Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:52, 12 January 2013

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Palestinians. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Palestinians at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Human Genetic History (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

who is a palestinian?

from the discussion above, it seems that there are those who feel that a person who lived in palestine at point 'x' in history is a palestinian, but someone who lived in palestine at point 'y' in history is not. it is not clear to me how we can include one and not the other. nableezy insists (and i might be stating this wrong, so please, nableezy, let me know) that only arabs can be seen as palestinians. i had written (on this page, that all people living in israel before 1948 were called palestinians. the companies they created included 'the palestine brewery (today it is 'nesher beer'), the palestine post (today it is the 'jerusalem post'), etc. -- i feel that the title needs to be changed to the article (list of palestinians). my suggestion is, for that article, "list of arab palestinians", or "list of palestinian arabs". and then, to create another article "list of people associated with palestine" and include a link back as well. (oh, i am discussing it here because nableezy asked me to). Soosim (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean then that all of those who editwarred against classifying Justin Martyr and Jesus Christ as Palestinians, though many academic RS do so qualify them, were wrong?--Nishidani (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

not familiar with that edit war, but i think the overall issue can be dealt with (two lists) Soosim (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

First, I did not say only Arabs, I said only people that sources identify as being Palestinian, not just anybody who lived in Palestine. Nish, I'm sorry, but I think you need sources that dont just identify so and so as Palestinian but ones that actually associate them with the people known as Palestinians today. nableezy - 13:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

But the point of directing you here wasnt to have the same argument here. If you think that Palestinian is not accurate, then you should be arguing for this article to be changed to Palestinian Arabs. But so long as the main article is Palestinian people then the child article (List of Palestinians) will use the same nomenclature. nableezy - 13:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

nableezy - you are saying that it is 'black or white' - either someone is palestinian or not. and that palestinian is not someone born in palestine (regardless of year) and lived in palestine, but someone who is sourced as being palestinian. correct? and this would include the child of palestinians who was born in denmark, doesn't speak arabic, has never been to palestine, etc., correct? but not include a person who is jewish, let's say, was born in palestine and lived in palestine, correct? and lastly....the lede says "The Palestinian people, (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī) also referred to as Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون‎, al-Filasṭīniyyūn), are the modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab." well, the lede says 'lived in palestine', and doesn't all, but only 'largely', so that certainly opens the door to people who are not "culturally and linguistically arab", correct? Soosim (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

What I am saying is that a. on Misplaced Pages a Palestinian is somebody who reliable sources say is a Palestinian (in the modern sense of the word). And b. the term Palestinian, in current usage, does not require the adjective Arab to modify it, as you can see from any number of sources. nableezy - 14:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Nab. I made a rhetorical point, since the ingrained habit of POV-pushers is to work from article to article, taking mutually contradictory stances according to the perceived politics (no reference to Soosim in this regard). As to your objection, the Palestinian people article is anomalous, as I have exhaustively documented, because it is the only article which denies an historic past and continuity with the past for the people who live there. It does so because the premise has been established that, uniquely, Palestinians must be identified in terms of national consciousness. On that principle, no article about the Welsh, Irish, Basques, Albanians, Kurds etc, etc.etc. etc., should have (a) material before the 19th-20th century. They all do. The veto or censure here, or premise, is politically motivated, self-evidently. Israelis qua Israelis have a history that starts with the establishment of the state in 1948, and the Palestinians also must comply. It's dumb mirroring for specious parity. One day it will be fixed, when encyclopedic editors prevail, but I'm in no hurry.--Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I dont disagree with you on the faults of this article. My point is that if you want to say Jesus or Justin Martyr was a Palestinian in the modern sense of the word you need a source that doesn't just call them Palestinian but relates that to the modern people. nableezy - 14:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Which completely misses the point I made. Soosim's point is rather incoherent, but shares the same premise you have: i.e., that Palestinians are only people defined by others, ot themselves, first by the British and then by the state of Israel, (and only lastly by themselves). One does badly to jump on anomalies in order to make any definition impossible. No people on earth can be defined as some editors are asking Palestinians to be defined - as I have often noted the parallel article on Jewish people fails several tests of this kind, but no one wants to adjust it, and I certainly am not going to fuss. Attempts to jolt commonsense by latching onto two decades of political definitions should be seen for what they are, destabilizing of commonsense, with a POV fallout. --Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It may miss the point, but thats because of the rules of the website. I am not saying that the British or the Israelis define the Palestinians, I am saying that here the only thing that counts is reliable sources. But I think you miss the POV fallout of including anybody from Palestine. You end up with edits like this in which the term Palestinian is disassociated from the people. That these people are no longer Palestinians but rather simply people associated with Palestine, and the identity of the people is denied.

