious WP:WEASEL problems. The Evil Spartan 20:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
At this point, I'm willing to let this matter rest, and to leave the wording as it is. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Some more sources to definitively meet WP:V per EvilSpartan and HG's concerns as outlined above:
Though one still hears, from certain disreputable quarters, the claim that the Palestinians are merely Arabs, and therefore should content themselves with residence in one of "the other 22 Arab states," most of the world now acknowledges that the Palestinians are a nation, entitled to self-determination, presumably within a state of their own. The question that remains is why they have not achieved it.
It should also be noted that the Palestinians are a nation of young adults and children.
I don't agree with EvilSpartan that nation is a weasel word. And while it is arguable as to whether Israel has recognized their nationhood or not (per HG's comments above) this is entirely irrelevant. The First Nations peoples did not enjoy Canadian recognition nor did or do the Basques in certain quarters. Self-identification as a nation remains the primary factor in defining a nation. But I thought I would add these two sources to the list of many others here and in the article that establish this fact. Tiamut 11:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed "nation" for a few reasons.

  1. A book review of Rashid Khalidi on Salon.com is a poor and partisan source for a consensus claim such as this. See WP:ASF and WP:RS
  2. The cite itself notes that there remains some dispute -which we know to be true, like it or not.
  3. It's unnecessary to "bang the point home" because the third paragraph addresses the issue perfectly well. See Let the facts speak for themselves