So whats the answer here? I think the only way to deal with this is to limit the term Palestinian, in current usage, to the people that reliable sources identify as Palestinians or who self-identify as Palestinian (eg Uri Davis). Not in a general sense as in from Palestine, but of members of what is now called the Palestinian people. nableezy - 15:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Don'ìt misunderstand me. I'm quite aware of the games played here, and the nonsensical compromises and salients and defensive trenches one is forced to set up to avoid the onset of pure idiocy in the I/P area. But precisely because of this articles here are utterly distorted. I think one should take particular care not to to allow the agenda of these articles to be dictated by defensiveness against faulty assumptions, usually coming from you know where. Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree on self-identify. I have often read of sabras who deny they are Palestinian, Moshe Dayan, for example, made a point in his autobiography of insisting he was a Jewish Zionist born in Eretz Israel, and regarded the term 'Palestine' as a disturbance to his identity (Story of my Life, Warner Books 1976 pp.24-5). The example adequately disposes of the assumption made by editors that, since Jews born in or carrying a Palestinian passport 1919-1948, ipso facto implies one is (a)entitled to define them as Palestinians (b) then destabilize the definition here. One uses reliable source, as you say. One mustn't make deductions. I note Mo Yan got the nobel for literature today. Well Gao Xingjian got it 12 year ago, but he is classified as a French nobel Prize winner because birthplace doesn't count, the citizenship adopted permanently at some point in one's life does.--Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree completely with Nish. The key to this debate is to consider it in the wider context - i.e. to look at how other unrelated ethnicities define their identity. Nish's point about Welsh, Irish, Basques, Albanians, Kurds is spot on. And there are many many others - all one has to do is look at the historiography and nationalism article to understand the reason for this.

As an aside, I'm not sure anyone is advocating it at the moment, but let me quickly say that I am not a fan of us using the term "Palestinian Arabs" in this article because the term Arab in this context is used in a linguistic sense only, and therefore muddies the waters.

So, it seems we all agree that Palestinian people are the "modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries". So for those who think that we should draw the line of "Palestinian" with the British Mandate, are you saying that these ancestors should not have a name for their grouping? For example, should we confine Procopius, Eusebius, Al-Shafi‘i, Al-Muqaddasi and Mujir al-Din to an identitiless limbo forever? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

On that point, Speaking of the mid-1980s, Rayek Rizek of the NeveShalom/Wahat as-Salaam community,

blockquote>‘Very quickly I found myself in confrontation with some of the Jewish members over the question of my identity as a Palestinian. In Israel the standard term for us is Israeli Arabs. The meaning is that ethnically we belong to the Arab nations outside of Israel, while we owe our citizenship and allegiance to Israel. There is no place in this definition for our Palestinian nationality and culture.’ Grace Feuerverger, Oasis of Dreams: Teaching and Learning Peace in a Jewish-Palestinian Village in Israel. Routledge. ISBN 9780415929394. p.135

-I also completely agree with both Oncenawhile and Nishidani on what they have said here, there is no reason the Palestinians deserve a page that does not follow suit with other Ethnicity pages such as those stated above.