<<-armon->> 11:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully disagree and can't understand why you are ignoring the comments of non-partisan editors drawn by the RfC on the issue of Palestinian nationhood and its mention in the introduction above or why you are ignoring the countless sources provided in the talk above and throughout the article. If you would like me to append other sources so that there are five footnotes establishing this fact instead of one, I will happily oblige. But please stop trying to delete a perfectly non-controversial fact out of existence. This article is about a people who call themselves Palestinians and view themselves as constituting a nation. The only objections to this self-identification, which is internationally recognized, come from "disreputable quarters". This is largely because most people in the world know that everyone has the right to define and carve out their own individual and collective identities and those who try to deny that right, are - to be frank - deluding themselves. With respect. Tiamut 19:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Please look at the links I added to my rationale. I'm trying to keep it short and to the point. True, you could get better cites which address the RS issue, but then, other RS cites which dispute it can be also be presented (even if they are from what some consider "disreputable quarters"). This is one problem. In 2007, I would agree that the majority view is that Palestinians constitute a nation, however, in 1907, I doubt the concept even existed. This is probably the crux of the problem because Palestinian nationalism is a recent development. In any case, to comply with WP:NPOV the Palestinian POV is not what "settles the issue" when such "facts" are in dispute. This is why I suggest we let the facts speak for themselves instead. <<-armon->> 23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Evil Spartan said: "...nation is an ambiguous term..." Far from ignoring editors who responded to the RFC, Armon is in agreement with them. Beit Or 20:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we need yet another RfC on the issue. Editors with no history of writing on Palestinian issues (unlike USer:Armon and User:Beit Or) were clear in their determination that "nation" was wholly uncontroversial. As I wrote in my last edit summary, the subject of this article is not a random collection of individuals, but rather a national group. Those who reject that view are obscuring the facts and rejecting reality. Please cease deleting sourced information. Thanks. Tiamut 20:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Nation is indeed uncontroversial, now, with regard to Palestinians, and those editors particularly, Israeli/Zionist, who oppose it with regard to Palestinians do so for ideological reasons, i.e. they wish to deny a 'national' status to the Palestinians in order to prejudice the latters' claims to a state identity on the West Bank and Gaza. This is well known, the quote I added from Hobsbawm, a world authority on the concept of nation, (and indeed impeccably 'Jewish' for that matter) underlines the point. The non-recognition is a political act, which reflects an early prejudice, one notoriously expressed by Begin who once addressed the Knesset with the words: 'My friend, take care. When you recognize the concept of 'Palestine,' you demolish your right to live in Ein Hahoresh. . If this is Palestine, then it belongs to a people who lived here before you came.' The two editors who opposed the use of the word 'nation' did so not out of editorial scruple, but rather from outworn political objections to the definition of a people whose history over the past several decades has formed, pari passu with the formation of an 'Israeli identity' (which also never existed before) their own national identity. As such the editing out of such references is a political act in violation of the rules.Nishidani 10:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
OK well aside from the genetic fallacy you're attempting to employ against myself and Beit Or, your own statement discredits your position. Nationalism itself is an ideological position, and the fact that other notable ideological positions oppose it, proves the utility in letting the facts speak for themselves. <<-armon->> 00:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
let the facts speak for themselves. The doctrine is called 'Gradgrindism'. I think you ought to try to rephrase that. It is a standard Comtean phrase in hasbara manuals, which has long outworn its use-by date, one bandied about by kids who've never heard that facts are infinite,(b) the facts given by any person are constituted by a process of subjective selection (c) any selection of facts privileges those facts over others (d) thus any set of 'facts' has an 'ideological' component, in so far as they prop a particular perspective. Nationalism is 'ideological', but it is also a function of cultural transition from agricultural to industrial society, a form of re-self-definition under the conditions of modernity. Nationalisms do not cancel each other out, they feed off each other. I suggest you glance at the literature. Ideology, as the man said, is 'what other people think', as opposed to 'facts' which is what 'I' think.Nishidani 15:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
‘Different characteristics may serve to distinguish ethnic groups from one another, but the most usual are language, history, or ancestry (real or imagined), religions and members of ethnic groups see themselves as culturally distinct from other groups in a society, and are seen by those other groups to be so in return." Anthony Giddens, Mitchell Duneier, Richard P. Appelbaum,Introduction to Sociology, W. W. Norton & Company 5th ed,2005 p. 487
‘nations, like states, are a contingency, and not a universal necessity…Nationalism holds that they were destined for each other, that either without the other is incomplete, and constitutes a tragedy. But before they could become intended for each other, each of them had to emerge, and their emergence was independent and contingent. The state has certainly emerged without the help of the nation. Some nations have certainly emerged without the blessings of their own state . .Discussion of two very makeshift temporary definitions will help to pinpoint this elusive concept:-
1.Two men are of the same nation if and only if they share the same culture, where culture in turn means system of ideas and signs and associations and ways of behaving and communicating.
2. Two men are of the same nation if and only if they ‘’recognize’’ each other as belonging to the same nation. In other words, ‘’nations maketh men’’; nations are the artefacts of men’s convictions and loyalties and solidarities. A mere category of persons (say, occupants of a given territory, or speakers of a given language, for example, becomes a nation if and when the members of the category firmly recognize certain mutual rights and duties to each other in virtue of their shared membership in it. It is their recognition of each other as fellows of this kind which turns them into a nation, and not the other shared attributes, whatever they might be, which separate that category from non-members.’ Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, Basil Blackwell, Oxford 1983 pp6-7

Request to delete the article about Gene flow from Africa into Arab and Palestinian women

the reference to this article-study about a possible gene flow from Africa is racist. This study is so stupid that the researcher based his conclusion on the PREMISE!! that: Since Ashkinazi Jews who (he says!?) left to Rome in the second century to Rome and Europe don't have this African female Haplogroup L1/L3 now then that means the Haplogroup did not exist in the Middle East at that time and Hence it was brought later by the Arab slave trade starting from the Arabic conquest 600 AD. Now this is unbelievable Pure racism Hatered and unscientificness ( more of stupidity), Since what scientific evidence he had that jews went to Europe? ( How do we know if this fable is not a Zionist lie). Again since that study it is found that this same Haplogroup L is found in Europe even in Scandinavia( as same percentage as in Arabic countries) So why other researchers say that it came to Europe in the Neolithic age ( 6000 Years ago) and not through slave trade?? and this L is found in West Europe but not in East Europe, so this actually another evidence that the Ashkenazi women originated from Eastern Europe and never been in the Middle East ( Arabs and South and Northwest Europe Have it!) This study is suggestive and not confirming and is based on false (very stupid) premise. I intend to remove its citation because it is also irrelevent and RACIST!02:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As best I can tell, some male Jews went to places in Europe (and all over the Middle East) between 700BC and 0AD. They married local women in all cases (?). Some sources claim that these guys were successful traders (ie they were not ethnically cleansed by the Romans in 70AD) - but this cannot currently be proved or disproved. During or after this process, "being Jewish" ceased to be passed on by the father and was passed on by the mother. (I was not aware of any movement of population in the 2nd Century, but there may be new research).
Sometime around 1000AD (ie long after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem), four "Eastern Mediterranean" women travelled to Rome, joined some Jewish communities and their new blood spread throughout the Jewish communities in Europe. 40%(?) of Ashkenazi Jews have traces of this blood-stock, and are thus descended from Palestinian-like people (if only marginally) on both sides. There is no maternal link amongst Sephardic Jews to the Eastern Mediterranean, only the paternal link.
(I am open to correction on any of the above, I found it an area of only peripheral interest. And I'm not sure that people outside of any particular minority should be too free with their understandings about the origins, practices etc of that minority). PalestineRemembered 11:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree completely with Palestine Remembered, in the last paragraph, above. thanks for your constructively-toned comments. --Steve, Sm8900 20:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Exactly! and since we have no scientific evidence that Indeed Jews travelled to Rome in 120 AD, or 4 women in 100 AD traveled to Rome to join the jews ( unless if you have a photo of them on a ship with a roman name on the ship and a video recording showing the ship captain in the same frame with those jews that indeed he is sailing to Rome and a clock in the back ground showing calender of 120 AD or 1000 AD) So this guy the author of the study says ( since jews he left palestine to rome in 120 AD brought with them their women and those women as currently reveal they don't have the N1 N3 Female haplotype, then it did not exist in the middle east by then, because if it did the jrews wiuld have wives from that same haplogroup with them)) can you see how stupid the basis of his argument on which he conclude that the Haplogroup is caused by bringing slave women from Africa After 120 AD (ie when the Arabs prevailed in 700 AD and Later) You see the craziness and biasness scientists are willing to do for a piece of bread or a bunch of coins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.17.167 (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Khaldoun no longer relevent

The recent Genetical studies proved that the impact of Arabs on North africa ( and every where they immigrated to ) is huge ( not to mention the first immigration of the Neolithic period (Phoenicians=semitic language speaking relative of Arabs (The Aramaeans). Also recent study proved that there is great affinity between Race and Language through genetic studies too. While Ibn Khaldoun ( a berber impostering as descendent from Arabs) claims that the primacy of the Arabs made occupied countries speak Arabic while the people are descendent from Pre Arabic Stock, this Hypothethis had no scientific proof in the 13th century while recent studies proved beyond doubt that people in North Africa and Palestine speak Arabic because they Are Arabs in Blood. need to delete Ibn Khaldoun ref03:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Louis is sick