-Also I am with Oncenawhile in the view that this article should not be named "Palestinian Arabs". As we have discussed on here before, Arab is a cultural-linguistic term and does indeed muddy the waters. Palestinians, like many people around the world have been ruled by different empires and have absorbed varying degrees from each. Upon the Islamic conquest, Palestinians were ruled by an Islamic Arab empire and through those times they became Arabized in a cultural and linguistic sense, and although some genetic influx has been noted into the Palestinian gene pool from these times, it is minor admix, and the Palestinians have remained as a whole a distinct identity who's closest relatives are other Levantine Ethnicities such as the Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians.

-For example, this would be like renaming the Irish ethnicity article to "Irish English" because the Irish have been Englishized (Anglicized) through history and predominately now speak English and have absorbed bits of English culture.

-Regarding the "Israeli-Arab" term, I find it odd that there is no Israeli-Palestinian term, it's almost as if the Israeli's do not recognize a distinct Palestinian ethnicity and culture, but would rather lump them into the blanket term Arab because that in the modern sense disassociates them with Palestine or Israel. Lazyfoxx Lazyfoxx 22:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

shall Palestine be admitted as a New in United Nation member? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.254.191 (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Few questions and comments:

1. As far as I understand from the article and the comments I read so far, not all people who are born and have ancestors in Palestine are identified as Palestinians. Palestinian, in this definition is a self-denominated ethnicity.
2. Is it not clear to you all that Palestine and Erets Yisrael are just two different names for the same piece of earth? That's why Israeli and Palestinian are geographically the same thing, but politically it's something altogether different.
3. That's why, the definition of the lede is not neutral, rather politically motivated.
4. The denomination "Arab" neither, is not ethnical rather cultural, unlike what Onceawhile says. Syrians, Jordanians etc. are called Arabs, however they aren't ethnically Arabs, only culturally.
5. So, the most neutral way of calling the people mentioned in this article is "Arabs of Palestine" and not Palestinian people. If you're going to call them Palestinian people, then you've to include the Jews, the Samaritans etc. as well. If not, this is means you're doing just politics and thus not neutral editorship.
6. Another contradiction in the leading paragraphs is that you're including the Druze in the Palestinian people, however they do not consider themselves to be such... --Universal Life (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
7. One more point I need to say. See this sentence. "According to Rashid Khalidi, the modern Palestinian people now understand their identity as encompassing the heritage of all ages from biblical times up to the Ottoman period." Such a sentence in the lead is so much misleading. Most of the Turkish people believe that they come from wolves and many historical things are thought differently in history, so most Turkish people have a different information about their own identity and history than the rest of the world. So, can we include any of these misleading infos in the leading paragraphs about the Turkish people? Analogy! --Universal Life (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My responses:

1. It is more that some people chose to "opt-out" - i.e. Palestinian Jews who became Israelis. This phenomenon has precedent in many other ethnicities - for example many anti-zionist Jews do not consider themselves ethnically Jewish, Pakistanis whose ancestors came from what is now India do not consider themselves Indian, Greeks whose ancestors came from what is now Turkey etc etc etc. Many more examples are on Population transfer.

2. See previous answer

3. I suggest you read the sources in the article.

4. I think you've misunderstood me - I think we are saying the same thing. The only thing I would say is that the "linguistic" is the primary sense of the word Arab to refer to Palestinians. Cultural is correct to but less so - the diversity of culture through the Arab world is significant

5. Sorry but no - i think you have misunderstood, see my other comments.

6. Some of them do - please read the sources.

7. I suggest you go an read about nationalism and ethnicity. There seems to be much that you do not understand.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Some responses back (not in order):