"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 "!!!! This quotation is racist claiming there is a promise? and there is a bypassing? of Israelite existance!! even though archaeological studies failed to prove that Israelites had hegomony on Palestine for a substansial time. Yet this Zionist jewish Louis puting these stupid allegations as corner stones and pillars or tenets of Scientific History. This guy is old and worthless. THis statement of his is unscientific racist and insulting to muslims and palestinians about regarding something not existant (the Promise) He wants to impose the interpretation representing 10 million southern babtist and 10 million jews and impose it on 2 billion muslims + 2 million christians and the rest of the world. Not every thing this old man poke out from his mouth is pearls, they could be goat duns too. need to cut because racist and defamatory.03:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. While I think that Lewis is an Orientalist whose personal views on Arabs may not be that free of bias, I don't think his being Jewish has anything to do with whether or not he is a credible source here. Also, the quote isn't racist. It's his opinion, as a historian, regarding why the thesis of Canaanite descent is important to Palestinians, within the context of their struggle with Israel. It's something echoed in the work of Mohammed Zakariya, though the motivations for his critique are quite different. Please try to refrain from linking people's ethno-religious backgrounds to the credibility of their arguments. Thanks. Tiamut 10:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not about that. It is about he says Palestinians trying to BYPASS (((ancient Israelites))) Now he says ancient israelites exist even though in many other instances he doubts their existance ( at least as a state or nation that had exclusive right to palestine which never happened Historically as from Scientific point of view there is no evidence ( archaeological or other wise )) that they even existed in the Palestine or immigrated from Egypt or Iraq. I am saying the man is very old (Alzheimer effect) he must have been injected alot of prestigue he does not deserve. Secondly he talks about a (Promise) ?? I read the Bible million times there was no promise but just a covenent ( agreement((If you do this I do that for you, If you don;t do this I will send you to diaspora)) and so there is no Promise. And even if there is a promise, it does not obligate other peoples because the bible from the scientific point of view could be fake or forfieted or messed up with. And the Promise he talks about is only an interpretation of the 10 million jews ( not all jews) and the extreme sect of the protestants just a nother 10 million or so. So what kind of silly scientific reasoning he is bringing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.17.167 (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Subclades of J2 Haplogroup in DNA Clues

subclades of J2 Haplogroup
subclades of J2 Haplogroup

.

The notion that J2 is a sister clade of J1 is no longer taken. J2 is 8 main clades only one of these clades originated from the mountains north of the Levant (Kurds, Armenians). The old studies 1996 (stone age in genetic geneology) was ignorant of these subclades. Over 90% of all J2s is in Europe. The Hypothesis that one of J2 clades immigrated from north of the levant as the Indo Europeans is nor longer taken. It is unlikely that a J2 clade members be higher across the seas than it is origin country. (Semino et al 2004). You write that Jews have twice as much as j1 ( sounds like twice J1 in the Arabs) and that is wrong. Need to reformulate that J2 is double J1 of both in Jews. Also, according to the summary of Coffman study J2 is different ancestries ( each one started way back before History) and Jews have all these subclades of J2. J2 (coffman ) is not semitic. Only J1 is connected to semitic peoples and semitic languages ( Phoenicians spoke semitic hence they are J1 too)( see Coffman). Need to specify that j2 is composed of different ancestries.

Dear Tianut: The DNA clues section was about the prevalence of J1 in Palestine and surrounding countries (J1 originated in this area (the only one, while only one subclade of J2 originated in north of the Levant ( remote isolated mountains not considered part of Semitic civilizations). The addition of J2 to the DNA clues disturbed the irony. If you are interested still in explaining J2 presence then you have to explain the whole picture about J2 ( that it is 8 subclades only one clade found in Arabic countries that of the Kurds while the rest of the clades are mainly in Europe. You would need to specify the difference between Jews and (Arabic Countries) that Jews have all these J2 subclades ( all not semitic) and Arab countries have only one clade!!. I prefer to not expand into J2 since it is irrelevant. In 2000 Nebet ( and Hammer before him) made a study of the suboverlapping of Haplotypes between arabs and Jews ( as if he is not the aware of the existance of Haplogroips by 2000!?) Then in 2001 made an apologistic study that Jews ARE SIMILAR TO NON Semitic peoples in the Middle East than to the Arabs) that came after great criticism from Diekenz Anthropoly blog run by a great genetist. Either these studies shoulb included or we better get rid of the old (vendicated studies in the article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.28.120 (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. What you are saying is very interesting. I'm not a geneticist and the DNA material has been challenging for me. Why don't you make some edits clarifying some of this? I will happily fix the language if you write the science and provide the sources. Tiamut 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC) I will gladly do this . but I think details should be in Haplogroup J1 and J2 articles.