1. You assume that there's much that I don't understand about the concepts of nationalism and ethnicity and through that assumption you're avoiding to properly answer the questions and creating a wrong image that my points are there due to an absence of knowledge. This is completely wrong. (Assuming good faith, I say, probably you're not doing this on purpose, so don't take it as a personal attack, I'm just pointing to the effect)
2. The examples you gave do not provide good examples for this case. Let me explain:
3. There's a distinction between national identity and ethnic identity. National identities change over time, in fact, they change a lot, whereas ethnic identities do not change so easily. An ethnically Greek person of Turkey - called Rum - is Greek (by ethnicity) and Turkish (by nationality). If this person, due to some reasons - can be population exchange or migration - starts to live in Greece and gets Greek citizenship or feels belonging to Greece, his/her national identity changes into Greek (by nationality). You see how easily one's national identity can change.
4. I have a friend who is born in a village X of what's Bangladesh today. He says, he has been living all of his life in that village X and he thought of himself always as an "X"ian (belonging to that village X). He said to me, that they were (the people of his village) first "Indians" (by nationality), and one day they were anounced that they had become "Pakistanis" (of course still by nationality), and still another day some years later, they were announced that they had become "Bangladeshis" (by nationality) now. However my friend remained the same person (perhaps matured a bit both physically & mentally) during all those years. As you see the change in the national identity does not change the other identities.
5. There're also other identities, such as "religious identity" and "identity by geography" or "geographical identity". Such identities sometimes play role in ethnogenesis.
6. "Palestinian" simply means "Belonging to Palestine" and Palestine is simply a geographical region. I'm not referring here to the PA, as this article also doesn't define Palestinians as citizens of the Palestinian Authorities.
7. So, Palestinian art should mean any art produced in Palestine, be it in Tel Aviv or Jenin.
8. And Palestinian people are any people that live on Palestine and accept that piece of land as their-own, whatever be their race, creed, language or ideology and by whatever appelations they call themselves. Appelations or self-denominations are not significant in geographical identities as such appelations can again swiftly change through the influence of media and different ideologies.
9. "Palestinian" is basically a geographical identity and should include everybody and everything in its territories.
10. Do we have an agreement until this point? If not, could anyone clearly mention what is it that they think is wrong in this?

--Universal Life (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi UL, you raise some interesting points. Your reference to ethnogenesis is excellent - I see I was wrong to suggest you haven't read enough.

Your analysis does hit a wrong turn though. Ethnogenesis can go in reverse, and people can have multiple overlapping ethnicities. Your friend from Bangladesh probably sees himself as e.g. both ethnically Sylheti and ethnically Bengali (multiple overlapping). Hi grandfather probably saw himself as ethnically (and nationally) Indian before partition, but no longer does so (going in reverse). The same is true to Palestine-Israel - Palestinian Jews dropped their ethnic ethnicities, whilst Eastern European Jews got new ones. The world is the way it is and people view themselves the way they do - this encyclopedia just records the facts as they are. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello my friend, reading your answer gave a positive smile to my face and made me happy. Actually I was worried that I would get some kind of an argument war, with people who don't listen to the other side of the argument properly - something I didn't want at all. So, first of all, thank you for having listened to what I've said and for having written back humbly. I'm happy we can speak through logic and open-mindedness :)

You're also very right about overlapping ethnicities and about my Bengali friend, you were correct suggesting he is Sylheti. However he's so old, he was of Indian nationality in his youth :)) - I like to befriend people from all ages, ethnicities and creeds. I've been to Bengal 6 times until now & I can speak & read some Bengali.

Similarly, since 2006, I've been very curious to comprehend thorougly about what's going on in Israel/Palestine, so I've visited the area 3 times and have read many sources from both sides and from so-called neutral sources (I haven't found one, I hope I'll write one in the future), including personal diaries of people living there around 1920s etc. I've both visited Palestinian Arab villages and Jewish communities (both secular and religious), trying to understand all of the sides. I befriend all, as I do not believe that enmity is found in the people but I rather believe that enmity is artificial and created and sustained by the leaders. (I can honestly say that Palestinian Arab kids in the East Talpiyot region of Jerusalem are very very good at football indeed :)) )

I'm planning to visit the area soon again and this time, I definitely want to go to Al-Ramla, to meet with Dalia, one of the two heroes of the book "The Lemon Tree" and to interview her if possible. :)

Sorry for the off-the-hook chit-chat, I'm not of any conclusive decision yet about the subject, it is a very deep and complicated issue indeed. However, I'll ponder and go deeper about the "going in reverse of the ethnogenesis" of the Palestinian Jews. Even though, I know a bit about the subject, I've to research a little more in order to give any conclusive answer. So, I'll answer back, rather saying that, yes indeed they've completely withdrawn from their Palestinian identities or yes&no, they've only partially withdrawn from that identity...I'll look into it.

While, I'm at it, can I suggest you humbly and friendly to read one excerpt from Einstein's letters about Palestine written in 1946? I would be glad to hear what you think about it :)

I wish to explain why I believe difficulties in Palestine exist. First, difficulties between the Jews and Arabs are artificially created and are created by the English. I believe, if there would be a really honest government for the people there, that got the Arabs and the Jews together, there would be nothing to fear...

...the English had two interests. The first was to have raw materials for their industry, also the oil in those countries...Everywhere there are big landowners who are exploiters of the human race...The British are always in a passive alliance with those land-possessing owners...
It is my impression that Palestine is a kind of small model India...
...I am compelled to consider in Palestine the Mufti (Amin al-Husseini)...
The electors did not elect him. They refuted him. The separatists used their power to bring him to his important position...

Now how can I explain otherwise that national troublemaking is a British enterprise?

— Albert Einstein, January 11, 1946; In front of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine

--Universal Life (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And I want to add one letter from Einstein to a friend of him:)

Dear Michele,

The article you sent me is a rather accurate report of my statement before the Palestine Commission in Washington. If you had an idea of the perfidy with which the English act to apply their well-tried principle of "divide et impera" (divide and rule), you wouldn't have been as surprised by the brusqueness of my charge as has apparently been the case. My testimony relies on very reliable information and was also much more precise than the article reveals.
If you see my name brought up from time to time in connection with political excursions, you shouldn't think that I spend much time on such matters, since it would be sad to waste much energy for the skimpy soil of politics. From time to time, however, a moment arrives when I cannot help myself,...when one can draw public attention to the necessity of a world government, without which all our human grandeur will go to the dogs...
Yours with affectionate regards,

Albert

— Albert Einstein to his good friend Michele Besso in April 21, 1946

--Universal Life (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi UL, I am glad to see I guessed right! I'm going to reply to your post on your talk page at User talk:Universal Life. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

unexplained edits and reverts

Evildoer, there are a number of problems with your edits and an important issue with your editing. To begin with the editing issue, when you make an edit that is challenged it is incumbent upon you to go to the talk page to seek a consensus for your changes. Re-reverting to make the contested edit is not how things are supposed to be done here. As to the actual problems with the edits:

• Why were Levantines, Mediterraneans, Sea Peoples removed from related to?
• Why did you change European Jews to non-Jewish Europeans to Ashkenazi Jews to indigenous European groups?
• Why did you change Jewish immigrants to Jewish returnees in the wikilink aliyah? You'll notice the linked article begins with Aliyah is the immigration of Jews .... Are you under the impression that the Jewish immigrants to Palestine had been there before?