According to a recent study of comparision between Lebanese muslims and Lebanses christians (Maronites) both had J1 but of both recent ancestry (arabs and jews) and earlier ancestry of J1 ( of the phoenicians and araemeans J1) However christians had more of phoenician (and other related semitic speaking peoples araemeans Canaanites et) than of the Arab J1 characterized by the Galili Modal Haplotype. ant DNA close to Galli modal haplotype is considered Arabic or jewish ( Cohan modal Haplotype and Sanaa modal haplotype and North African arab modal haplotype and the Bedoin of Negev desert modal haplotype (Nabataeans first son of Ishmael). The J1 DNA that modal haplotype that is a little bit further is considered of the Phonicians. For example DYS in Cohan modal Haplotype is 16 alleles ( found in Cohanim people and arabs#2 millions in Oman alone) while if DYS was 17 it becomes the Haplotype of the Arabs who conquered north Africal in 7th century AD ( Arabs of Muhammad and also of Ghassanids) the Nabataeans ( Bedoin of the Negev) have also close numbers. However the Phoenicians could be DYS 14 etc. The Cohan Modal haplotype is 6 codes ( 5 in addition to DYS 388 or 12 codes) both ways 6 or 12 the Arabs have closer numbers to Cohanim ( known to preserved Paternal ancestry from Aaron because they were special and the only descendents of Aaron) while Levites are descendents of Levites ( Levi is ancestor of Aaron) As concerning the number of J1 in Palestinians it was adjusted after Semino study to account for new readings of the previous studies by Nebet and Hammer when J1 could not be differentiated from J2 in 1998 and 2000. So it is at 62%. However these samples are even very scewed because they were made by three Israeli researchers ( nebet Behar and Hammer) (all of them work with Coffman in the Family DNA company) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.17.167 (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC) It is amazing that the Galilie Modal Haplotype (GMH) discovered by Nebet in 2000 in a sample of Palestinians in Galili ( Israel) became the Modal Haplotype of the Arabs of the 7th century conquest, but a very close haplotype is Cohan Modal Haplotype which is also found in Arabs in Oman ( in large numbers), Hence GMH could even represent the ancient jews and Cohan Modal Haplotype as well could represent the Arabs. The Arabs are the great possessers of GMH as well the CMH in J1 in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.17.167 (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To: Michael, the several refs regarding mutations and genetic diseases should be at the bottom. As regarding the Nebet studies he has two 2000 and 2001: in 2001 he conclude that haplotypes /groups overlap with palestinians and jews, However because of critisizm from Geneticists in 2001 he corrected himdself by concluding from the same study sample that jews were more similar to non arabs in Middle East than Arabs, and this is how I arranged that. The last section about the Gene flow from Africa is no longer valid since this female gene was found in the Europeans themselves ( from Neolithic times--preHistory). What was thought as aflow from slavery is actually the homeland of that female gene is the middle East( and africa). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.17.167 (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The truth

(Have removed rant from an editor now blocked, you can find it in history if you're really interested). PRtalk 19:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity?

Are Palestinians really so different from other surrounding Arabs, like Jordanians, to consider them separate ethnic group? After all borders in that area were drawn by colonial powers and almost never properly followed ethnic borders, so is it actualy possible to draw ethnic a line for example between Palestinian and Jordanian? Shouldn't palestinians count as simply part of Arabs? Btw, as we can see wiki article about arabs uses picture of family in ramallah at 1905, which indicates that there isn't any serious difference between palestinians and arabs. Also we do not have articles about Jordanians or Saudi Arabians or Iraqis or Tunesians or Libyans or Omanis as separate ethnic groups(almost all those redirect to articles about states). What makes Palestinians different from these that allows them to be categorised as ethnicity?--Staberinde 09:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the article? It does not claim that Palestinians are an ethnic group (though the argument can be made that they are), but rather a nation without a nation-state. There is no article on Lebanese people because they are covered under the article on Lebanon. The article on Palestine does not, however, cover the subject of the Palestinian people. Where do you suggest the subject of this people be discussed? Tiamut 08:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well article is categorized as "Ethnic groups in middle east", if Palestinians are not separate ethnicity then maybe the misleading cathegory should be removed?--Staberinde 16:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I've removed it. <<-armon->> 05:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)