Please self-revert your changes and seek consensus for them here. nableezy - 22:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• I put Mediterraneans and Sea Peoples back just now. I replaced Levantines with Middle Eastern peoples, as it's more general.
• Because when someone says "European Jew", they usually mean "Ashkenazi Jew". However, it appears that I forgot to take Sephardic Jews into account when I made that edit. A minor error in judgment.
• Regarding "European Jews to non-Jewish Europeans", I thought the phrasing was confusing, so I tried to make it clearer. I also don't see how "indigenous Europeans" is inaccurate, unless you believe Jews are an aboriginal people of Europe.
• I don't know why it says "immigration of the Jews" on the Aliyah page. However, in most if not all other contexts, it means "return of the Jews from the diaspora". In that sense, the word "immigrant" directly implies that Jews have no ties to the region. Not only is that inaccurate, but POV pushing in its own right.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Before editing again and again and again - can we get you to read over Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle one of our basic conduct essays. We talk - come to a consensus - then edit after the conversation is concluded.Moxy (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the recurring problems I seem to have is that conversations between me and other editors never seem to go anywhere, especially when the other guy has a fairly strong POV. In most cases, they just quit midway through the conversation so as to keep the article the way it is, knowing that I will be accused of edit warring if I try to restore my edits. Do I have a strong POV myself? Yes. I am of Jewish descent myself and it's hard to remain calm when I see half-truths, if not outright lies, about my people being promulgated throughout the articles (such as that we are "colonists" and "ethnically European"). Manufactured realities are a familiar part of our history, and that's one of the reasons I am here, to make sure everything pertaining to the Jewish people remains strictly accurate and above all, neutral.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to monitor your own neutrality as well as other peoples'. There is nothing neutral about "Jewish returnees" in reference to persons who have never been there before. It is a political statement and not a neutral expression. People who move from one country to another are called emigrants and immigrants. Those are the neutral words for them. Even the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics uses those words in its English pages. Zero 00:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps because those other guys dont believe it to be neutral to call European Jewish immigrants to Palestine returnees and that conversion among indigenous Europeans plays no role in the population of Ashkenazi Jews. That isnt a manufactured reality, and you would do well to understand that your view on a topic does not equate to what Misplaced Pages calls neutral. Academic sources routinely discuss Jewish immigration, including illegal immigration, to Palestine. It is no more neutral to call these immigrants returnees than it is to call them invaders. nableezy - 00:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, would a Native American family be considered immigrants if they moved to America after about 100 years or so? If your answer is yes, then I will concede.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The two cases are not analogous, so I dont see the point of responding. I dont need you to concede, but Im hoping that youll recognize that Misplaced Pages is not Zionist, and that it shouldn't adopt a Zionist narrative. The idea that this is a return is a POV, one whose opposing POV is that this is an invasion. You very obviously identify with one of those POVs and reject the other, but that does not mean that yours is "neutral". nableezy - 01:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Evildoer, I do not understand your consistent reverts and edits on this area, if you personally believe certain groups are not related to eachother, that's perfectly alright, you're entitled to your own views, but you cannot make edits like this based solely on your beliefs. Also there is no reason to remove Levantines from the list and replace it with the countries that make up the Levant, that just adds more words, when people can simply click on the Levant and see the countries that make it up. Regarding the Jewish section, why did you change it to Israeli's? That is not very informative considering Israel has Palestinians in it's population, and other ethnic groups that are not related to Palestinians as well. Keeping it set as Jews, while linking to Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrahi, shows the various specific Jewish groups related ethnically and genetically to the Palestinians. Lazyfoxx 06:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see much of a point in adding Sea Peoples, because they no longer exist as far as I know. Other than that, the list is fine as it is now, I guess. All I did was remove some parenthesis.Evildoer187 (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it's best to just include modern peoples labels in this area, that is fine with me, although the Sea People's make up an important part of Palestinians history. Regarding Jews however, it is not accurate to encompass Askenazi and Sephardic's in the Levantine label, these groups are modern immigrants from Central Europe and Other regions of Europe, while some Mizrahi Jews are indeed Levantine, others are from other countries in the near east and do not belong in the label. Lazyfoxx 12:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

As part of a larger Jewish diaspora, both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews trace their origins to the Levant. That's why I included them as part of the Levantine group. I still think they should be included there.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a personal opinion that discards the views of scholars (eg Shlomo Sand}. nableezy - 09:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sand's views are WP:FRINGE and contradicted by more numerous scholars (i.e. Josephus, Bartal, etc) with expertise in the field of antiquity and Jewish history, of which Sand has neither. That's without even mentioning numerous genetic studies which undermine his theory of Khazar origins. As it stands, consensus does not support Sand's arguments, so we can not lend any more weight to it than we would to any other fringe theory. Evildoer187 (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Evildoer187, if you cannot disagree with another editor without accusing that person of being an antisemite, you don't belong here. Period. Now retract what you've written, apologize to nableezy, and maybe you won't end up at WP:A/E. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 04:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. I will delete the offensive parts of my statement then. I apologize.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I didnt see much wrong with it. But you may want to reign in the somewhat absurd analogies so that you arent comparing the work of a Jewish university professor at an Israeli school to an antisemitic forgery. As far as the content argument, Ill leave it to others to argue about the specific sources, but I dont think Misplaced Pages can take the position that all Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jews trace their origin to the Levant by any means other than tradition. nableezy - 06:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The article has been restored to the version before the edit war - And so we are all clear on this let me make sure all read the talk page main note at the top The article Palestinian people, along with other articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies - Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning.Moxy (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

I can see that one of the older versions of this article has been restored. However, there are several problems with it...

• "Other Levantines" is unnecessary, because they already fall under the bracket of Middle Eastern peoples, along with the Jewish diaspora, Arabs, etc.

• Travelers is spelled wrong.

• Bedouin is not capitalized.

• "In recent years, many genetic studies have demonstrated that, at least paternally, most of the various Jewish ethnic divisions and the Palestinians – and in many cases other Levantines – are genetically closer to each other than the Palestinians or the various Jewish groups to European groups." This is a much more accurate and complete statement than what is already there. The study in question was carried out on multiple Jewish diaspora groups, not just Ashkenazi and European Sephardi. I don't hold a strong opinion on this one in particular, but I would still recommend this revision.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Evildoer, actually there is no reason to remove Levantines from the related peoples, in fact other Levantines are the most related peoples to Palestinians so that is a null point to have it removed, same goes for the Jewish diaspora and Arabs, both equally related groups to the Palestinians in different lights of view, it is nice to let readers know just enough specifics, but also to link them to the broader range as well, as is done with the "other Middle eastern peoples" at the end. Also if you find spelling errors, feel free to fix them, you do not need to worry, in fact I believe edits such as the misspellings of Travelers and Bedouin would be considered minor edits, because there is not much to dispute with spelling unless we are dealing with multiple language interpretation. Lazyfoxx 16:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)

Done. What about the fourth proposed edit. You still haven't commented on that.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello?Evildoer187 (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked it over and revisited the study, and do not think that it should be worded that way, because although the study does include some non-european jews in its studies, it also does include many european jews, such as ashkenazi and sephardic jews, who are classified as european jews by definition. If you still feel it should, I encourage more editors to share their insight on this, besides myself. Lazyfoxx 00:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Behar study

Lazyfoxx could you please explain where does it say what you wrote in the article? Especially this " partial common ancestry or some recent ancestral influx from the Arabian peninsula. However it must be considered that these individuals may genetically cluster close due to geographical proximity rather than direct common ancestry, because some Bedouins, especially Negev Bedouins, have deep ancestral roots in Arabia and have lived in close proximity to Palestinians for hundreds of years.".As words partial and the last sentence in not in the source at all.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's called original research. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Shrike, I do express some concern with your edits as you have only included a small sentence from the study with no context and also failed to include other relevant information from the study concerning the Palestinian's genetics. First off, Autosomal Dna is noted to be similar with covergent populations, that is basic genetics, and this section about Palestinians is about their genetics, so accurate information should be expressed. Palestinians have lived in very close proximity to Negev bedouins, as they are and have been geographic neighbors. Also the rest of my addition, especially the bit comparing the Palestinians tested to various Jewish divisions is blatantly stated in the study, I suggest you read through again, the whole study in PDF rather than the abstract that is linked to in the reference. I believe the focus of the study was concerning Jewish populations and their relatedness to Palestinians and others if i'm not correct.

"According to a 2010 study by Behar at al titled "The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people," there is a close relationship between most contemporary Jews and non-Jewish populations from the Levant, such as Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, and Jordanians. Behar's explanation for these observations is a common genetic origin, which is consistent with an historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant. "

If you wish to insist that some Palestinians are related to Negev Bedouins and Jordanians, you must at least not cherry pick what you wish to include from the study and also include the information about the Jewish populations and their relatedness to the Palestinians. The study shows in autosomal comparison and y-dna comparison maps that only a portion of Palestinians cluster near the Bedouins, Jordanians, and Saudi's tested, not all of the Palestinians tested. Lazyfoxx 06:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The extended version still includes original research. Palestinians and Bedouins living in proximitry is no guarantee that they are intermingling (baby-making). Samaritans live in the Levant but many studies show that they don't baby-make much outside their communities. Bedouins, open and generous though they be, may not necessarily have been adding genetic material to their trade goods.

Also, it isn't cherry picking to discuss Palestinians without mentioning Jews. That argument, in this case, is self-defeating. Certainly you aren't suggesting that Palestinian identity is inexorably linked to Jews, right? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Living in close proximity is no guarantee by itself that they intermingled, I agree with you Chicago Style. In the Behar study Shrike posted, it is shown that a few Palestinians cluster away from other Palestinians, more towards the Negev Bedouins in the study, this could, but does not positively indicate some geneflow between those individuals, however minute. Either way it would only apply to the small group of individuals in that cluster, not the group as a whole, and certainly not to the entire Palestinian population as a whole so I do not believe it can be applied in that context as Shrike intended with their edit.

But yes it is cherry picking in this context to only include a small sentence concerning Bedouins with no context from a study about "Jewish Genetics and the relationship of Jews to other peoples." Those actions show a considerable bias if the rest of the study is not considered and acknowledged. Let's say for example it was study on Irish people and their relatedness to other groups, and in the study the Irish are found to cluster closely to both some English individuals tested but also with some Scottish individuals tested. Now by your reasoning it is sufficient to just say that the Irish individuals are related to the English, without mentioning the Scottish? That would lead a reader to believe that the Irish are only related to the English. That is not accurate reasoning and in fact seems like there would be some agenda behind such actions.

Also, inexorably linked to Jews? Some of the early Palestinians were Jewish while some Gentile individuals, that much is fact, Chicago Style, do you have an issue with that? Jewish individuals like others in Palestine have been absorbed into the Palestinian people, when discussing genetics there's no reason to leave anyone out from an unbiased standpoint, especially the Jews. User:Lazyfoxx Lazyfoxx 07:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Your last paragraph really threw me. Do you have a sexxy-time viewing machine? Did Able make babies with Eve? Was Da Vinci gay? Is the milkman my dad? Genetics studies can be used to make inferences about the past. Only sexxy-time viewing machines can give you "facts" about past events. Please, enlighten me about how you know Canaanites = Jews = Palestinians and ≠ Arabs. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I really wasn't going to dignify you with a response after reading what you just wrote, what kind of response was that? You really threw me. I've assumed good faith, but you have shown you are obviously quite an immature and agenda driven individual. Also, englighten me where have I said and I quote you, "Canaanites = Jews = Palestinians and =/= Arabs"? Rather than put words into my mouth with whatever agenda you are trying to fulfill, I suggest you draw your attention to articles you'd actually be able to improve rather than degrade ones like this with your behavioral nonsense. My goal here is the improvement of this article and the protection of it from bias, especially from Zionist viewpoints but also from Radical viewpoints on the other sides and angles related to these topics, what is your purpose here? user:lazyfoxx Lazyfoxx 11:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Top-importance Palestine-related articles
• Palestine-related articles needing attention
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class Ethnic groups articles
• High-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• High-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Arab world articles
• Top-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles