Misplaced Pages

Talk:Palestinians: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:23, 2 June 2006 editRamallite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,949 editsm Allegations can be checked: one more link← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:12, 12 January 2025 edit undoBogazicili (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,835 edits Edit warring: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{limitedgeographicscope}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}
{{not a forum}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Top|attention=yes}}
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Arab world |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Human Genetic History|importance=low|attention=yes}}
}}
{{Press
|author = Hava Mendelle
|title = Is Misplaced Pages struggling to maintain neutrality in times of political unrest?
|date = December 23, 2023
|org = ]
|url = https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/12/is-wikipedia-struggling-to-maintain-neutrality-in-times-of-political-unrest/
|lang = en-US
|quote = There is a group of pro-Israel editors arguing with a group of pro-Palestinian editors about the misuse of a source on the genetic link between the ancient Canaanites and modern Jews and Arabs.
|archiveurl =
|archivedate = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate = December 23, 2023
|author2 = Yaakov Menken
|title2 = Misplaced Pages hates Israel and Jews
|date2 = August 6, 2024
|org2 = ]
|url2 = https://www.jns.org/wikipedia-hates-israel-and-jews/
|lang2 =
|quote2 = According to Misplaced Pages, an “apartheid” state is a Middle Eastern country in which both Jews and Arabs have civil rights, “Palestine” is a country that actually exists and Arabs are natives of the region.
|archiveurl2 =
|archivedate2 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate2 = August 6, 2024
|author3 = Shlomit Aharoni Lir
|title3 = The crime of the century? Bias in the English Misplaced Pages article on Zionism
|date3 = November 5, 2024
|org3 = ]
|url3 = https://www.ynetnews.com/article/syf5kylb1g
|lang3 =
|quote3 = This is how the article might look if it were subjected to a similar bias as seen in the ] article.
|archiveurl3 =
|archivedate3 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate3 = November 5, 2024
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 27
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Palestinians/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Palestinians/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Palestinians/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{copied|from=Palestinian hip hop|to=Palestinians|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=551054631&oldid=prev}}


== Property Losses Estimate ==
==Archive==
Note that previous discussions on this topic are archived here:


The last sentence of the header reads:
] ]-], ]
"According to Perry Anderson, it is estimated that half of the population in the Palestinian territories are refugees and that they have collectively suffered approximately US$300 billion in property losses due to Israeli confiscations, at 2008–09 prices."
] ], ]-], ]
] ], ]-], ]
-----


However, the *total* national wealth of neighbouring Jordan (population >10M, greater than 2x the current population of the Gaza Strip + the West Bank) is $146 billion, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_countries_by_total_wealth. Even if property in Israel is substantially more valuable per square foot (possible), Israel's total national wealth is only $1,046 billion or $1.05 trillion (same source), and Israel is an unusually stable/rich/technologically innovative country by Middle Eastern standards so the land in an independent Palestine has no guarantee to be as valuable as land in the state of Israel.


I submit that this sentence should be removed as not credible, or at least have some sort of qualification added to it providing context (such as the total wealth of neighbouring Jordan).
== Jewish minorities? ==
"The Palestinian population is largely ] ], with ], ], ''']''', and ] minorities." Who comprises the Jewish minority of the Palestinian population? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 06:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


== Indigineity ==
: ]: "there are also about 300 Samaritans and a few thousand Jews from the Neturei Karta group who consider themselves Palestinian." - ] 22:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
<!-- ] 10:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740391341}}
is based on sources and both reverters have provided none for their view, instead accusing editors relying on sources of POV pushing. ] (]) 08:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


:I would have also expected they contribute to this discussion by demonstrating which RS disagree. ] (]) 14:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:: For which see : "We seek to live in the land of Palestine as anti Zionist Jews. To reside as loyal and peaceful Palestinian citizens..." - ] 23:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
::{{ping|Owenglyndur}} Consensus is built on WP guidelines and involves participating in the talk page discussion, not just refusal to accept some material. ] (]) 09:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
*{{re|Selfstudier}} can you provide several references, including the exact text of the reference, that say Palestinians are indigenous. (I know they are already in the article, provide them below as well so we can compare them with any sources that say otherwise). ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
*:Afaics, based on the latest revert by {{re|ABHammad}}, this is currently all about the difference between "native to" and "descending from". I do not understand the fuss over "native to", are there sources saying they are not? How can they be descended from but not native to?
*:In fact based on the sourcing below, there is a good case for just describing them as indigeneous. ] (]) 09:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
*::{{ping|ABHammad}} same question as above. ] (]) 15:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


:I see, that is their goal? And yet they are currently not living there, nor do they call themselves Palestinians, nor are they Palestinian citizens. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 03:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


=== Sources ===
::I think that statement refers to the original term "Palestinian" which encompassed anybody living on the land. Also, a top official of Neturei Karta, Rabbi Moshe Hirsch, was "Minister for Jewish Affairs" in the first PA government in 1996. If we want to get into specifics, we have at least one couple who are close friends of my family where the husband is Palestinian and the wife is Jewish, born abroad and now "naturalized" inasmuch as that makes sense in a non-sovereign country. Both have Palestinian IDs and are residents. And I know of a few other similar cases as well. So both historically and currently, to claim that there are no Palestinians who are Jewish is untrue. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 04:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Let's collect up sources here, these are mentioned in the article:
{{cite book |author=Dowty, Alan |year=2008 |title=Israel/Palestine |location=London, UK |publisher=] |page=221 |isbn=978-0-7456-4243-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RrcoTW_vKDUC&pg=PA221 |quote=Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture. |author-link=Alan Dowty |access-date=29 November 2023 |archive-date=29 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231129193828/https://books.google.com/books?id=RrcoTW_vKDUC&pg=PA221#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status=live }}


{{cite book |last=Gelvin |first=James L. |title=The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GDaZAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA93 |date=13 January 2014 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-107-47077-4 |page=93 |quote= Furthermore, Zionism itself was also defined by its opposition to the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants of the region. Both the "conquest of land" and the "conquest of labor" slogans that became central to the dominant strain of Zionism in the Yishuv originated as a result of the Zionist confrontation with the Palestinian "other". |access-date=29 November 2023 |archive-date=29 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231129192547/https://books.google.com/books?id=GDaZAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA93#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status=live }}
:The original statements was a theoretical political position, not an actual reflection of reality. And regarding the tiny number of Jews who have Palestinian IDs, I suspect that there are probably several Buddhists who are Palestinians as well; should they be mentioned? The "Jewish minority", such as they are, are an insignificant number, and they are only listed here for political purposes. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 04:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


* Abu-Libdeh, Bassam, Peter D. Turnpenny, and Ahmed Teebi. 2012. "Genetic Disease in Palestine and Palestinians". Pp. 700–11 in ''Genomics and Health in the Developing World'', edited by D. Kumar. ]. p. 700: "Palestinians are an indigenous people who either live in, or originate from, historical Palestine.... Although the Muslims guaranteed security and allowed religious freedom to all inhabitants of the region, the majority converted to Islam and adopted Arab culture."
::The problem here is that the meaning of the term "Palestinian" has changed over the years. I have read books from the 1940s that speak of Palestinians taking it for granted that the term refers to Jews living in the ]. I would propose that we can have a subcategory under ] called ] or something along those lines. I am trying to figure out the political implications of such a categorization - on the one hand, it makes the point that there are lots of Jews native to the area prior to the establishment of Israel; on the other, it is consistent with the PLO charter that the Palestinian nationality has nothing to do with language (though it is supposed to be part of the pan-Arabic nation). --] 22:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


] argues otherwise, writing that Palestinians in ] times were "cutely aware of the distinctiveness of Palestinian history ..." and "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 ] who had lived in the country since time immemorial, including the ancient ] and the ] before them." Khalidi, W., 1984, p. 32
If you find the Buddhists, by all means. But the Jewish minority has much more of a history.


Not mentioned in the article:
] 04:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
],
"While each of these nations challenges the cultural and political legitimacy of the other '''serious scholarship informs us that both the Palestinians and the Israelis are indigenous to the territories that was once known as Canaan'''."


Native Peoples of the World: An Encylopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues Steven L. Danver Routledge 2012
:It does? What exactly is that history? An Israeli member of Neturei Karta acting as a propaganda-tool/"Minister of Jewish Affairs"? Please specify what you mean. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 05:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
"Thus, Palestinians are considered by some to be the indigenous people of present-day Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Other scholars dispute this view, asserting that Jews and others resided in Palestine"


Reclaiming Palestinian Indigenous Sovereignty Jamal Nabulsi Pages 24-42 12 Jun 2023 https://doi.org/10.1080/0377919X.2023.2203830 "Drawing on the critical thought of Palestinians and other Indigenous peoples struggling against settler colonialism, I argue for a theorization of Palestinian indigeneity. Following from this indigeneity, I show that Palestinian Indigenous sovereignty is the embodied political claim to the land of Palestine."
::Neta Golan, a thirty-year-old Israeli peace activist and Buddhist, lives with her Palestinian husband in Ramallah See: http://www.ralphmag.org/BK/neta-golan.html --] 05:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


Indigeneity, Apartheid, Palestine: On the Transit of Political Metaphors Mark Rifkin
Neturei Karta can point to a long tradition of living in Palestine, predating most Jewish settlement. Palestinian Buddhists do not have this history. But if you find more, by all means, include them.
Cultural Critique Vol. 95 (Winter 2017), pp. 25-70 (46 pages) University of Minnesota Press https://doi.org/10.5749/culturalcritique.95.2017.0025 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/culturalcritique.95.2017.0025


There are further sources that I have not reviewed in any detail at ]. ] (]) 16:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
] 05:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


:Editors {{re|Owenglyndur}} and {{Re|האופה}} continue to edit war, notwithstanding the sourcing provided above and without providing any contrary sourcing to back up their personal opinions. ] (]) 14:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
:Living in Palestine? Possibly. Depends on what you define as Palestine. They live in Israel. 1949 Armistice Lines Israel. I still haven't noticed them calling themselves "Palestinian". Have you? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 05:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
::As you can see here there are many sources stating waves of Muslim Immigration to the region:
::]
::As well as here:
::] ] (]) 14:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
:::WP is not a source. ] (]) 14:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
::::That is right, but each article has dozens of sources to back up the claim. Read the sources. ] (]) 14:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not the way it works, you need to contradict the sources above. Waiting. ] (]) 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::Deer Sir, you asked for sources, i handed you 2 articles with plenty of sources. Read them. ] (]) 14:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::See your talk page. ] (]) 14:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@], your unfortunately goes against repeated challenges (we haven't reached consensus) and does not demonstrate a willingness to engage in a constructive dialogue on this controversial issue. Please self-revert per WP:ONUS and as a gesture of openness to collaborative editing within our community. Thank you. ] (]) 19:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Revert your 5 or more reverts first. ] (]) 19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::@], let's be honest, this approach isn't very mature. It's not just me, it's hree editors that have challenged this recent addition, yet you continue to push it into the article. I urge you to consider a self-revert, which would show your willingness to engage in good faith on this matter. As an experienced editor in our community, I ask that you to set a good example for collaboration. ] (]) 19:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::You need to bring sources that support your version, not give lectures. ] (]) 19:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:While I understand the complication involving the difference in meaning between "indigenous to an area" and "Indigenous Peoples," questioning whether Palestinians are "native" to Palestine is absolutely idiotic and frankly racist. Personally I have no tolerance for this and I doubt the rest of the community will, either. The only thing stopping me from filing at AE right now is lack of time, but if this doesn't stop I'll make time sometime in the next week unless someone else beats me to it. ] (]) 15:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
::@], @], @], what I'm seeking here isn't an effort to engage in a constructive good-faith discussion to achieve consensus, but rather threats from two expereinced editors. I agree with the opposing views here—I don't see a compelling reason to redefine a 23-year-old article on Palestinians by now labeling them collectively as "native." As evidenced by the current discussion on ], there is ongoing dispute within the community about using "indigenous" to describe all Palestinians. While I do believe that many Palestinian clans have lived in Palestine for centuries, maybe millenia, it's not appropriate to definitively classify an entire, very diverse population that includes recent migrants over the past three centuries. Are all Americans considered native to America? The analogy holds here.
::Please stop the back-and-forth edit conflicts. Clearly, the community has not reached any consensus on the matter, and again, involved editors should be reminded that WP:''ONUS'' is among those seeking to change content. ] (]) 19:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Half of the reverts are yours. ] (]) 19:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:::"not appropriate" according to sources, or just original research? Because I've now seen plenty of sources stating quite clearly that it ''is'' appropriate. ] (]) 19:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry but no amount of sophistry can change that fact that Palestinians are native to Palestine, it's in the name for goodness sake. The same way (multi-ethnic) Syrians are native to ], or multi-ethnic Americans are native to ]. It's bad faith and incredibly dehumanising to insinuate Palestinians are not native to the land they are born on, suffered on, and ultimately die on, and we are just talking about those not dispersed in the diaspora. If you come from the paradigm where Arabs are from Arabia you have no ground to stand on and need to read ] before contributing further. ] (]) 19:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
:::You might as well try and change ] to say it's made of cheese. ] (]) 20:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Actually it is more complicated than that. For example, one of the most distinguished Palestinian families - the Husayni family, to which belong important figures like ] and ] - claims to be descendants of the prophet Muhammad who clearly was not native to Palestine. See (the original source is in p. 1053). ] (]) 18:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::That doesn't mean the Palestinians, or even Husaynis, are not native to Palestine. I mean, FFS, Muhammad lived over 1000 years ago! ] (]) 18:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::That depends how you define "native". ] (]) 19:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::For example - would you say that the current WASP descendants of the Mayflower immigrants are "native Americans"? It was after all over 400 years ago. Or would you say that the current Spanish inhabitants of the Caribbean Islands who might be descendants of the Columbus expedition are "native Caribbeans"? It was after all over 500 years ago. ] (]) 19:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::More lame OR - and weak OR at that. Also, not only are you comparing comparatively irrelevant parallels (500 years doesn't hold much of a wick to 1,400 years when it comes to exponential population dispersal), but the European colonisation of the Americas was also accompanied by other trends, including the spread of diseases that the native population were not immune to. Flipping it though, note that the inhabitants of the Spanish Caribbean are not considered native Spanish today. The populations that move are those most exposed to loss of indigeneity. ] (]) 02:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::This is A) lame, anecdotal OR with respect to the topic of discussion, and B) you are incorrectly inferring that this information somehow reflects on the subject. Even if we assume that the claim of the Husaynis is correct (which is by no means guaranteed bearing in mind that peoples from across the Muslim world have been fabricating claims of descent from the prophet for political gain for 1,400 years), that would still have little bearing on whether they would today be considered part of the indigenous population today, and it would be gross OR to assume that it did ... populations blend, and distinctions on an individual level (or on the family level) are almost entirely irrelevant at a population level given the passage of time. ] (]) 02:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::The great majority of Palestinians claim descent from Arabian tribes, and belong to groupings such as Qays and Yaman, or clans from Transjordan, Egypt and the area. It is only a small portion that actually trace their ancestry to the ancient populations of the area. Why, then, have we decided, contrary to the majority of Palestinians' own oral traditions, as well as numerous historical sources documenting hundreds of migrations into the area during the last thousand years, that Palestinians can collectively be defined as 'native' based on a limited number of sources? ] (]) 06:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Because speculative theories based on anecdotal information are forum content, and sources are sources. ] (]) 06:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::This is exactly the opposite, the bold description as native is, in fact, the speculative theory here. I can suggest reading https://en.wikipedia.org/Origin_of_the_Palestinians#Historical_analysis, and https://en.wikipedia.org/Origin_of_the_Palestinians#In_oral_traditions, you will find plenty of reliable, academic sources there. ] (]) 07:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::See below. Oral traditions are in no way determinative. You've read genesis right? Origin myths are bull crap. Or bull's blood, literally, in some religions. And Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, so let's not go in that particular direction. If you have a particular source that you think is directly relevant here, provide it. ] (]) 07:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
::::: To Vegan: You are arguing for something that you won't achieve. I'll make three comments. (a) According to the strong consensus of modern science, we are all natives of Africa. Should we put that in all articles about groups of people? (b) Everyone has two parents, two grandparents, etc.. That gives about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (give or take an inch) lines of descent (mother-father-father-...) back to Muhammad's time. Many of those lines of descent end at the same person, but still it is obvious that everyone has a large number of different ancestors living at Muhammad's time. Actually, of people living in the world at that time whose descendants survived until now, a majority are ancestors of each of us (this is something that has been studied mathematically). So that fact that a single line of descent to a particular person of that era can be asserted means nothing at all, just as the fact that I can prove descent from ] (which is true) doesn't make me Ukranian. (c) The fact is that, outside of very narrow meanings such as the place where an individual was born, "native" doesn't have a precise definition. The solution for us, as always, is to follow sources. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes, "native" doesn't have a precise definition, and this is especially true in regions like the Levant, which has been a crossroads between major civilizations, absorbing numerous migrations over millennia, often with open borders as part of large empires. We're not talking the aborigines or native americans here. Bottom line, I see no reason to use 'native' (except maybe political, if we're honest), to define a group whose distinct identity only got consolidated in the past century, with most of them seeing themselves as migrants from other places. ] (]) 06:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You're confusing indigeneity with identity. While identifying with the land is a feature of indigeneity, having a national identity is not. Tribes in the Amazon are indigenous without reference to any kind of identity outside of their tribe/village. Identity is if anything misleading, as endogamous conceptions surrounding indigeneity are more likely to be misled by myth-building, especially in a specifically nationalistic context. For instance, Yasser Arafat's association of the Palestinians with the Jebusites was just ahistorical verbiage. Indigeneity is an anthropological question, not a cultural one. ] (]) 07:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I don't believe I am confusing anything. Numerous political claims have been made over recent decades, including the aforementioned remark from Arafat. However, if you were to ask today's Palestinians about their origins, many would say they come primarily from Arabia, as well as from Transjordan, Egypt, and other regions. Only a minority claim local origins. ] (]) 08:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, so again, you're just claiming some anecdotal oral testimony as something that somehow means something, and not even by way a source. ] (]) 08:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::While a bit of OR is acceptable on talk pages, please stop writing comment after comment with no reference to any sources. This is not a forum and it's just not helpful. ] (]) 09:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::@] I'm not sure you know what I am arguing for, so how do you know if I'll achieve it or not?
::::::(1)The bottom line (literally) of your reply is that you admit that the word "native" doesn't have a precise definition. That means different people understand it differently, and that's a very good reason NOT to use it here as it can be misleading.
::::::(2) Additionally you say that the solution is "to follow sources". Well here are several sources that point to the fact that some of the Palestinians trace their origins to outside of Palestine:
::::::Swedenburg, Ted (2003). . University of Arkansas Press. p. 81. ] ]. <q>These primordialist claims regarding the Palestinians' primeval and prior roots in the land operated at the level of the collective. When it came to an individual's own family, however, Arab-Islamic discourse took precedence over archaeological justifications. I ran across no Palestinian villager (or urbanite) who claimed personal descent from the Canaanites. Villagers typically traced their family or their hamila's origins back to a more recent past in the Arabian peninsula. Many avowed descent from some nomadic tribe that had migrated from Arabia to Palestine either during or shortly after the Arab-Islamic conquests. By such a claim they inserted their family's history into the narrative of Arab and Islamic civilization and connected themselves to a genealogy that possessed greater local and contemporary prestige than did ancient or pre-Islamic descent. Several men specifically connected their forefathers' date of entry into Palestine to their participation in the army of Salih al-Din al-Ayyubi (Saladin), a historical figure whose significance has been retrospectively enlarged by nationalist discourse such that he is now regarded not merely as a hero of "Islamic" civilization but as a "national" luminary as well. (Modern nationalist discourse tends to downplay Salah al-Din's Kurdish origins.) Palestinians of all political stripes viewed Salah al-Din's wars against the Crusaders as a forerunner of the current combats against foreign intruders. Many considered Salah al-Din's victory over the Crusaders at Hittin (A.D. 1187) as a historical precedent that offered hope for their own eventual triumph even if, like the Crusader wars, the current struggle with Israel was destined to last more than two centuries. Family histories affiliated to earlier "patriotic" struggles against European aggression tied interviewees to a continuous narrative of national resistance. Villagers claiming descent from Arabs who entered Palestine during the Arab-Islamic conquest equally viewed these origins as establishing their historical precedence over the Jews</q>
::::::Grossman D. (1984), , ''Geojournal,'' Volume 9, pages 393–406: "Migrations of families (mainly during the past three to four centuries) were recorded on the basis of local traditions in Samaria — the N part of the West Bank. The same destinations were more important also for migrants from outside Samaria. A strong “push” factor was found to explain migration from Hebron, Gaza, and Egypt — all S of Samaria. Trans-Jordanian migrations were, however, the most important ones outside those originating in Samaria itself."
::::::Muhammad Suwaed (2015), , Rowman & Littlefield, p. 181 : "The tribes of the Bank region already penetrated the region during the period of the Ottoman rule. The history of the Bedouins in Palestine goes back a long way. It starts with the Arab invasion of Palestine in the 7th century". ] (]) 10:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::That some Palestinians trace their origins outside Palestine is irrelevant to the question here. What is required is sourcing that contradicts the sourcing I posted above, which assesses Palestinians as indigenous. In fact, at this point I am not convinced that we should not just flat out be saying so, that was why I originally created this section, to discuss that, not what native means. ] (]) 11:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::: As Self says, the fact that some Palestinians profess ancestry from outside Palestine does not impact the issue of indigenousity. Most likely David Ben-Gurion was descended from Gengis Khan, so what? And the fuzziness of the meanings of words is ''more'' reason to follow what sources say, not ''less''. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@], I disagree that the sources I brought are irrelevant. But putting that aside, let’s look at your sources. In truth I didn't pay much attention to your sources before, as I was responding specifically to Levivich’s ridiculous claim that saying that not all Palestinians are indigenous is like saying that the moon is made of cheese, and I didn't have time to thoroughly go over all of this long discussion. But I looked at your sources now, and here are some comments: 1. The sources I brought actually directly contradict at least one of the sources you gave. Your source from Walid Hamidi says that the Palestinians see themselves as descending also "from indigenous peoples who had lived in the country since time immemorial". Whereas my source from Swedenburg says "I ran across no Palestinian villager (or urbanite) who claimed personal descent from the Canaanites".
::::::::2. Additionally, one of your own sources actually admits that the subject of Palestinian indigeneity is disputed among scholars: Native Peoples of the World: Steven L. Danver, , Routledge, 2012, p. 554: "Thus, Palestinians are considered by some to be the indigenous people of present-day Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Other scholars dispute this view, asserting that Jews and others resided in Palestine-usually defined as the narrow strip of land bordered by the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea – long before the Arabs arrived in the seventh century”.
::::::::Now for @], 3. As you can see in point 2 here, there are sources that dispute the view that the Palestinians are indigenous. Therefore if you want to follow the sources in a NPOV way, you need to mention this counter-view as well. At the very least you cannot write this claim in wiki-voice. I.e you should write the leading sentence as something like: “Palestinians are an Arab ethnonational group who, according to some scholars, are native to Palestine”.
::::::::4. Alternatively you can simply decide not to use the word “native” or “indigenous”. The fact that some sources use this term, which you admit is fuzzy, doesn’t mean you must include it in the lead section. Personally I have no problem to agree in casual conversation or a political debate that both Palestinians and Jews are “native” to this land. And I think I have said as much in one of our earlier discussions on another related topic. But while in casual conversation or political debates we can use imprecise and fuzzy terms, it is a different matter altogether to use such fuzzy terminology in an encyclopedia entry, without explication. In an encyclopedia, and especially when talking in wiki-voice, we should be as precise as possible, and therefore take from the sources the precise facts they contain rather than whatever fuzzy (and disputed) adjective they use.
::::::::5. My recommendation therefore is to change the leading sentence to something like: “Palestinians are an Arab ethnonational group who are descendants of various peoples who lived in Palestine over the millennia”. This has two advantages: (a) It contains a factual claim that appears more or less in all the sources and nobody disputes, so it can be said in wikivoice. (b) It avoids the fuzzy term “native”. ] (]) 08:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Still waiting for you and any of the objectors to find any sources yourselves that contest indigeneity. I have provided one that says, in the meta, that some do, now please locate them so we can assess the comparative weight. Native was a sort of compromise that hasn't been accepted and I didn't much like myself not because it was fuzzy but because it seems like an unnecessary dilution, so I am returning to indigenous, which has plenty of sourcing in support. ] (]) 09:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't know what sources the Encyclopedia refers to, as it doesn't have references. But I found some sources that it might had in mind, and several other sources that were published after the Encyclopedia:
::::::::::Yahel, H., ]., Frantzman, S. (2012). ). ''Middle East Quarterly'', ''4'', p. 5: "Far from being the indigenous inhabitants, the Bedouin were relative latecomers to the Negev, preying on the villages and caravansaries that dotted the sparsely populated wilderness."; p. 14: "Although there is no official definition of indigeneity in international law, Negev Bedouin cannot be regarded as an indigenous people in the commonly accepted sense. If anything, the Bedouin have more in common with the European settlers who migrated to other lands, coming into contact with existing populations with often unfortunate results for the latter."
::::::::::Frantzman, S., Yahel, H., Kark, R. (2012) . '''', ''17''(1), 78–104 :"The relatively new Bedouin claim to be classified as indigenous, having gained some international and academic support, is increasingly part of the self-perception of the educated elite among the Bedouin. However, the claim and international recognition face hurdles that the scholars mentioned above avoided discussing, many of which mirror the disputes and debates throughout the world that deal with indigenous peoples. For instance, one issue in the case of the Bedouin is the important and critical element of original occupancy of the land. The current Negev Bedouin tribes arrived to the Negev, from their historical homeland in the Arabian Desert, Transjordan, Egypt, and the Sinai, mainly since the eighteenth century and onwards. Scholars and activists have not wrestled or debated this issue."
::::::::::] (2017). . Begin-Sadat Center Perspectives Paper No. 577: "Echoing Inbari, it is not to be argued here that 'there are no Palestinians' who thus do not deserve political rights, including self-rule and a state. To do so would be both logically and morally wrong. Palestinians have the right to define themselves as they see fit, and they must be negotiated with in good faith by Israelis. What Palestinians cannot claim, however, is that they are Palestine’s indigenous population and the Jews are settler-colonialists."
::::::::::Ukashi, Ran (2018). "". Peace and Conflict Studies: Vol. 25: No. 1 , Article 7, p. 13: "Again, while making exception for those Arabized Peoples that could justifiably claim lineage directly to antiquity, it can be demonstrated that of the significant cohort of Arab economic migrants to Palestine from modern-day Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and elsewhere prior to partition in 1947, no reasonably Indigenous connection to the territory can be claimed."
::::::::::]., & Troen, C. (2019). . '''', ''24''(2), 17–32: "We have argued that despite the admitted distortions there is a covert polemical advantage to designating Bedouins as well as other Palestinian Arabs as "indigenous" The deliberate use of the term “indigenous” in spurious scholarship furthers tendentious narratives for partisan and polemical advantage".
::::::::::].; Futerman, Alan G. (2021). ''''. ]. p. 28: "Therefore, the claim to the widely held idea that Palestinian Arabs are the indigenous population of the land, with a millennia connection to it, is simply not based on facts." ] (]) 17:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I have way more sources that that. And three of those are about the Bedouin? Keep trying tho. ] (]) 17:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::The Bedouins in Palestine are considered part of the Palestinians now. Don't you know that? And counting doesn't really matter here. If I show that there are RS that dispute the claim then it is disputed. ] (]) 17:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Doesn't work like that. Wait and see. ] (]) 17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Wait for what? ] (]) 17:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::To see. ] (]) 17:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::To see what? ] (]) 18:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Asked and answered (twice). ] (]) 18:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Are you trolling me? ] (]) 18:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Pot..kettle. ] (]) 18:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::I don't understand what you want. I told you - if different RS have different opinions on a claim then you cannot make this claim in a wikivoice. ] (]) 18:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::We can if there is a clear majority, which there is, your sources, 3 of which only deal with a subset of Palestinians, are a distinct minority. ] (]) 18:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::] ] (]) 18:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::" including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." Your sources do not demonstrate due weight, whereas the sources I have provided (dozens of them) clearly do. ] (]) 18:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::I disagree with you. I think my sources have sufficient due weight. ] (]) 18:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::Well, we are back to wait and see. ] (]) 18:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::I see you are back to trolling, so bye for now. I'll just note by way of parting that the editor/writer of the that you brought among your sources also thinks like me that this view has sufficient due weight to be mentioned. ] (]) 18:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::I have absolutely no idea why you think I am trolling. You ask a question and I reply is not trolling. I could just not reply at all if you would prefer. ] (]) 18:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::You repeat saying "wait and see" and refuse to explain what you mean by this. ] (]) 18:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::It means exactly that. ] (]) 19:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Sorry, but I have more interesting things to do than waiting for unspecified things to happen... ] (]) 19:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::We have an article on the Negev Bedouin, its ]. It isnt this article. ''']''' - 18:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::The sources do not speak only about the Bedouins ] (]) 18:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::They do except for a couple of them, one hysterical in its tone and the other representing a minority view published by an avowedly partisan think tank. ''']''' - 20:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::On the subject of Arab Bedouins specifically in the Southern Levant, I'm not sure whether these scholars got their sources, but the ] Arabs, and other Arab tribes and nomads, have indupitably roamed the deserts of the Southern Levant since antiquity. It doesn't get much more indigenous than being an tribal nomad in that desert. ] (]) 20:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
: They're Bedouin. They move around a lot. And then come back. And then go away. And then come back again. What causes this strange behavior? Next up, on ].] (]) 23:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::A single dated (2012 is quite old at this point) and generalist tertiary source by a non-specialist is not particularly useful in establishing current scholarly consensus. ] (]) 12:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It's off-topic, but incidentally Swedenburg does not affirm the claims. He says: {{tq|"Many avowed descent By such a claim they inserted their family's history into the narrative that possessed greater local and contemporary prestige than did ancient or pre-Islamic descent."}} So far from lending these "avowed claims" any credence, he points out the ulterior motives that accompany them (as well as other ahistorical narratives such as Saladin not being Kurdish). ] (]) 13:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


I checked a few more sources:
By their definition, 1949 Armistice Lines Israel is Palestine. By the PNC definition, most are Palestinian; by their own website's claims, they are Palestinian; and at least one has served in the Palestinian government, a post which would scarcely be opened to a non-Palestinian. The number of Palestinian Samaritans is significantly smaller, but, again, of special historical relevance. - ] 12:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
* {{Cite book |authorlink=Ilan Pappe |last=Pappe |first=Ilan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rrttEAAAQBAJ |title=A History of Modern Palestine |date=2022 |edition=3rd |orig-date=2004 |publisher=] |isbn=978-1-108-24416-9}}
* {{Cite book |last=Rogan |first=Eugene |authorlink=Eugene Rogan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=16U0mEbf4nAC |title=The Arabs: A History |date=2017 |orig-date=2009 |edition=Revised and updated |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-465-03248-8 |language=en}}
* {{Cite book |last=Wolfe |first=Patrick |authorlink=Patrick Wolfe |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Traces_of_History/3GznDwAAQBAJ |title=Traces of History: Elementary Structures of Race |date=2016 |publisher=] |isbn=9781781689189 |language=en}}


All three refer to Palestinians as indigenous. In addition to the sources posted above by Self and others, I'd agree with using the term "indigenous." ] (]) 16:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
If you complain that they aren't notable enough for the intro, discussion of them (and, of course, the Samaritans) could be postponed to the religions section, and replaced in the intro with "others" or something, although by the PNC definition they might be as much as ~5%. However, they, like the Samaritans, certainly merit mention in the article - as would Palestinian Buddhists, in the unlikely event that there actually is a verifiable Palestinian Buddhist community. - ] 13:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
:Same, and the idea that you can argue against sources that directly say something with sources that do not directly dispute it is a non-starter here. ''']''' - 16:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
:I agree with Mustafaa, if the inclusion is controversial it should just be put lower down and its controvertiality noted.] 17:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
::More sources...might be some duplication, haven't finished checking them:
::*::::* '''Palestinians are indigenous''' Abdullah, D. (2019). A century of cultural genocide in Palestine. In ''Cultural Genocide'' (pp. 227-245). Routledge.
::*::::*: "The Zionist mission was, therefore, to ethnically cleanse the land. Theodore Herzl, the movement’s founder, was convinced that the fulfilment of their dream would result in the acute suffering and misery for the indigenous population."
::*::::* '''Palestinians are indigenous''' Pappe, I. (2007). ''The ethnic cleansing of Palestine''. Simon and Schuster.
::*::::* '''Palestinians are indigenous''' Nijim, M. (2020). ''Genocide in Gaza: Physical destruction and beyond.''
::*::::* '''Palestinians are indigenous''' Culverwell, S. M. (2017). Israel and Palestine-An analysis of the 2014 Israel-Gaza war from a genocidal perspective.
::*::::*: ''Cites others and adopts their framework:'' "Pappé (2005), Shaw (2010), Docker (2012), Lloyd (2012), Rashed and Short (2012), and Rashed, Short and Docker (2014) have all analyzed the 1948 conflict from a settler-colonial perspective. In this relationship, these scholars recognize the Zionist Jews as the ‘settlers’ and the ‘Arab Palestinians’ as the indigenous population."
::*::::* '''Palestinians are indigenous''' Atallah, D. G., & Awartani, H. (2024). Embodying Homeland: Palestinian Grief and the Perseverance of Beauty in a Time of Genocide. ''Journal of Palestine Studies'', 1-9.
::*::::* '''Indigeneity is about identity, not practice, and both Israelis and Palestinians incorporate it into theirs''' Busbridge, R. (2018). Israel-Palestine and the settler colonial ‘turn’: From interpretation to decolonization. ''Theory, Culture & Society'', 35(1), 91-115.
::*::::* '''Implies in passing that Palestinians are indigenous''' Moses, A. D. (2011). Paranoia and Partisanship: Genocide Studies, Holocaust Historiography, and the ‘Apocalyptic Conjuncture’. ''The Historical Journal'', 54(2), 553-583.
::*::::*: "the mufti still features in Zionist literature as a co-perpetrator of the Holocaust, converting him from an indigenous, anti-colonialist to an Arab-Muslim-Nazi, the ancestor of Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran, and other 'Islamofascist' enemies of Israel"
::*::::* '''Palestinians are indigenous''' Tabar, L., & Desai, C. (2017). Decolonization is a global project: From Palestine to the Americas. ''Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society'', 6(1).
::*::::*: "In 1948, the Zionist settler colonization of Palestine culminated in the mass eviction of the overwhelming majority of the indigenous Palestinian people"
::*::::* '''Palestinians are indigenous''' Said, E. (1999). Palestine: memory, invention and space. ''The landscape of Palestine: Equivocal poetry'', 3-20.
::*::::*: "The link between the metaphors of buildings and housing, and erasure, with the necessary steps to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine was always clear to the country's indigenous inhabitants"
::*::::::::::# '''Palestinians are indigenous''' Abu-Saad, I. (2001). Education as a tool for control vs. development among indigenous peoples: The case of Bedouin Arabs in Israel. ''Hagar: International Social Science Review'', 2(2), 241-259.
::*::::::::::# '''Both have a claim to indigeneity''' Ukashi, R. (2018). Zionism, Imperialism, and Indigeneity in Israel/Palestine: A Critical Analysis. ''Peace and Conflict Studies'', 25(1), 7.
::*::::::::::# '''Palestinians are indigenous''' Pappe, I. (2018). Indigeneity as cultural resistance: Notes on the Palestinian struggle within twenty-first-century Israel. ''South Atlantic Quarterly'', 117(1), 157-178.
::*::::::::::# '''Palestinians are indigenous''' Blatman, N., & Sabbagh‐Khoury, A. (2023). The presence of the absence: Indigenous Palestinian urbanism in Israel. ''International Journal of Urban and Regional Research'', 47(1), 119-128.
::*::::::::::# '''Palestinians are indigenous, Israelis are explicitly non-indigenous''' Veracini, L. (2015). What can settler colonial studies offer to an interpretation of the conflict in Israel–Palestine?. ''Settler Colonial Studies'', 5(3), 268-271.
::*::::::::::# '''Palestinians are indigenous''' Nasasra, M. (2012). The ongoing Judaisation of the Naqab and the struggle for recognising the indigenous rights of the Arab Bedouin people. ''Settler Colonial Studies'', 2(1), 81-107.
::*::::::::::# '''Palestinians are indigenous, Israelis are explicitly not''' Krebs, M., & Olwan, D. M. (2012). ‘From Jerusalem to the grand river, our struggles are one’: Challenging Canadian and Israeli settler colonialism. ''Settler Colonial Studies'', 2(2), 138-164.
::*::::::::::# '''Palestinians are indigenous, Israelis are explicitly not''' Yiftachel, O. (2003). Bedouin-Arabs and the Israeli settler state. ''Indigenous people between Autonomy and globalization'', 21-47.
::*::::::::::# '''Palestinians are indigenous, while Israelis are attempting to become indigenous''' Monterescu, D., & Handel, A. (2019). Liquid indigeneity: Wine, science, and colonial politics in Israel/Palestine. ''American Ethnologist'', 46(3), 313-327.
::*::::::::::# '''Palestinians are indigenous''' Abu-Rayya, H. M., & Abu-Rayya, M. H. (2009). Acculturation, religious identity, and psychological well-being among Palestinians in Israel. ''International Journal of Intercultural Relations'', 33(4), 325-331.
::*::::::::::# '''Palestinians are indigenous, Israelis are explicitly not''' Blatman-Thomas, N. (2017). Commuting for rights: Circular mobilities and regional identities of Palestinians in a Jewish-Israeli town. ''Geoforum'', 78, 22-32.
::*::::::::::# '''Palestinians are indigenous, Israelis are explicitly not''' Nabulsi, J. (2023). Reclaiming Palestinian Indigenous Sovereignty. ''Journal of Palestine Studies'', 52(2), 24-42.
::*::::::::::# '''Palestinians are indigenous''' Murphy, T. (2010). ‘Courses and Recourses’ Exploring Indigenous Peoples’ Land Reclamation in Search of Fresh Solutions for Israelis and Palestinians. ''Journal for the Study of Peace and Conflict'', 54-69.
::*::::::::::# (about Negev Bedouins) '''Israelis are not indigenous''' Kram, N. (2013). ''Clashes over recognition: The struggle of indigenous Bedouins for land ownership rights under Israeli law''. California Institute of Integral Studies.
::*::::::::::# '''We should move beyond a settler-indigenous framework''' Bashir, B., & Busbridge, R. (2019). The politics of decolonisation and bi-nationalism in Israel/Palestine. ''Political Studies'', 67(2), 388-405.
::*::::::::::# '''Palestinians are indigenous, Israelis are explicitly not''' Sasa, G. (2023). Oppressive pines: Uprooting Israeli green colonialism and implanting Palestinian A’wna. ''Politics'', 43(2), 219-235.
::*::::::::::# '''Palestinians are indigenous''' Khatib, I. (2021). Attitudes of indigenous minority leaders toward political events in their trans-state national group: Between identity, conflict and values. ''Nationalism and Ethnic Politics'', 27(2), 149-168.
::*::::::::::# '''Israelis are not indigenous, they've merely attempted to claim indigeneity''' Cheyfitz, E. (2014). The force of exceptionalist narratives in the Israeli—Palestinian conflict. ''Native American and Indigenous Studies'', 1(2), 107-124.
::*::::::::::# '''Palestinians are indigenous''' Arar, K. (2012). Israeli education policy since 1948 and the state of Arab education in Israel. ''Italian Journal of Sociology of Education'', 4(1), 113-145.
::*::::::::::# (about the Druze) '''Israelis are not indigenous''' Yiftachel, O., & Segal, M. D. (1998). Jews and Druze in Israel: state control and ethnic resistance. ''Ethnic and Racial Studies'', 21(3), 476-506.
::] (]) 18:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Let's keep adding sources here so that this doesn't get archived while there are ongoing discussions on the matter. ] (]) 09:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Adding more sources who hold the same partisan viewpoint does not alter the overall result. Yes, there are sources that adopt this framing, but most of them adhere to the settler-colonial paradigm of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and/or aligned with progressive and left-wing ideologies. The critical factor is the weight of evidence and whether this perspective achieves consensus within the scholarly community. Currently, this is not the case. ] (]) 09:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::This section is for sources, feel free to add some. ] (]) 10:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Take, for example, <i>]'</i>s definition: <b>'Palestinians - A population of around 14 million people who trace their origins to British-ruled Palestine. Around 7 million Palestinians live in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Another 7 million are scattered across the Arab world and beyond. Nearly 6 million are registered as refugees.'</b> This outlet is famous for its radical centrist, neutral position. In this case, it exemplifies how a neutral definition of Palestinians should look like. Misplaced Pages should be neutral, not a partisan source. ] (]) 10:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Not a scholarly source. Such sources should be trivially easy to locate if there is actually any support for the position. ] (]) 10:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} Great work, {{u|Selfstudier}} and {{u|Vegan416}}. I'd recommend you to create a separate page under this talk page about Indigenous Sources, similar to ] under ]. ] is an FA-class article.


If you have time, I'd also recommend for you to identify the authors of the works cited. Are they experts or academics? Do they have PhD? Things like that. It'd be also good to identify review articles (]).
:It might be relevant to put a description of them in the Religions section, provided it actually dealt in a factual way with their only theoretical/purely political existence. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 18:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


For example:
:: A brief description is already there (have you read this article yet?), and a minister in the PNA is rather more than a "theoretical" entity. - ] 18:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
* {{cite journal |doi=10.2307/2537362|jstor=2537362 |title=The Palestine Problem: An Overview |last1=Khalidi |first1=Walid |journal=Journal of Palestine Studies |date=1991 |volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=5–16 }}


**{{tq|It was under British protection and by the force of British arms that duringthe first phase, from 1918 to 1948, the demographic, economic, military, and organizational infrastructure of the future Jewish state was laid, at the ex-pense of the indigenous Palestinian people and in the teeth of their resist-ance.}}. This is a review article and would be considered ]. The author, ], would be considered an expert in my opinion. ] (]) 23:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:I see the description. "Minister of Photo Opportunities" is a real entity, but only in the realm of political theatre. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 19:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


== Palestinian diaspora in Indonesia ==
== Flag caption ==
I would like to say that the Flag of the Palestinian people is that of the Arab Revolt, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or seriously deluded.
PJaz.


{{Edit extended-protected|Palestinians|answered=yes}}
The caption on the flag in the info box says that the flag was adopted in 1948. Could whoever put that assertion in there please source it? Or anyone else? Please? Thanks. Until then, I'm taking it out. ] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>]</font></sup> 03:01, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
There are about 7,000 Palestinians in Indonesia and no one includes them ] (]) 12:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (<i>] &bull; ] &bull; ]</i>) 13:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)


== Edit warring ==
:One link that it is 1948 is . Also, the statement that this is the "widely recognized symbol of the ''Palestinian Authority''" but not necessarily the Palestinian people is utter absolute rubbish. This flag has symbolized the Palestinian people long before there was any PA or PLO in fact. The colors of the flag are used by many Arabic speaking countries, but this specific pattern was adopted by the Palestinians a long time ago. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 03:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
::The flag is a symbol of Palestinian nationalism wherever one goes. Hamas is put in a peculiar position in that nationalism goes against its Salafist "all for the ummah" views, but it still sees itself as a Palestinian nationalist group. Therefore, even Hamas members would look to the flag as a symbol of the Palestinian people.] 03:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Ramalite and Heraclius are quite correct. --] 04:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
::I don't think including a flag is appropriate. The Palestinian flag symbolizes a nationalist movement not an ethnic group. Also many Hamas members ''don't'' look to the flag as a symbol of the people, but a symbol of other nationalist factions. You may even notice they wave other flags at their rallies, with the Palestinian nationalist flag almost always absent. For the sake neutrality I think the flag should be removed. --] 14:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Read the text above. The flag symbolizes a nationalist movement because of the fact that it symbolizes (or has come to symbolize) the Palestinian people. Hamas people carry their party flag at rallies, but there is no dispute as to what the "Palestinian flag" is, and they are carried at Hamas rallies as well (unfortunately). ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 15:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
::::I disagree. The flag has always been an explicitely Arab nationalist symbol . There is a dispute within Palestinian society as to whether or not the "Palestinian flag" represents the people. Besides a large anti-nationalist Islamic population, there are Israeli citizens and a diaspora population which includes people considered Palestinian who would identify more with their host governments' flags than the Palestinian one. I think the main reason the flag is mistaken to represent the entire people is because the nationalist faction for various political reasons is still the only one recognised by the "international community" as representing the people. This isn't a neutral position. If this article was about Palestinian nationalism, including the flag would be appropriate. This article is about the Palestinian people. The ] is not the flag of all Jewish people, the Japanese flag is not flag of all ], and the Palestinian flag is not the flag of all Palestinian people. --] 17:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::I honestly don't follow. First, I belong to Palestinian society (although admittedly not the diaspora community) and have never heard of the dispute you speak of. Second, if I understand your point, which I may not, do we not use a flag that represents a people because a number of individuals have emigrated to other countries and are now citizens of other countries? I've been to numerous Palestine-related functions abroad, and even though the event participants are citizens of their respective countries, the Palestinian flag is displayed as it is a Palestine-related event. Expatriates and their children often use the flag to symbolize their heritage, just like any expatriate community anywhere. Third, it is also the only flag recognized by Palestinians themselves as representing the Palestinian people, not just the international community (this pertains to the discussion above). Fourth, you seem to be splitting hairs unnecessarily, because I'm sure there are anarchists in every country who don't recognize the legitimacy of their national flag, but is that a reason to remove the flag from an encyclopedia? I don't know if you are of Palestinian heritage or not, but I definitely am, and if you don't want to take my opinion into consideration (most people don't when it comes to Palestine, heck I'm only Palestinian!!), would you at least consider getting other opinions before removing it? Thanks ;) ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 17:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::*My heritage and yours doesn't count here.
:::::::::When it comes to describing opinions on the discussion page, it helps in certain contexts. You stated "There is a dispute within Palestinian society as to whether or not the "Palestinian flag" represents the people" which to me is ], and since you brought original research into this, I figured I would offer a more accurate perspective, and justify my "accuracy" by pointing out my heritage. This is a discussion page after all. The only source that comes close is op-ed piece in which the writer laments the use of factional flags in rallies, but I cannot find evidence that certain Palestinian factions (even those talked about in the link) do not recognize the "Palestinian flag" as representing their nation. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 16:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::*I think we're misunderstanding each other but I've never heard of using a flag to represent emigrants. Palestine-related events are almost always political and often organised by Palestinian nationalists and who are more visible at such events compared with other groups. When expatriates use a flag to represent themselves they make an explicity political statement.
:::::::::Because of the unique situation of the Palestinian people and their lack of independence, it is inevitable that any such function is tied to nationalism. It's part of who the Palestinians are at this moment in time, for better or for worse. Also, many times, people looking at the conflict from the outside tend to confuse "political" with "humanitarian". ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 16:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::*The absence of other widely recognised flags is irrelevant.
:::::::::Then we truly are misunderstanding each other, because if there is one "flag of Palestine" that Palestinians claim represents them, and there is no dispute over that (notwithstanding OR), and there are no other flags, widely recognized or not, I guess I fail to see your point. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 16:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::*The existence of people who don't recognise the legitimacy of the flag means there isn't a consensus on the issue. It is reason enough to remove it from ''the article''. There is a whole other article about the ] in this encyclopedia (which could be expanded, by the way).
:::::::::Again, do you have sourced material to back up your claim that there are Palestinians who "don't recognise the legitimacy of the flag"? ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 16:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::: --] 14:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::Look, basically I object to having a large flag in such a prominent position in an article about an ethnic group. As a compromise, how about putting an image of the flag in the "nationality" or "representatives" section, somewhere near the image of Arafat (another widely recognised symbol of the Palestinian people)?
::::::::Again, I wish to have consensus from others who are familiar with the history of the flag (and can source such claims) other than myself (regardless of heritage). Perhaps you could ask other Wikipedians to weigh in, because I myself don't know who here would know enough about this subject. There must still be a misunderstanding, because I fail to see why you are making an issue out of what would be otherwise regarded as a non-issue. There is no dispute that I can find about the flag representing all Palestinians, regardless of the fact that Hamas prefers to display their factional flags at rallies (to show off). Have you seen the ]? As for Arafat, I would argue that there is enough evidence to apply your objections above to ''him''. In other words, everything you said above regarding the dispute of who represents Palestinians is certainly more applicable to Arafat than the flag, because he represented the "leadership" and is now dead, and many factions or individuals did not regard him as their leader, while the flag is far more representative of the Palestinians then Arafat was. I don't think, based on sources that I can find, that the two are equivalent. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 16:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::--] 14:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::I admit, the dispute I'm talking about is based on original research, as its based mostly on personal familiarity with members of Islamic groups such as Muslim Brothers and others among Palestinians who consider the Palestinian flag a colonial and nationalist symbol. I haven't found any sources showing Palestinians explicitly rejecting the national flag. But I think it is a well-known fact that many Muslims are anti-nationalist and rejection of nationalist symbols would go without saying. The piece you link to illustrates nationalists' intolerance of other banners besides their own and confirms somewhat what I know, that the Palestinian flag is seen as another factional flag by some people. But its not English, and I haven't found any sources myself... In any case, I still think keeping the Palestinian flag at the top of the article is a nationalist POV. I haven't found any other articles about an ethnic group in wikipedia that displays a national flag, whether that is deliberate or not, I think it makes sense. I don't know where to look for other opinions here. ... anyone reading who has an opinion on this: please share! (especially if you agree with me) --] 16:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::::If your objections are based on the fact that other articles you looked at don't have a flag, I guess my response would be that, although there is no real reason to remove it (in my mind), there is no absolute necessity to have it. If nobody else weighs in during the weekend, and you still feel strongly about it, I won't object to it being reduced in size or removed, but it would be nice to have some other illustration, like a dance troupe or something similar, for example, like ]. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 18:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


With , editor {{Re|Pyramids09}} reverted stable material with claim "Removing misleading information from lead and formatting", was but without initiating any discussion, which .
Is there any way to center the flag than the Arab table?] 23:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
: I think the flag should be replaced with the word "Allah" written in purple Arabic caligraphy. --] 00:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
::False parallel, the reason being that there is no dispute amongst the Palestinian community about whether or not the flag is a symbol of the Palestinian people. That was a nice try, though.] 00:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I've centered the image (look at the diff to see how). I still hold in doubt the assertion that it was adopted in 1948 as the banner of the Palestinian people...the "history" given at Ramallite's webreference sounds pretty revisionist to me. Until I have something concrete to argue against it, however, I'll just leave it be. ] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>]</font></sup> 02:25, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


Then {{re|Shoogiboogi}} reverted arguing no consensus and that .
==Sources==
Sources for Zuhayr Muhsin (used to be Zuhair Mohsen) which are probably too specialised to attach to the article:
* http://www.al-bab.com/arab/countries/palestine/biogCM.htm (Syria's appointee to PLO-EC)
* Anders Strindberg, The Damascus-Based Alliance of Palestinian Forces: A Primer, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 29, No. 3. (Spring, 2000), pp. 60-76. (Sa'iqa fully funded by Syria)


I trust that there will be a discussion before any further reverts, which judging by and the talk section ] above, appear to have no valid basis. ] (]) 14:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
While I'm typing, I'll dispose of another common quote that does ''not'' belong in the article. ], who would later become the first leader of the PLO, told the UN Security Council in 1956 that "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria". The reason that this was not a Palestinian expression of pan-Syrianism is that Shukairy at the time was the Syrian representative on the UNSC (Official Records, 724th Meeting, page 10). He had to present the Syrian position regardless of his own opinions. His statement was supposed to counter the Israeli claim to sovereignty over the DMZ between Israel and Syria.
: The indigeneity section of this talk page was begun after similar edit warring by two accounts later found to be socks of banned accounts. And round and round it goes!] (]) 15:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::I am also very concerned that information with respect to Palestinians being native or indigenous keep getting removed. ] (]) 15:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'll put together one of those giant multirefs for "indigenous", which should put that to bed; as far as I can tell that is the word used by every single scholar in this field (that I've checked so far). Also as far as I can tell, the only accounts that have challenged "indigenous" in recent years are the ] sockfarm accounts (now globally locked). ] (]) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The only issue with "indigenous" is that it has different definitions depending on the field, such as .
::::"Native" is far less likely to be challenged in the lead.
::::I'll also be improving the Genetics section in the coming days and weeks. ] (]) 15:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::It doesn't matter, though, because if all the RSes use "indigenous" and none use "native", Misplaced Pages's hands are tied on this. We can't OR our way around it by picking a word we think will be less likely to be challenged (even though I agree, it's less likely to be challeneged). We can't rewrite history for the sake of bringing stability to our articles, V and NPOV means using the same word the RSes use. I think when we're looking at a list of dozens of sources that includes every historian we can think of, we'll all "get it." ] (]) 15:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::That's what I mean by field. Historians may say "indigenous" but from international law perspective, it might have a more narrow definition. Maybe you can add a qualifier. Something like:
::::::"Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون, romanized: al-Filasṭīniyyūn) are an Arab ethnonational group native to the region of Palestine. Historians see Palestinians as indigenous to their lands". ] (]) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I maintain it's about ''sources''. We don't need to look up the definition of "indigenous" and then decide if it applies to Palestinian--that would be ]. If the sources for this article says "indigenous," then this article says "indigenous," and that's it, ''even if'' we (or some of us) think the label doesn't apply. The sources are who decides if the labels apply. ] (]) 17:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think it was Levivich who added this , before the above mentioned RFC and when we were still collecting sources but it seems to me that the matter has been resolved in favor of indigenous now, no reason to use an inaccurate wording. ] (]) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@], I think you're possibly confusing ''Indigenous'' (narrow definition; often capitalised as a result) with ''indigenous'' (broad definition; uncapitalised). The former is certainly more debated but the latter is broadly accepted when it comes to the Palestinians. We aren't capitalising ''indigenous'' so we aren't claiming the narrower definition. So Levivich and Selfstudier are right. Furthermore, when uncapitalised, ''native'' can refer more broadly to anyone born in a location ("an LA native"), so is broader than ''indigenous'' (which implies a connection to the land which preceded the age of European colonialism and imperialism – which is certainly accurate for the Palestinians). Uncapitalised ''indigenous'' is therefore preferable, and doesn't require minority status, settler colonialism (though many academics also argue for ]), etc, as with capital-I ''Indigenous''. ] (]) 21:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{replyto|Lewisguile}} you may be totally right! I don't claim to be an expert on this, I just suggested dispute resolution such as an RfC. ] (]) 17:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
This article states that Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine. However, this is very much wrong. If we go by the common definition of indigenous, which states "Inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists", then the Jews would be indigenous, as Jews (or, in this case, their Israelite ancestors) are the first recorded people to inhabit the land of Palestine, being recorded in the Merneptah Stele.<ref name="John Day pp. 47">] (2005), ''In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel'', Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 47.5 'In this sense, the emergence of ancient Israel is viewed not as the cause of the demise of Canaanite culture but as its upshot'.</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Spielvogel |first1=Jackson J. |title=Western civilization |date=2012 |publisher=Wadsworth/Cengage Learning |isbn=978-0-495-91324-5 |edition=8th |location=Australia |page=33 |quote=What is generally agreed, however, is that between 1200 and 1000 B.C.E., the Israelites emerged as a distinct group of people, possibly united into tribes or a league of tribes}}</ref><ref name="ThompsonMerneptah">{{Cite book |last=Thompson |first=Thomas L. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RwrrUuHFb6UC&pg=PA275 |title=Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written & Archaeological Sources |date=1 January 2000 |publisher=BRILL |isbn=978-90-04-11943-7 |pages=137ff |language=en |quote=They are rather a very specific group among the population of Palestine which bears a name that occurs here for the first time that at a much later stage in Palestine's history bears a substantially different signification.}}</ref>. Expulsion does not remove the status of indigenous. Meanwhile, Palestinian Arabs came from Arabia during the Muslim conquests of the seventh century.<ref>{{cite news |last=Hertz |first=Allen |date=2014-02-18 |title=Aboriginal rights of the Jewish People |url=https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/aboriginal-rights-of-the-jewish-people/ |work=Times of Israel |access-date=2024-11-29|ref=none}}</ref> Although some claim descendants from the Canaanites, this has been throughly disproven via archeological evidence, as well as testimonials from Palestinians themselves.<ref>{{cite book |last=Katz|first=Samuel |author-link= |date= |title=Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine |url= |location= |publisher= |page=126 |isbn=978-0933503038}}</ref>. Therefore, a more accurate lede would go something like this: Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون, romanized: al-Filasṭīniyyūn) are an ethnonational group descending from inhabitants of the region of Palestine over the millennia, and who are culturally and linguistically Arab. This was the lede for a while, being accurate and well sourced. I restored this lede in a recent revision (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Palestinians&oldid=1265135214), which was then reverted without a stated reason along with a sockpuppet accusation. I believe that we should return to this correct lede, or at least hold a new RFC about this topic. Cheers. ] (]) 22:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


:P.S. If someone could collapse the references that would be nice. ] (]) 22:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
--] 13:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
:I'm open to RfC on this. The sources are clear. For example,

:There was no Anglo settler colony style population replacement in Palestine:
This article needs fixing my an entire section accidently got deleted while I was correcting spelling (read accident as household pet on keyboard).
:*{{cite book | last=Dowty | first=A. | title=Israel / Palestine |edition=5th | publisher=Polity Press |year=2023 | isbn=978-1-5095-5483-6 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=D3apEAAAQBAJ |author-link=Alan Dowty }}, Chapter 3: The Arab Story to 1914: {{tq2|Palestine was part of the first wave of conquest following Muhammad’s death in 632 CE; Jerusalem fell to the Caliph Umar in 638. The indigenous population, descended from Jews, other Semitic groups, and non-Semitic groups such as the Philistines, had been mostly Christianized. Over succeeding centuries it was Islamicized, and Arabic replaced Aramaic (a Semitic tongue closely related to Hebrew) as the dominant language}}

:*Chapter 10: The Perfect Conflict: {{tq2|Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture.}}
== My changes ==
:*Genetic studies also seem to confirm this. For example, : {{tq|People related to these individuals contributed to all present-day Levantine populations}}. Especially note . Megiddo in the link refers to samples recovered from ]. These samples: "most of whom date to the Middle-to-Late ], except for one dating to the Intermediate Bronze Age and one dating to the Early Iron Age" ] (]) 14:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't know why my changes were removed. they all fixed contradictions in the article itself. Not all Palestinians come from "Palestine". many come from other places, like Syria and Lebanon, and if youre going to claim that Neturei kara are palestinians, then you can't claim they came from "Palestine". The article also says that whether Arab Israelis are Palestinian or not is debated, then in the next sentence says that theyre palestinian. that's a contradiction. next you claim that a unique accent is a feature of Palestinians, then say only rural palestinians have it. that's another contradiction. so I fixed it to say that rural palestinians have it. next you claim "many" Palestinans thought Palestine was their country, but the whole paragraph above says mostly the opposite, and you provide no proof it was many. ] 00:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
::Actually, I definitely want an RfC on this. This content seems to be subject to long-term abuse, so I'd like a Misplaced Pages consensus on this. ] (]) 14:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:::We could, although as I said above ] is already determinative, the close "Editors in favour of inclusion have provided sources that consider the situation in Palestine one that is relevant to this article. Those opposed have failed to challenge the significance of this view, or the reliability of the sources.", in addition the plethora of available sourcing also seems conclusive. ] (]) 14:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
==full of contradictions==
::::We should be considerate about how much community time we consume in these RfCs, but I definitely think we should proceed with an RfC if the edit war continues. ] (]) 15:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
This from the article:
:All the available evidence suggests Palestinians are indigenous to the land, and are related to Jews and Samaritans, and others in the Levant (the links upthread to the study on Iron Age Canaanite populations is useful). If Arabisation removed indigeneity, then the Egyptians wouldn't be indigenous either. And would Hellenisation have the same effect, too? Incidentally, many undisputed capital-I ''Indigenous'' groups did arrive after/replace other groups – take the Kalinago, who reportedly replaced the Igneri and much of the Taíno, or the Inuit who reportedly replaced the earlier Dorset culture. So that's evidently not a deal-breaker, even if it did apply. But what we're learning more and more is that many of these cultures didn't so much ''invade and replace'' older cultures but were ''subsumed into them''. Clean breaks are relatively rare. Which is why British people today still have genetic continuity with bodies from 40,000 years ago, despite all the different people – Picts, Celts, Romans, Danes, Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, etc – who have lived on the British Isles. ] (]) 18:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

::Again, the edit war by another account continues. I'm considering the recent single change as part of a multi-account long-term edit war. We can proceed to RfC. Or perhaps we can put the claim that Palestinians aren't native to ]. ] (]) 10:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
''"The current draft of the Palestinian constitution, which will take effect should the Palestinian Authority be dismantled and an independent state is established, states that: "Palestinian citizenship shall be organized by law without prejudicing the right of anyone who acquired it before 15 May 1948 in accordance with the law or the right of the Palestinian who was resident in Palestine before that date. This right is transmitted from fathers and mothers to their children. The right endures unless it is given up voluntarily." ''
:::No need to do anything just yet, let's wait a bit, see what happens.{{Re|Levivich}}, are you still with the idea of just going with indigenous? ] (]) 10:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
<p>
::::At this point, I'd recommend some form of ].
Let's see now...am I getting this right? There is no Palestinian State at this point, but if there is one, then anyone who was a Palestinian citizen 60-odd years ago ...what? And if it isn't your state anymore, then how can you determine what your 'rights' are. The Israelis decide who lives in Israel. There was never a state called Palestine. It was an area, a neighborhood, which included Jordan, West Bank.. see "Palestine Under British Mandate Map here:
::::Articles in ] seem to have constantly spawning socks: ]

::::For those that cannot constantly spawn, if you don't want to end up ], I'd recommend dispute resolution. ] (]) 11:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
To call Jews "Palestinians" (line 1) today seems a rather disingenuous way to claim ownership of all of Israel under the nomen of "Palestine". ] 02:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::First we need to resolve the indigenous thing, I already said above I would prefer that, do I have a dispute with you tho? ] (]) 11:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:You probably misunderstood - the constitution is for a State of Palestine that was supposed to be the outcome of the final status agreements with Israel (that never took place) and is now envisioned in the Road Map. Also, what you added about all inhabitants of British mandate territory being call "Palestinians" I don't think is true, because the name "transjordan" quickly took precedence according to what I've read.
::::::No, but I just want you to keep the reality of ] in mind. My recommendation is:
:: ---- the speed by which the name changes means little. Look at the speed with which the name "Palestinian" became associated with Arabs only, just since 1967! A linquistic vacuum developed when Israel became a modern state and called her citizens Israelis. Israel by becoming 'Israelis',(which they have only been for ~58 years of so, this time round) left it open for the Arabs to identify themselves as "Palestinians" and today they are in reality the ONLY Palestinians. To say that Jews are Palestinians ''today'' is disingenuous, to say the least. ]
::::::1. Gather the sources and quotes from sources.

::::::2. Proceed to dispute resolution.
==Culture==
::::::] (]) 11:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Jayg, as for that last edit, I don't have a reference as of now which says what was added in so many words, however I have done a little searching and found many sites that mention both of those new points in passing. One good example is this one: http://www.cafearabica.com/issue1/sections/culture/farah&hanan/commit2.html
:::::::I have been on WP for a while and am familiar with dispute resolution and source gathering, thanks for the heads up tho. ] (]) 11:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The author of that site is talking about an organisation dedicated to Palestinian culture. She mentions "Arab and specifically Palestinian culture," and talks about collecting Palestinian and Syrian (another Arabic culture) artifacts. I am not sure about how citation works on Misplaced Pages, I'll check on that if you want a link to that and/or some other pages which corroborate this point. It seems, though, a pretty minor and uncontroversial point, and this might be needless clutter for the external links. She also mentions a bit about the history (in terms of the cultural artifacts she is interested in) in "Gauze from Gaza, damask from Damascus." This is at least reference to the information I added - that Palestinian culture is Arabic, and the Mediterranean region is historically well-travelled (involved in trade, what have you). The history of other nearby countries has resulted in a similar situation to the one I pointed out in my edit. For example, check out ] for corroboration that historical diversity of population is a typical feature of this region. Still, Lebanese culture is generally considered Arabic.
::::::::What I specifically mean by number 1 is that we can make a ] page or a template such as ] with the sources and quotes. I like the formatting in the template, because it also shows the expertise area of authors. ] (]) 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::A template would be really helpful. ] (]) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I have been consulting Misplaced Pages and contributing occasionally on and off for a few years, but I only recently registered as a contributor. Is it common practice to simply delete an edit if you have a question about it? Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but I thought it was supposed to be discussed first. That said, I would like to restore my edit, but I won't do so immediately in case I'm missing something important - awaiting contributions from you or others.
:::::::::I don't have a problem with a template, I just don't see why it is necessary when it has already been demonstrated, namely by adding the Palestinians to the article ] and having that confirmed in an RFC. ] (]) 17:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
] 09:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Joomba
::::::::::It's helpful to avoid future edit wars. I agree it's fine to include the language now, too, though. ] (]) 20:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:The edit was highly POV - please review ] to understand the issue. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
::::Yes I still think it should say "indigenous". ] (]) 17:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::I must ask you to be more specific in your objections. I actually have reviewed that page in the past, again more recently, and briefly again now. Also, I would like you to go over section 9.7 of that page.
:::::{{Re|Bogazicili}}, forgetting about templates for a minute, when you restored a version earlier, you reintroduced "native" and have made further comments about that since, so my question is are you also on board with "indigenous"? ] (]) 17:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I reverted back to native because that was the stable version following discussion here: ]
:You added the following text: "While most Palestinians define themselves as Arabs, their ancestry is most probably a combination of many tribes that inhabited the region over many centuries. '''This is typical, of many modern populations defining themselves as Arab - especially in the historically well-traveled Mediterranean region. Palestinian culture is steadfastly Arabic.'''" The claims you added are points of view - what evidence do you have to back them up? How do you know that this is "typical"? What does a cultre being "steadfastly Arabic" even mean? And what is section 9.7 of the page - it only goes up to section 6. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 19:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
::::::I am not sure of "indigenous" without any qualifiers. There is no consistent definition of "indigenous" to begin with.

::::::In human rights, it seems to be used something like minority rights, such as indigenous people living as minorities in colonized countries. Palestinians would be the majority in ], even though it's currently occupied.
::I meant ]. Also, you're mistaken: the only lines I added were "This is typical, (comma sic) of many modern populations defining themselves as Arab - especially in the historically well-traveled Mediterranean region. Palestinian culture is steadfastly Arabic." Please view the article's history. As support for my additions, however, I provided a reference to the demographics of Lebanon page (showing that other modern Arab populations are both Arabic in culture and ancestrally diverse), and a link to an archivist of Palestinian culture who mentions "Arab and specifically Palestinian culture," and talks about collecting Palestinian and Syrian (the significance being that Syrians are also Arabs, and are culturally similar) cultural artifacts as part of her work. Why did you ignore these pieces of evidence? Did you miss them? All you have done is reiterated that you feel my additions were POV. I have provided links, and you seem to have missed them. Anyway, the first sentence is entirely verifiable, and therefore not POV. Perhaps "steadfastly" was not the clearest word to use, but the point stands. I will omit that. If you have something to ''add'', more than reiteration of your objection, please do.] 10:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
::::::For fields such as history, or settler colonial studies, indigenous seem to be used. For science fields such as genetics, scientists usually avoid statements with 100% certainty .

::::::If you say "various experts described Palestinians as indigenous", there would be no issues. My own writing could be too cautious though, it was called "wishy washy" before. ] (]) 17:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:Palestinian culture is just arabic culture. Nothing special except maybe a speciality in terrorism.
:::::::Well, let me put it another way, do you disagree with the Palestinians being included in the ] list? ] (]) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Within the scope of that article that also includes Irish, Slavs, etc, no. Inclusion doesn't necessarily mean text in wikivoice by the way.
==Ancestry==
::::::::Instead of getting stuck on one word, we can also expand the first paragraph. This quote from the first source explains everything concisely: "Palestine was part of the first wave of conquest following Muhammad’s death in 632 CE; Jerusalem fell to the Caliph Umar in 638. The indigenous population, descended from Jews, other Semitic groups, and non-Semitic groups such as the Philistines, had been mostly Christianized. Over succeeding centuries it was Islamicized, and Arabic replaced Aramaic (a Semitic tongue closely related to Hebrew) as the dominant language". We can just reword some of this and add it into the first paragraph? ] (]) 18:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Humus Sapiens, I have to object to your most recent edit. You said it was in order to NPOV the article, however I don't think that helped at all. Also, the word "Semitic" can refer to the people. Check out this entry from Webster's: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=semitic and this entry from Oxford http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/semite?view=uk. I think that pretty much wraps up that issue. As far as saying that the Palestinians themselvs make this claim, I think that would require a lot of qualifications (which Palestinians, and says who) and evidence, whereas saying that they "are considered" as such, as was written in the last edit, is NPOV, because it relies on the facts (the facts listed in the very next sentences, which you left unchanged). I assume you don't dispute the validity of these facts, so in what way is your change more NPOV?
:::::::::The idea being that {{tq|descended from Jews, other Semitic groups, and non-Semitic groups such as the Philistines}} are qualifiers? ] (]) 18:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::No something like: {{tq|According to ] , Palestinians descend from the indigenous people from the Palestine area. Vast majority of Palestinians speak Arabic and they are mostly Muslim.}}
: First, in the future please type <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to auto-sign your posts in Talk.
::::::::::This is actually a rephrase of the second quote. "According to" part is the qualifier. ] (]) 18:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
: Second, sorry, I'll have to disappoint you: in modern context, "semitic" does indeed refer to languages and your links actually confirm that (thank you). We are not using ancient or religious terminology here, and it won't help you anyway. The phrase "], ], ], ], and other ] people" was very bad.
:::::::::::That's attribution, usually used when there is sufficient disagreement in sourcing so as not to allow a statement in Wikivoice. Is that your position? ] (]) 19:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
: Third: "Palestinians are considered to have a very mixed ancestry" -- by whom? Proof please. Ironically, in ] some editors insist that "Zionism is racism". I am looking forward to you telling them that it's impossible to have racism against "very mixed ancestry". Cheers. ]&larr;]] 11:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::::This is why I wanted to see more sources to see if "there is sufficient disagreement in sourcing". I only covered several sources sources so far myself, I didn't go through the entire literature. So the answer to your question is that I don't have a fixed position. My position depends on the sources provided.

::::::::::::Currently, there is definitely enough for content with in-text attribution or saying "various experts" ] (]) 19:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Sorry about the lack of signature. I checked the two links again, and I don't see where they confirm your contention. As for their use (neither is marked as archaic), I will paste what the sources say here: ' a member of a people speaking a Semitic language, in particular the Jews and Arabs.' and 'A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.' Both sources say that "Semite" and "Semitic" can mean "Arab". Yes, they do refer to the languages as well, but as I'm sure you're aware, plenty of words have more than one meaning. See, for example, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=French . I'm not sure what you mean by "help" me, but until I see some evidence that the words "Semite" and "Semitic" are not valid in the way they were used originally, I think we have to consider your position unsupported, and the original usage supported by two important English dictionaries.
:::::::::::::We only say "various experts say X" if other experts say not X. So far I am unaware of any historian or other scholar who says Palestinians are ''not'' indigenous, and absent a showing that there is a significant number who say this (as significant as the number who say they ''are'' indigenous, which is certainly more than 10, I'm not sure exactly how many), I'm not convinced about attribution.

:::::::::::::@Bogazicili: I understand what you're saying about not having gone through the entire literature and not wanting to stake a wikivoice statement on a small number of sources. How many sources saying "indigenous" would convince you that it's the mainstream view and should be said in wikivoice? ] (]) 19:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::I can accept that "are considered" requires too much qualification and needs rewording. However, I will point out again that your rewording is not helpful in this respect. Not only does it require citation as well, but it is much more contentious - it violates ] by implying that this stance is somehow unreliable because it originates from Palestinians (you may find some examples of Palestinians who take this stance, but without massive clarification and setting bounds on the use of the word it will still be a characterisation) and is without independent support. A better rewording can be found. In any case, there is support for the position - that the Palestinians have a mixed ancestry - in the very article, and in fact in the next few lines themselves.
::::::::::::::You can find several ] and say "Historians consider Palestinians as indigenous."

::::::::::::::Again, in science fields, you won't find that 100% certainty, they may say: "The overlap between the Bronze Age and present-day Levantines suggests a degree of genetic continuity in the region." (from ])
::Anyway, any good anthropology book will tell you that race is a social construct, and is in the eye of the beholder. Whatever ones ancestry is, mixed or not, one can be the victim of racism simply by being perceived a member of a certain "race" by someone else. That's not really relevant to what we're talking about. Awaiting your response before making fixes. ] 10:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Do you see the difference between an arts field and a science field? ] (]) 19:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::You should talk to ], a geneticist without any doubts whatsoever. ] (]) 19:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::: We are not that far apart. Of course we are talking about people. But it is not Semitic people but rather people speaking S. languages. Including into this group the Romans and Crusaders is plain wrong. By "won't help", I simply meant that such definition is too broad and therefore is conterproductive = unhelpful.
::::::::::::::::You can also argue the term "indigenous" is more appropriate for historians, and genetics is not a relevant context. That's another reason why I don't have a concrete position.
::: I do not contest their mixed ethno-religious ancestry. IMHO, "are considered" (by whom?) is even worse than "they claim" (I realize the Palestinians have wildly different opinions, but at least the reader would know where to start). In a serious encyclopedia, I would prefer to have "According to scholar X ..." Cheers. ]&larr;]] 11:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Bunch of ethnicity articles in Misplaced Pages use "native" though, so it seems easier to use. For example, ], who are also in ] ] (]) 19:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Then we would need sourcing for that instead, so same problem, maybe worse problem because I think that might be quite a bit harder to find. ] (]) 19:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Can anybody provide a serious source or citation for the "Jews, Romans, Arabs, Crusaders, and other people have all settled in the region and intermarried" claim? The two citations provided link to partisan sites, one of which claims Palestinian ancestry to the Canaanites. Please provide an academic source for significant amount of Jews having remained in Palestine after 300 CE and intermarried with the other groups cited.
::::::::::::::::::This is another reason why I suggested an RfC after gathering sources.
:Unfortunately (for some), there are some topics that only parties of direct relation will write about that foreign parties will have no interest in. If a Ukrainian publication writes about the history of the Ukrainian people, I don't think anybody would call that 'partisan'. At the same time, I don't think Greek historians would have much interest in writing about the Ukrainian people. As such, it seems that Palestinians are the only people in the world who are not allowed to write any sort of history about themselves without having a 'partisan' or 'biased' label automatically attached. So please keep in mind two completely radical concepts: One, not everything written about the Palestinian people is automatically political, and two, Palestinians (or the non-Jewish natives of the holy land, whatever you wish to call them) are human beings too, and it is not a far-fetched idea that human beings love and marry other natives of the same land. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 13:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::I know it's extra work, but something like ] could be very useful. This is a core area of anti-Palestinian racism

::::::::::::::::::RfCs seem to be useful even when there are a lot of socks. The second RfC at ] seems to have settled to issue, even though some socks were later identified. ] (]) 20:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== Talk page censored? ==
{{reftalk}}
My comments on this talk page were somehow deleted by ].
:What are you talking about? What comments, and when did I delete them? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 19:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The term "Palestinian" refers to the peoples that have lived in this territory (British Mandate Palesine and preceding). Palestinian's can be Jewish, Arab(Muslim or Christian), Circasian, etc. Actually, pre- 1948 the term Palestinian referred to Jews. Today the term is typically and commonly used to refer to Arab Palestinians, but it's important to recognize/acknowledge equally the other Palestinian communities and ethnicities as well. Furthermore, Palestine is simply the territorial land (British Mandate 1919-1922). Palestine is analogous to Antarctica today. Antarctica is a territory, not a country. A country called Antarctica doesn't exist! Like Antarctica today, Palestine too was a territory. Two sovereign countries have emerged out of the territory (20th century). One sovereign country is Israel and the other is Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania. Jews of Palestine (Jewish Palestinians) have their county (called Israel), and Arabs of Palestine have their country (called Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania).]MO.
:Antarctica was never inhabited (unless you watch sci-fi movies), and a colonial power's defining of the borders of land they ruled (and giving it a name) has absolutely no bearing on the native population's ties to specific parts of that region where their history and culture lies. The vast majority of Palestinians west of the River have/had strong ties not necessarily to "Palestine" but to their native towns and villages where they were born and bred and that happen to be in a region a colonial power named "Palestine" (and the name stuck, so what? Big deal!). So let's see: Jews of Palestine have their country, but what about the Jews that are not of Palestine (which is pretty much the Ashkenazi population of Israel as well as Yemenites, Moroccans, etc)? Isn't Israel their country too? But they do not fit your description of 'Palestinian Jews'. Next, what about ]? Are you saying Israel ''isn't'' their country? Lastly, what about the Palestinians (in today's modern terminology, not the one which you claim is from 1922) in the occupied territories? Are you saying Jordan is their country? Should they pack up and move to 'their country'? Never mind they have absolutely no ties to the land that Jordan was founded on whatsoever (except relatives who are still refugees living there). You are right in pointing out that colonial powers drew the maps of the region; you are wrong in creating artificial assignments of people to land based on those maps instead of basing it on their actual history. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 20:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The population of Antarctica (cold desert territory) is approx. 1000 (depending upon the season)(see permanent,year round research stations for details). As per the issue whether Israel (Jewish Palestinian country) also belongs to Ashkenazi Jews, Muslim Arabs, Christian Arabs, Circasians, and immigrants world wide (including Bahai,Ethiopians,Rusians,Europeans,Americans,Canadians,Oriental community,etc.)the answer is yes,it is their country too. Israel is a democracy open to immigrants of the world (see current population strata within Israel). By contrast,Jordan/Jordania/Trans-Jordan(Arab Palestinian country) is a totalitarian authoritarian dictatorship/monarchy. Jordan's immigration policy is best characterized as discouraging, and at worst 'hostile'(see Jordan's immigration/naturalization policy). Finally, I base my definition of 'Palestinian' to include all ethnic communities that lived in British Mandate Palestine territory so not to exclude anyone (ethnic group) arbitrarily.
] 22:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)MO.
:So now Israel is also the country of Ashkenazi Jews, Muslim Arabs, Christian Arabs, Circasians, and immigrants world wide (including Bahai,Ethiopians,Rusians,Europeans,Americans,Canadians,Oriental community,etc)? That is good to know, maybe a whole bunch of these people should apply for citizenship there. While you have not directly responded to my point above regarding being wrong about arbitrarily assigning homes based on a colonial power's drawing of borders at one particular point in history (and not other points in history), I thank you for expressing your views on this talk page. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 04:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"The breakdown of Israel's population is as follows: Jews - 4.9 million, Muslims 936,000; Christians - 131,000; Druze - 101,000; religion not registered - 152,000. The "Expanded Jewish Population" (including immigrants and their children who are not registered as Jews by the census bureau) is 5.1 million, 81.5% of the country's population. These figures are based on a random survey conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics for the new year." (Dec. 30, 1999: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

"In 1999, there was a significant rise in the number of new immigrants - 77,000, as compared to 60,000 in 1998, a rise of 28%. Immigration caused Israel's population to grow 160,000 (2.7%) in 1999, up from 2.4% in 1998. The Arab population rose by 3.7% and the Jewish population rose by 2.4% in 1999, up from 3.4% and 2.2% respectively, in 1998. 40% of Israel's growth in 1999 was due to immigration, up from 35% in 1998, and accounted for 42% of the increase in the Jewish population."(Dec. 30,1999: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

Regarding the issue of territorial borders drawn by the old colonial powers at specific points in time, historicaly, nearly every country and territory on the planet was formed via this method (formed by: British, French, Spanish, Ottoman-Turks, Chinese, Romans, Egyptians etc.)] 00:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)MO.

As per the article regarding: 'Palestinians', I have some concerns: the flag implies sovereignty: 'Palestine' (British Mandate Palestine/Ottoman-Turks Empire territory/etc.) was a territory like Antarctica today; it was never a sovereign country. 2)the flag is adopted by an Arab nationalistic community living in the territory (Note: the flag is nearly identical to that of Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania; also adopted by Arab nationalists living in 'Palestine' territory now known as Jordan (Arab 'Palestinian'country)). The other ethnic communities living in this territory, don't identify themselves under this flag: Circasians, Jewish, etc., even though they too, are equally 'Palestinian.' ] 18:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)MO.

I remain deeply concerned about the 'Palestinian' page. It's far too exclusive of the other 'Palestinian' communities: Jewish, Circasian, etc. Neither communities identify themselves under the Arab 'Palestinian' flag.

The 'medieval' map is disturbing. Syria and Palestine were provinces under the Ottoman-Turk Empire; not countries. Jordan (Tans-Jordan/Jordania) didn't exist prior to 1922. Pre-1922, this land too was British Mandate Palestine/former Ottoman-Turk Empire territory.]MO.

I remember viewing this page perhaps two years ago and seeing that it was full of contradictions and heated in-text confrontation by various contributors with various axes to grind... I just read through it again (and made a small contribution), though, and I find that the tone has become much more factual and NPOV. I'm not really sure now if there's anything left to this NPOV dispute, or if it's just a relic of the era when this page was still being fleshed out, and everyone has just been too uncertain to take it off.
So, I would like to suggest we remove the NPOV dispute flag; it seems pretty resolved, no? Does anyone want to bring up any more MAJOR points before we do so? I would also like to congratulate all contributors on the resolution of this article - that's a good example of how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work.

Two Points.

The genetic tests are far too narrow a scope, it is impossible to test Ashkenazi jewish populations in Israel, against something known as Palestinian and Arab.

The Arab people are far too mixed You will if one is using a Narrow scope find among the gazan population.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=semitic
Negroid/Nilotics from the Army of Egypt which stayed.

Arab Bedouins (arabized adanite)

Arab Bedouin (qahtani)

Arab Syrian (adanite)

Arab Syrian Christian (adanite-greek)

Trans Caucasians (circacausasian/Chechen/daghestani)

It is imposible unless these tests are going to use such mind boggling definitions to single out a specific halotype and say this is arab.

to suggest Ashkenazi jews are derived from the middle east is likewise ridiculous.

and Lastly,

The Palestinian Flag is the Flag of the Great Arab Revolt.

T.Y. PJaz

Canaanites???
------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you are gravely mistaken....gentics researches proved that despite what they look like, they(the ashkenazi jews) match perfectly in the the genetic map of middle-eastern peoples.
that Ashkenazi jews are much more related geneticly to the middle eastern populations and especially to the Sephardi jews and to other jewish non ashakenazi groups, despite their over all appearence, than to any of their non-jews neighbors in Europe...(in general)and by the way-European-like apperances(i.e white skin,bright hair and eyes) although rare relatively ,have been present in the middle east, specifically in where the jews orginiated from(i.e the place Abrham orginated-in modern day iraq more or less), since for ever with a "blondism" phenotype that is original as much as the European one.

Apperances are deceiving and genetically they match up with their sephardi jewish brothers and other jewish groups, and with the midddle east's diffrent peoples, most closely, to the kurds.
that is not to say that during the centuries and millenia, that non jews haven't mixed with Askenazi jews or with other jewish groups(what poeple hasn't had people from other peoples mix with them to some degree or the other?), but their influence and occurrence was relatively insiginficant as far as genetics are concerned....the gentics of the poeple of israel, the jewish poeople, has been quite constant for thousnds of years. The people of israel, i.e the jewish people has a ditinct ethnic identity which has remained pretty much as it was, since biblical times, despite different geographies, locations in the world and distances from one another-they are the direct decendents, for the most part, of the ancient israelites - they are the modern israelites, hebrews, jews.

the people of israel,the jewish people, for the most part are a pretty tight group, genetically speaking:

http://www.sdss.jhu.edu/~ethan/jFAQ.html

http://www.imninalu.net/Khazars.htm

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769

http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~siamakr/Kurdish/KURDICA/2001/3/jewkurd.html

http://www.familytreedna.com/nature97385.html

and so on....

:True, but all the research which attests to this truth - that the majority of gene sequence of Ashkenazim is mostly Middle Eastern (with some little European and Central Asian ]] admixture) are true ONLY for the paternal ancestry (]) of the Ashkenazim. All research findings on the maternal ancestry (]) of the Ashkenazim show that the origins of the Ashkenazim are indeed in Europe. Basically, what this means, is that the patriarchs of Ashkenazim were Middle Easterners, but the matriarchs were gentile Europeans. Since Jewishness is inherited from the mother, that means that Ashkenazi matriarchs were converts to the Jewish faith, or else the current Ashkenazi population would not today be Jewish. And do realise that the only geneflow into the Ashkeanzi population was from one source (from native gentile Europeans, as indeed they were in Europe for over a thousand years), while the Middle Eastern element was confined to that initial input provided by the Middle Eastern forebears that were responsable for the Ashkenazim being in Europe in the first place.

:You may ask "but if this were true, if the Ashkenazim were now genetically Europeans and Middle Easterners only in a distant descent, why would they still show the markers pointing their origins (paternall only, as I have pointed out) as being almost entirely from the Middle East"? I will answer in an analogy; if an African man (who immigrated to Europe in the year 1015) and a European woman bear a baby mulatto boy, that boy's Y chromosome will place his origins in Africa, but his mtDNA will place his origins in Europe. When that mulatto boy grows up and in turn has a baby boy with another European woman, that boy's Y chromosome will again place his origins in Africa (even though he is 1/4 african), and his mtDNA will place his origins in Europe. Then if that boy has a baby boy with yet another European woman, that baby boy's Y chromosome will yet again place his origins in Africa (even though by this stage he is 1/8 african), and his mtDNA will again place his origins in Europe.

:And as for the "'''''jewish people has a ditinct ethnic identity which has remaind preety much as it was, since biblical times'''''", well that is just not true. That "ditinct ethnic identity" is the view propagated by modern Zionism, which itself is a concept born of European Jewry in an social atmosphere unique to Europe (nationalism was a phenomenon originally native to Europe and the different groups of Europe). Most Jews before the rise of European Zionism, and most non-European Jews even after the rise of European Zionism, did not think of Jewishness as an ethnicity. ], for example, generally viewed themselves as ]s of the Jewish faith, with the distinction between ]is being religious (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc.) rather than as a separate race or nationality. Jewish nationalism is a recent phenomenon resulting from the birth of Zionism in Europe (a continent where the concept of nationality itself was born, the reason for the birth of Zionism, a form of nationalism).

:When the non-European Jews made it to Israel, most were not even familiar with the concepts of Zionism much less with the idea that Jewishness was a nationality. Most saw themselves as ethnic groups of the countries from which they originated (Arabs, Kurds, etc.) except for the fact that they were of the Jewish faith. Their reception by Ashkenazim in Israel also testifies to the fact that this Zionist "Jewish nationalism" was in name only (at least not intended for those Jews not of European origin), as they were discriminated for being Arab Jews, Kurdish Jews, Yemenite Jews, etc. and the discrimination goes on today. Most European Jews were not even aware of non-European Jewish populations, and this explains the background of Zionism's "Jewish Nationalism" as just another sprout of nationalism of Europeans. I could quote a myriad of racist statements made by the Zionist (Ashkenazi) founding fathers of Israel that attest to the fact that Zionist nationalism never meant to encompass Jews who were non-Europeans. They only came to be included after the state was born, when the Jewish population still needed to be augmented. It was only then that they turned with contempt to the Oriental Jews (Mizrahim). Except for the fact that they were of the Jewish faith, Mizrahim were seen as no better than other Arabs, in fact the founders of Israel viewed the Mizrahi as lesser than the local non-Jewish Arabs of Israel. Now today you have the ], ], ], etc, they are all also very discriminated and even unrecognized by some Jews, even though genetic studies also show them to be descendants of ancient Israelites (at least in the case of Indian Jews and Lembas, because the Ethiopians show little if any ancient Israelit ancestry). Is this the "'''''ditinct ethnic identity '''''" that you speak of? ] 17:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)'''.

--------------------------------------------------------

:Sorry, bub. But all of this sounds like garden-variety anti-semitism to me. If you claim that non-Ashkenazi Jews are actively discriminated against by the State of Israel (notice I say STATE, not people; I'm sure there are some small minded nutbags in Israel, just like any other country, and they will hate anybody. But they are people, not the government), why do they stay? Why don't they leave? Certainly, the ] (some of the Indian Jews you mentioned) will not have any problems on India's end if they choose to return. There was never any anti-semitism or anything like that from Hindus, and the Bnei Menashe weren't driven out in a "final solution" or anything like that. In fact, many Indian politicians were reluctant to let the Bnei Menashe Jews do their ]. Therefore they can come back to India if they are sooo "Discriminated Against" by "Evil Israel". I'm sure that similar rguments can be made against other Jews from outside Europe who went to Israel. The fact that they STAY in Israel alone is sufficient evidence that there is no intolerable state sanctioned persecution against them, and they're basically doing OK, barring the usual problems faced by all Israelis. It seems you're just trying to foster hatred against Israel, and this is a wikipedia talk page, not a hate site.] 10:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)]

==NPOV and editting Talk:Palestinian People==
Two Things: First: Can we archive this to have talk only contain information regarding the page currently? My own arguments from months ago regarding NPOV are long settled. This is far longer than preferable and difficult for us with ADD to read through. Second, I see no reason the tag is up on the talk page. Unless someone posts a relevent reason for why it is up-no matter how disagreeable-by January 20th, I myself will remove this tag believing it to be leftover and unsupported. Note: One person claiming this tag should be there would gain legitimacy to me. But nothing clear in the talk describes why it is there now. ] 10:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
:Archived...] 01:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
== Comparing the Palestinian refugee situation to other refugee cases ==
The Vietnamese boat people exodus from Vietnam was happening when I was in university. Shocked by the number of people affected; 1.5 to 2 million, and somewhat pleased with the ], I looked at the Palestine issue in order to understand the magniture of the boat exodus and was appalled to see estimates for the Palestinian exodus of from 9 to 15 million displaced people with no international resettlement response.

I continue to see acusations that it was the arab states responsibility to take in all the refugees, yet I cannot conceive of the effect it would have had on their economies for the bordering nations to handle 15 million refugees as the estimate which was given and the size of their own populations. Even 9 million would be crushing to the bordering nations whose populations are: Syria 18 million, Jordon 6 million, Lebanon 4 million, and more remotely
Saudi Arabi 26 million

This is the extent of my investigation on the issue and I remain appalled. How accurate is the information I have presented here?
<small>&mdash;''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 19:27, 14 January 2006.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->

I think you might be confused, even the most loose estimate of the initial Palestinian Estimate was 900,000, the 9 to 15 million number might be the entire current population of Palestinians, sorry but your "investigation" seems off to an inauspicious start.- ] | ] 19:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

==Removed text==
Another editor removed the text below which I initially reverted but, on looking at the source it doesn't look particularly neutral so I'm moving it here for comments:

''While most Palestinians define themselves as Arabs, their ancestry is most probably a combination of many tribes that inhabited the region over many centuries. According to one study: <blockquote>The Palestinians do not have a common ethnic origin or a common religion. What joins them together is simply the fact that they and their ancestors have lived in the land of Palestine from as far back as any of them can record. In their veins run the blood of the ancient Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Crusaders and Turks ... It must be fully conceded that the Palestinians are a very mixed group of people ... each group of Palestinians traces its ancestry over differing lengths of time. </blockquote>''

] 00:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

==Palestinian Dialect==
Hi, there's a paragraph in the introduction that discusses the "palestinian Dialect". the paragraph contains incorrect information. the more accurate linguistic information is in the link under Palestinian Arabic. Sorry i posted here, but, i didnot know how to fix it. If someone would delete it or copy the correct information from Palestinian Arabic and post it there, i would appreciate it. <small>&mdash;''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 03:03, 24 January 2006.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->
:I've taken out the obvious inaccuracies. Feel free to make any more changes you feel are warranted. ] | ] 15:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

== huh? ==

''Today the existence of a unique Palestinian nationality/identity is generally recognized even by most Israelis ().''

http://www.rosenblit.com/Palestine.htm

The source used for this bit of information doesn't really seem to add up to what's being said in the article - it claims that there IS no such thing as the palestinians. Can someone sort this out? I don't really know enough about the topic to change anything around, but it looks a bit dodgy to me. ] 15:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

== arguments for NPOV dispute ==
In this talk page there is no clear argument supporting the non-NPOV tag in the article. Would somebody please add any?--] 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

==] link==
I have removed the link below added by ] as the Middle East Forum is a well known neo conservative anti palestinian organization so it is inappropriate to link to a site with such obvious lack of ]. I would appreciate other peoples opinions of course. Thanks ] 03:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

''* Gottheil, Fred M. , 1922-1931]''

:It's a scholarly source and there are no grounds in policy for removing it. Or are you suggesting only one POV should be represented? The page also needs a references section. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
::Sorry but I wouldn't link to neo nazi pages on the holocaust page or a website run by republicans on John Kerry's page. If there is an obvious known bias in an organization we should not consider it ]. ] 03:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

:::It's not a neo-Nazi site. Don't be silly. It's an article by an American professor of economics. I've started a references section. Perhaps you could start adding citations instead of removing material you don't like. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
::::I never said it was a neo nazi site, please don't misquote me. I was using examples of where people or organizations have shown a clear bias against something we should not link to them on the article pages. The Middle East Forum is a neo-conservative pro israel organization and therefore cannot be considered a neutral source for Palestinian history. Similarly I would not link to a Hamas site full of Jewish conspiracy theories on the Israel page. ] 12:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this a ] redux? I wouldn't be surprised if Zero0000 were to show up, ripping the article apart. -- ] (]) 03:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
:It is along the same lines and was endorsed by the founder of the ], ]. I don't think we can consider any information from the ] to be created from a neutral perspective so it's existence on this page is not appropriate in my opinion. ] 22:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
::It is completely unacceptable to have this link on this page - it IS just as bad as putting a link to a Muslim fundementalist site on ]. As regards the other links they are all neutral in their presentation except for Palestine Monitor which I will remove. ] 23:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My concern is the other site - the PMW site - this is a propaganda site that is highly biased and is definitely not scholarly nor is it subject to third-party verification. Furthermore, if it is to be included on any article on WP, this wouldn't be it - this is an article on the Palestinian people and not a political article nor one about the fighting. I'm removing it, it is best suited elsewhere. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 04:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
:I agree, I removed it but SlimVirgin restored it. ] 12:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
::I didn't restore it when Ramallite removed it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
:::You are totally out of order, Arnie. DO NOT remove a scholarly source and DO NOT attempt to poison the well with your own description of it. Read ], ], ], ], and ] and start editing in accordance with them. Just because you personally don't like something has no bearing on whether Misplaced Pages publishes or links to it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Arniep, on what specific grounds are you removing the article? "Middle East Forum is a well known neo conservative anti palestinian organization" according to whom? If we removed all POV website links, there'd be precious few external links in Misplaced Pages, if any at all. The last time this article was deleted from the page, against my objections, the ostensible reason was that it was "non-factual" - of course, that really doesn't jibe with our ] policy. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
:] himself has stated that there should be no Palestinian state. An article on a website founded by a person that says that cannot be considered ] or anywhere near it for this article. ] 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::Huh? There are Palestinians (and others) who say there should be no Israel as well, or a bi-national state, or whatever. Please quote a ''specific policy-based reason'' for deleting this. Oh, and if you mention any ridiculous "Nazi" comparisons, I'll invoke ], and you will have immediately forfeited any right to further discussion or reverting. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
::I did quote a policy, ]. I would not include a research paper by a Muslim historian claimed to be anti semitic by many people on any Jewish or Israel related pages just as I would not include this link here. ] 00:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
:::There are several arguably anti-Semitic scholarly sources, and sources who are hostile to Israel, who are used in Israel-related articles. The point is whether the person is a mainstream scholar in a relevant field. I can only repeat: '''read the content policies'''. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
::::I'll quote from the only one you seem to have glanced at, NPOV: "NPOV is one of Misplaced Pages's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are ] and ]. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. The three policies are complementary, non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editor's consensus. '''They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.''' (my emphasis) ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
::::Scholars can still have extreme biases, including race based bias. Please point out the anti semitic links on Israel related pages and I will see if I think they should be removed. ] 00:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::I can't keep arguing with you. You would be as wrong to remove scholarly sources from other pages just because I don't like them, as you are to remove this one from this page because you don't like it. I won't be responding to any more of this. Please use the time to read the policy pages. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::Are you claiming the author of this particular article is the equivalent of an anti-Semite? On what grounds? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
::::I'll quote from the ] policy as well: '''All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one.''' We link to anti-Zionist sites from the Israel article (e.g. Electronic Intifada, Indymedia), why wouldn't we link to this site from here? Again, I'd like to see a policy-based reason for not linking to this site. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::It is not that I don't like the article, it is the fact that it comes from a clearly biased source. I would find it disturbing and distasteful for "scholarly" papers written by known anti semitic academics to be linked to as reliable sources on Jewish or Israeli pages just as I find the linking of this site distasteful on this page. I believe the ] cannot be considered a ] as it has a clear bias against Muslims and Palestinians. ] 00:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::::: I don't see why MEF would not qualify as ]. I don't believe it is the MEF that is the problem here, I tend to think it is the article's topic (something Ed Poor also touches upon in the next talk section). Here's a relevant quote from 1930 : ''The Chief Immigration Officer has brought to notice that illicit immigration through Syria and across the northern frontier of Palestine is material. This question has already been discussed. It may be a difficult matter to ensure against this illicit immigration, but steps to this end must be taken if the suggested policy is adopted, as also to prevent unemployment lists being swollen by immigrants from TransJordania.'' ←] <sup>]</sup> 00:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::It is not a reliable source as it is a political organization with extreme bias against Palestinians. ] 00:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::First, that is your POV, but more importantly, what does that have to do with the academic whose paper we link to? Also, I must insist that you edit in accordance with the policies and guidelines. ] says specifically that we should not add our own descriptions to links. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::You keep repeating yourself, but you refuse to provide any evidence for your claims. Also, please do not mess around with citations; there is a proper citation style, and one shouldn't attempt to introduce POV into citations by adding your own take on them. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::I can't see anywhere in ] that says that the publisher of a source cannot be given. Also, I still believe the link as it currently stands violates ] as a reader may click on it not realising that the website has a known bias. It is a fact that the Middle East Forum is a neoconservative thinktank so that should be made clear on the link too. ] 01:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::You keep saying things like "has a known bias" without any evidence or reliable citations. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Oh, and you could hardly claim it's more biased than the links to the "PLO Negotiations Affairs Department" or the article from ]; neither of which are anywhere near as scholarly. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::I actually just added those to try to defuse the situation. I just removed the PLO link as it is doesn't directly bear on the "Palestinian people" article, per se. ] 01:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

My commentary on the Middle East Forum citation/link was requested by Arniep, and I've (cursorily) read over this discussion thread and the article history. I ''do'' share much of Arniep's concern that Middle East Forum is very partisan source—I probably don't ''agree'' with anything they've ever published. That said, it ''is'' roughly within the realm of scholarly discussion, so a link that doesn't ''endorse'' the content of that site is reasonable to include. I believe that Arniep's latest edit which adds a brief description of the organization as a neo-conservative advocacy group is appropriate to include for context, though much more "refutation" than that characterization would belabor the point. ] 01:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

''Followup'': Looking at it slightly more, I'm not really sure what good motivation there is for including the MEF reference. I don't believe that ] prohibits its use, ''per se''; but it is also far from clear to me why that particular link, out of however many thousands of articles that have been written about the Palestinian people, is particularly germane. Yeah, it's vaguely on the right topic, but it doesn't feel like a resource that really adds anything helpful to the article. ] 01:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:The specific article is about the origins of the Palestinian people, and their economics, in the period 1921-1931. How on earth could it not be relevant? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::It's clearly relevant, Lulu, and it's a scholarly source so there are no grounds in policy for removing it, as Arnie has been doing repeatedly, and ] says we shouldn't add our own descriptions to citations, as he has also done. The ''Middle East Quarterly'' is now linked to and its article says it was founded by Pipes, so the information is there for anyone who needs it. I suggest this one link has been discussed enough. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

==Neutrality vs. POV-pushing==

This article appears at first glance designed to prove the point that the "real Palestinians" are the Palestinian Arabs and not the Palestinian Jews. Since this point is the focus of one of the foremost political and military disputes of modern times, I would like Misplaced Pages to treat it with the most scrupulous neutrality.

Say rather that "most people think" or "this politician said" or whatever. But please do not simply assert that the Arab definition of "Palestinian" is correct. Let it be a matter of dispute, and let each reader decide for himself.

This is important because much of the ] is a dispute about who really belongs to ] who and its rightful owners or dwellers are. The ]s are crucial to this, and we should not take either a pro-Israeli or pro-Arab side, but simply lay out the issues as clearly as possible. --] 16:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think it is actually true to say that this article is <i>"designed to prove the point that the "real Palestinians" are the Palestinian Arabs and not the Palestinian Jews"</i>. That's a pretty interesting assessment. I see this article as just basically referring to common usage of 'Palestinian' in contemporary times, something I have not seen anybody having trouble with. Is there an actual "Arab definition" of 'Palestinian'? The only 'Arab definitions' I can find include Jews who lived in the area prior to 1948 (or whenever the 'Zionist invasion' is supposed to have started). So there is no actual definition that excludes all Jews. Your concerns also seem to indicate that Israeli Jews may be offended that the term 'Palestinian' does not include them - but the vast majority of Israelis would not be offended at all. Sure, the word 'Palestinian' referred to all inhabitants of Palestine at one point in time, but I'm not sure the past is relevant to this particular article. In other words, I don't really think that the majority of people would see this article as biased just for the reason you state, but more input from others would be appreciated.
:And another thing, the flag you removed is not the 'Flag of the PLO-declared State of Palestine', it actually represented the Palestinian Arabs before there was a PLO (which decided to adopt this flag after it formed), and was a symbol of the Palestinians' nationalism once that nationalism started to form earlier in the 20th century. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::You make a lot of good points here, but please forgive me if I only address one right now. On the flag image, I may be mistaken. I seem to remember that flag as being the "flag of the State of Palestine", which would indicate a political statement. Ethnic groups don't generally have flags, do they? A flag is a symbol of a country. And what does the flag of the ] look like? I should check if it's the same as the one I removed from the article. ] 16:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

==Begging the question==

Deleted from '''The origins of Palestinian identity''':

:However, the Palestinians, like most Arab nationalities, have come to view themselves as primarily Palestinians (rather than as primarily Arabs, or Syrians, or citizens of a particular town) mostly in the past century.

This sentence assumes that there is (or has been) a particular group called "Palestinians" but it does not explain how this group came into being. Nor does it explain how this group, if it previously existed, came to self-designate as "Palestinians". Since this is the key part of the article and the main focus of this section, I'd like to see at least SOME detail here.

This sentence implies that some Arabs of Palestine became a nationality (or wanted a nationality, or wanted to create yet another Arab nation in Palestine). It's not clear which.

This sentence does not, however, explain what it means to "view themselves as Palestinians". And it seems to contradict the etymological material just a few sentences earlier, which identifies "Palestinians" with ''Filisteeni'' (which sounds a lot like the "]" of the ]. --] 19:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

==What's with the flag?==

This image - ] is the official flag of the ]. Why is it "widely considered the symbol of the Palestinian people"? And what does that mean, anyway?

Do non-Arab Palestinians feel that the PNA flag represents them? Do Israeli Arabs feel that the flag of the Palestinian Authority is an ethnic symbol for them? Or a political symbol? Or what?

Much of this is not clear. --] 16:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)\

:As Ramalite cites above, please see this source, e.g., . ] 19:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::I object. The NPOV dispute has not been settled. At issue is the meaning of the phrase "the Palestinian people" (among other things). Please put back the NPOV tag until the dispute is settled. --] 14:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

==Terrorist use of Palestinian Arab children==

Where should the following <s>facts</s>ideas go?

*USA Today correspondent ] reported:
*:Children serve as infantry in the confrontations between Israeli and Palestinian soldiers. In scenes reminiscent of Iranian children sent to the Iraqi front equipped with plastic keys to heaven, Palestinian children are sent close to Israeli positions with rocks and Molotov cocktails, while the gunmen and snipers fire from positions hundreds of yards back.

*Palestinian terrorist groups use many different methods of encouraging the youth to embrace the ways of terror. The most important method is of ensuring that an environment of hatred is maintained in the society. And the youths are kept in a perpetual state of anger. To accomplish this goal, radical Islamism as represented by Hamas, Hezbollah and other Arab terrorist groups make sure that no one in the society speak against their methods. There are reports that Palestinian armed groups have pressured families of those who have been killed while carrying out attacks, including children, not to condemn but to welcome and endorse their relatives' actions.

The article should have a link to anti-Israeli terrorism or "freedom fighting" or whatever these people think they're doing. --] 19:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

::You are very fast losing my respect if you take racist garbage like this and refer to it as 'facts'. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 20:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

:Note change from "facts" to "ideas". --] 20:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
::You might be interested in . Please note that peddling these sorts of articles is like insisting on quoting garbage out of ] on Misplaced Pages. I take great offense to both sorts of crap. I will assume good faith and believe that you do not have malicious intentions with these dehumanization articles. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 20:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Disgusting garbage. Keep it out. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

:Whether or not information is disgusting to you has no bearing on the factual status of said information. Facts should be included. Tastes should be excluded. ] 06:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

== Allegations can be checked ==

:According to Amnesty International, since 2001 there have been other cases in which Palestinian children have been used by Palestinian armed groups to carry out or attempt to carry out suicide bombings or other attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers.

The above could be googled. I don't think anyone's ever accused AI of being racist. --] 20:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Cases of children being used" is not the same as "scenes reminiscent of the Iranian army sending their children out with plastic keys" - AI can quote ''alleged'' cases, but that's all they are - cases. Making this into a dehumanizing propaganda article is a different ball game. What's next? These Palestinians hate Jews more than they love their kids? Oh wait - that has already been uttered by the likes of Kelley and Marcus. Yes, all those Palestinians are terrorist monsters who deserve to be H-bombed out of existence. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 20:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

:I think I see your point. Good, reliable primary sources are what we need. (Sure am glad I didn't stick that rubbish in the article; I guess this is what the "discussion" page is for.)

:For what it's worth, I believe in *you*, Ramallite. --] 02:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

:Furthermore, the tone of the article from which I quoted was not that ''all Arabs in or near Palestine are monsters'' but rather that powerful groups within the culture are exploiting young people. And given that article's premise that the bombing campaign has no overarching moral or political justification, it regards these groups as driving young people to hideous crimes of murder and suicide.

:I personally do not advocate the "nuclear solution" - I assume that was extreme rhetoric. Perhaps a solution can be found, one that maybe no one has thought of yet (or has received little publicity).

:Anyway, I'm not here to debate the issues but to '''describe them fairly'''. If there are deep issues relevant to the inhabitants of Palestine (including longterm Arab natives, their descendants and recent immigrants if any; plus the ] who are now all or almost all "Israeli" Jews), then we MUST describe these issues as clearly and rationally as we can. We can also be sympathetic and gentle, but we must not let '''our''' writing become partisan here at Misplaced Pages. Rather, we should describe the partisan views of the various parties who espouse them. Okay? --] 13:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)



First, thanks for your believing in me. Second, including any sort of writing such as this would automatically make WP partisan, not to mention a right-wing propaganda machine. You ought to keep in mind that you are talking about my own country here, and I know more than anybody else on these pages what does or does not happen. Obviously I cannot inject my own knowledge here, but when I see garbage, I will call it as such. Let me state a few points in relation to the above:
# '''Powerful groups within the culture are exploiting young people.''' This is the sort of claim that would need to be verified by sociologists or people who actually interview these 'young people'. What is happening here is a right wing racist journalist is seeing Palestinian kids throw rocks at Israeli soldiers, and because of his hate agenda, writes the conclusion that this is because kids are 'coerced' and that groups propagate a 'culture of hate'. That's exactly like seeing a few Jews being the heads of major cooperations, and writing an article about a Jewish targeted agenda to take over the world (in other words, taking a few observations and spinning a pile of garbage out of it). Let me tell you a little secret: even young kids know what lack of freedom means. They do not have to be taught it - being harrassed by foreign occupying soldiers since the day they were born is enough evidence that something is wrong. The Palestinian people (including young kids) are not some kind of regimented robot army that takes commands from some hate source and acts accordingly.
# '''Describe them fairly''': First, you would actually need to show verifiable sources that these things exist in the first place - if something doesn't exist, how would it be described?
# '''Driving young people to hideous crimes of murder and suicide'''. There can be no question that these actions are hideous crimes, but the notion that there is a culture that 'drives young people to do it' is false and, I can't believe I have to say something so obvious, racist and dehumanizing. There is a lot of hate built up in Palestine against the occupation, and trust me on this: nobody needs to be 'taught' this, it's in your face all the time. It's like the old canard that Palestinian textbooks are full of anti-Semitic hate. Well I graduated high school in the nineties, and the textbooks we used were all stamped with Israeli seals. In fact, the word 'Palestine' was erased in our textbooks and replaced by the word 'Israel'. The Palestinian Authority did revise the curriculum during those years, and there has been much garbage spewed about the contents of these textbooks. But organizations that have actually bothered to read them (and I don't mean the pathological liars over at Palestine Media Watch) have found that, while not perfect, they come nowhere near being as bad as these allegations state. In fact, the degree of 'negativity' towards the Israelis and the occupation is comparable to the degree of negativity that Israeli textbooks have towards Palestinians.
# In short - if somebody wants to quote sources about Palestinian culture, one ought to rely on knowledgeable sources (keeping in mind that not all sources that claim to be knowledgeable are in fact so, especially those that are not actually based in Palestine). I can't write my own knowledge about my own country on Misplaced Pages, but I can call people on garbage when I see it.
# Throughout history, mass dehumanization has usually been the precursor to some bigger crime against a people (like genocide or mass deportation). I continue to fear that this is not a far-fetched concept for Palestinians, just look at the we are held against compared to other peoples of the world. So when I see propaganda material that is clearly dehumanizing, it just reenforces my fears that things are not going to end very well for us at all.
# I have recently tried to avoid spilling my personal opinions on WP discussion pages (I used to do that a lot just to clarify things about Palestinians that are usually taken for granted in the case of any other people, like the fact that we are human beings too). So I apologize to all who read this that I'm off pontificating again. But that's my natural response to hate-filled propaganda that tries to pass 'matter-of-factly' around here.
] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 13:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

R, your monologue above is exactly the reason that original research is not permitted in these articles. For all I know you are a raging terrorist out to murder Jews, Brits and Americans, purposely attempting to sound semi moderate to conceal evil intent (we certainly have had enough of those recently in many Western countries). I could post a long article claiming to be a Palestinian Christian suffering the discrimination and brutality of having to live amongst a bunch of intolerant bloodthirsty Muslims (and those Christians probably exist), but it wouldn't be true. The whole point of Wiki is to have third party mainstream objective sources as the sole source of information. That will provide some validity to these articles. The fact that you (or I) don't like a particular point of view is something you or I might find disconcerting, but if a mainstream source says something, and you don't believe it's accurate, you don't delete the source, you provide another source that has a contrary point of view. I personally find the views of Eduard Said and Noam Chommpsky vile, untruthful, and crazed - but I wouldn't delete them from an article, I would just make sure that a view I considered more accurate was also cited. R, that's what democracy is all about, not drowning out those you disagree with, but offering alternatives to allow interested persons to make up their own mind. And that's why ultimately democracy wins out over rival systems that involved censorship and intolerance, people want the right to make up their own mind. Observe the rules, post mainstream sources, suck it up when reading views you don't like, and you will be a good editor on this article.] 12:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:Wow - an unprovoked tirade against me!
:*"you are a raging terrorist out to murder Jews, Brits and Americans, purposely attempting to sound semi moderate to conceal evil intent". So you find out that I'm a Palestinian and so it becomes okay to throw such despicable ] at me? That is highly offensive. Such insults are not tolerated, and perpetrators are normally blocked. Read ].
:*"I could post a long article claiming to be a Palestinian Christian suffering the discrimination and brutality...." No you could not, because WP is not a place for posting personal articles, true or otherwise. This here is a discussion page, and not the actual article. I suggest you look into blogs, that's where you could post your articles. Read ].
:*"if a mainstream source says something, and you don't believe it's accurate, you don't delete the source, you provide another source that has a contrary point of view." Right. If on the other hand a source is NOT mainstream and is NOT reliable, then you would have two options: post nonsense from it anyway, then go and counter it with another source, and clutter up the WP article with back and forth bickering over something that is factually not true anyway; or not bother with it at all and stay only with reliable sources. I prefer the second. Read ].
:*"I personally find the views of Eduard Said and Noam Chommpsky vile, untruthful, and crazed - but I wouldn't delete them from an article" Good for you, neither would I, because they are scholars, as opposed to the people you are presumably referring to, who are not. Read ].
:*"R, that's what democracy is all about, not drowning out those you disagree with, but offering alternatives to allow interested persons to make up their own mind". Unfortunately certain 'alternatives' are allowed to be used on WP with much less scrutiny than other certain 'alternatives'. However, read the ] regarding Misplaced Pages and democracy.
:*"And that's why ultimately democracy wins out over rival systems that involved censorship and intolerance". Censorship and intolerance, ''especially'' intolerance, are what my post above was about. Read it again.
:Regards, the raging terrorist also known as ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 16:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:12, 12 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Palestinians article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
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, 27Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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 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 is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPalestine Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

WikiProject iconIsrael High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconArab world Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman Genetic History (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis 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
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Text and/or other creative content from Palestinian hip hop was copied or moved into Palestinians with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Property Losses Estimate

The last sentence of the header reads: "According to Perry Anderson, it is estimated that half of the population in the Palestinian territories are refugees and that they have collectively suffered approximately US$300 billion in property losses due to Israeli confiscations, at 2008–09 prices."

However, the *total* national wealth of neighbouring Jordan (population >10M, greater than 2x the current population of the Gaza Strip + the West Bank) is $146 billion, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_countries_by_total_wealth. Even if property in Israel is substantially more valuable per square foot (possible), Israel's total national wealth is only $1,046 billion or $1.05 trillion (same source), and Israel is an unusually stable/rich/technologically innovative country by Middle Eastern standards so the land in an independent Palestine has no guarantee to be as valuable as land in the state of Israel.

I submit that this sentence should be removed as not credible, or at least have some sort of qualification added to it providing context (such as the total wealth of neighbouring Jordan).

Indigineity

This revert is based on sources and both reverters have provided none for their view, instead accusing editors relying on sources of POV pushing. Selfstudier (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I would have also expected they contribute to this discussion by demonstrating which RS disagree. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@Owenglyndur: Consensus is built on WP guidelines and involves participating in the talk page discussion, not just refusal to accept some material. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Selfstudier: can you provide several references, including the exact text of the reference, that say Palestinians are indigenous. (I know they are already in the article, provide them below as well so we can compare them with any sources that say otherwise). VR (Please ping on reply) 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    Afaics, based on the latest revert by @ABHammad:, this is currently all about the difference between "native to" and "descending from". I do not understand the fuss over "native to", are there sources saying they are not? How can they be descended from but not native to?
    In fact based on the sourcing below, there is a good case for just describing them as indigeneous. Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
    @ABHammad: same question as above. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


Sources

Let's collect up sources here, these are mentioned in the article: Dowty, Alan (2008). Israel/Palestine. London, UK: Polity. p. 221. ISBN 978-0-7456-4243-7. Archived from the original on 29 November 2023. Retrieved 29 November 2023. Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture.

Gelvin, James L. (13 January 2014). The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War. Cambridge University Press. p. 93. ISBN 978-1-107-47077-4. Archived from the original on 29 November 2023. Retrieved 29 November 2023. Furthermore, Zionism itself was also defined by its opposition to the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants of the region. Both the "conquest of land" and the "conquest of labor" slogans that became central to the dominant strain of Zionism in the Yishuv originated as a result of the Zionist confrontation with the Palestinian "other".

  • Abu-Libdeh, Bassam, Peter D. Turnpenny, and Ahmed Teebi. 2012. "Genetic Disease in Palestine and Palestinians". Pp. 700–11 in Genomics and Health in the Developing World, edited by D. Kumar. Oxford University Press. p. 700: "Palestinians are an indigenous people who either live in, or originate from, historical Palestine.... Although the Muslims guaranteed security and allowed religious freedom to all inhabitants of the region, the majority converted to Islam and adopted Arab culture."

Walid Khalidi argues otherwise, writing that Palestinians in Ottoman times were "cutely aware of the distinctiveness of Palestinian history ..." and "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." Khalidi, W., 1984, p. 32

Not mentioned in the article: Center for World Indigenous Studies, Indigenous Israelis and Palestinians "While each of these nations challenges the cultural and political legitimacy of the other serious scholarship informs us that both the Palestinians and the Israelis are indigenous to the territories that was once known as Canaan."

Native Peoples of the World: An Encylopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues Steven L. Danver Routledge 2012 "Thus, Palestinians are considered by some to be the indigenous people of present-day Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Other scholars dispute this view, asserting that Jews and others resided in Palestine"

Reclaiming Palestinian Indigenous Sovereignty Jamal Nabulsi Pages 24-42 12 Jun 2023 https://doi.org/10.1080/0377919X.2023.2203830 "Drawing on the critical thought of Palestinians and other Indigenous peoples struggling against settler colonialism, I argue for a theorization of Palestinian indigeneity. Following from this indigeneity, I show that Palestinian Indigenous sovereignty is the embodied political claim to the land of Palestine."

Indigeneity, Apartheid, Palestine: On the Transit of Political Metaphors Mark Rifkin Cultural Critique Vol. 95 (Winter 2017), pp. 25-70 (46 pages) University of Minnesota Press https://doi.org/10.5749/culturalcritique.95.2017.0025 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/culturalcritique.95.2017.0025

There are further sources that I have not reviewed in any detail at Talk:Genocide_of_Indigenous_peoples#RFC:_Palestinian_genocide_accusations. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Editors @Owenglyndur: and @האופה: continue to edit war, notwithstanding the sourcing provided above and without providing any contrary sourcing to back up their personal opinions. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
As you can see here there are many sources stating waves of Muslim Immigration to the region:
Demographic history of Palestine (region)
As well as here:
Origin of the Palestinians Owenglyndur (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
WP is not a source. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
That is right, but each article has dozens of sources to back up the claim. Read the sources. Owenglyndur (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Not the way it works, you need to contradict the sources above. Waiting. Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Deer Sir, you asked for sources, i handed you 2 articles with plenty of sources. Read them. Owenglyndur (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
See your talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
@Selfstudier, your recent revert here unfortunately goes against repeated challenges (we haven't reached consensus) and does not demonstrate a willingness to engage in a constructive dialogue on this controversial issue. Please self-revert per WP:ONUS and as a gesture of openness to collaborative editing within our community. Thank you. ABHammad (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Revert your 5 or more reverts first. Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
@Selfstudier, let's be honest, this approach isn't very mature. It's not just me, it's hree editors that have challenged this recent addition, yet you continue to push it into the article. I urge you to consider a self-revert, which would show your willingness to engage in good faith on this matter. As an experienced editor in our community, I ask that you to set a good example for collaboration. ABHammad (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
You need to bring sources that support your version, not give lectures. Selfstudier (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
While I understand the complication involving the difference in meaning between "indigenous to an area" and "Indigenous Peoples," questioning whether Palestinians are "native" to Palestine is absolutely idiotic and frankly racist. Personally I have no tolerance for this and I doubt the rest of the community will, either. The only thing stopping me from filing at AE right now is lack of time, but if this doesn't stop I'll make time sometime in the next week unless someone else beats me to it. Levivich (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich, @Selfstudier, @JJNito197, what I'm seeking here isn't an effort to engage in a constructive good-faith discussion to achieve consensus, but rather threats from two expereinced editors. I agree with the opposing views here—I don't see a compelling reason to redefine a 23-year-old article on Palestinians by now labeling them collectively as "native." As evidenced by the current discussion on Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples#RFC: Palestinian genocide accusations, there is ongoing dispute within the community about using "indigenous" to describe all Palestinians. While I do believe that many Palestinian clans have lived in Palestine for centuries, maybe millenia, it's not appropriate to definitively classify an entire, very diverse population that includes recent migrants over the past three centuries. Are all Americans considered native to America? The analogy holds here.
Please stop the back-and-forth edit conflicts. Clearly, the community has not reached any consensus on the matter, and again, involved editors should be reminded that WP:ONUS is among those seeking to change content. ABHammad (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Half of the reverts are yours. Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
"not appropriate" according to sources, or just original research? Because I've now seen plenty of sources stating quite clearly that it is appropriate. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry but no amount of sophistry can change that fact that Palestinians are native to Palestine, it's in the name for goodness sake. The same way (multi-ethnic) Syrians are native to Syria, or multi-ethnic Americans are native to America. It's bad faith and incredibly dehumanising to insinuate Palestinians are not native to the land they are born on, suffered on, and ultimately die on, and we are just talking about those not dispersed in the diaspora. If you come from the paradigm where Arabs are from Arabia you have no ground to stand on and need to read Misplaced Pages:Competence is required before contributing further. JJNito197 (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
You might as well try and change Moon to say it's made of cheese. Levivich (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Actually it is more complicated than that. For example, one of the most distinguished Palestinian families - the Husayni family, to which belong important figures like Amin Al Husayni and Faisal Husseini - claims to be descendants of the prophet Muhammad who clearly was not native to Palestine. See here (the original source is here in p. 1053). Vegan416 (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't mean the Palestinians, or even Husaynis, are not native to Palestine. I mean, FFS, Muhammad lived over 1000 years ago! Levivich (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
That depends how you define "native". Vegan416 (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
For example - would you say that the current WASP descendants of the Mayflower immigrants are "native Americans"? It was after all over 400 years ago. Or would you say that the current Spanish inhabitants of the Caribbean Islands who might be descendants of the Columbus expedition are "native Caribbeans"? It was after all over 500 years ago. Vegan416 (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
More lame OR - and weak OR at that. Also, not only are you comparing comparatively irrelevant parallels (500 years doesn't hold much of a wick to 1,400 years when it comes to exponential population dispersal), but the European colonisation of the Americas was also accompanied by other trends, including the spread of diseases that the native population were not immune to. Flipping it though, note that the inhabitants of the Spanish Caribbean are not considered native Spanish today. The populations that move are those most exposed to loss of indigeneity. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
This is A) lame, anecdotal OR with respect to the topic of discussion, and B) you are incorrectly inferring that this information somehow reflects on the subject. Even if we assume that the claim of the Husaynis is correct (which is by no means guaranteed bearing in mind that peoples from across the Muslim world have been fabricating claims of descent from the prophet for political gain for 1,400 years), that would still have little bearing on whether they would today be considered part of the indigenous population today, and it would be gross OR to assume that it did ... populations blend, and distinctions on an individual level (or on the family level) are almost entirely irrelevant at a population level given the passage of time. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
The great majority of Palestinians claim descent from Arabian tribes, and belong to groupings such as Qays and Yaman, or clans from Transjordan, Egypt and the area. It is only a small portion that actually trace their ancestry to the ancient populations of the area. Why, then, have we decided, contrary to the majority of Palestinians' own oral traditions, as well as numerous historical sources documenting hundreds of migrations into the area during the last thousand years, that Palestinians can collectively be defined as 'native' based on a limited number of sources? HaOfa (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Because speculative theories based on anecdotal information are forum content, and sources are sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
This is exactly the opposite, the bold description as native is, in fact, the speculative theory here. I can suggest reading https://en.wikipedia.org/Origin_of_the_Palestinians#Historical_analysis, and https://en.wikipedia.org/Origin_of_the_Palestinians#In_oral_traditions, you will find plenty of reliable, academic sources there. HaOfa (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
See below. Oral traditions are in no way determinative. You've read genesis right? Origin myths are bull crap. Or bull's blood, literally, in some religions. And Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, so let's not go in that particular direction. If you have a particular source that you think is directly relevant here, provide it. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
To Vegan: You are arguing for something that you won't achieve. I'll make three comments. (a) According to the strong consensus of modern science, we are all natives of Africa. Should we put that in all articles about groups of people? (b) Everyone has two parents, two grandparents, etc.. That gives about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (give or take an inch) lines of descent (mother-father-father-...) back to Muhammad's time. Many of those lines of descent end at the same person, but still it is obvious that everyone has a large number of different ancestors living at Muhammad's time. Actually, of people living in the world at that time whose descendants survived until now, a majority are ancestors of each of us (this is something that has been studied mathematically). So that fact that a single line of descent to a particular person of that era can be asserted means nothing at all, just as the fact that I can prove descent from Yaroslav the Wise (which is true) doesn't make me Ukranian. (c) The fact is that, outside of very narrow meanings such as the place where an individual was born, "native" doesn't have a precise definition. The solution for us, as always, is to follow sources. Zero 02:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, "native" doesn't have a precise definition, and this is especially true in regions like the Levant, which has been a crossroads between major civilizations, absorbing numerous migrations over millennia, often with open borders as part of large empires. We're not talking the aborigines or native americans here. Bottom line, I see no reason to use 'native' (except maybe political, if we're honest), to define a group whose distinct identity only got consolidated in the past century, with most of them seeing themselves as migrants from other places. HaOfa (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
You're confusing indigeneity with identity. While identifying with the land is a feature of indigeneity, having a national identity is not. Tribes in the Amazon are indigenous without reference to any kind of identity outside of their tribe/village. Identity is if anything misleading, as endogamous conceptions surrounding indigeneity are more likely to be misled by myth-building, especially in a specifically nationalistic context. For instance, Yasser Arafat's association of the Palestinians with the Jebusites was just ahistorical verbiage. Indigeneity is an anthropological question, not a cultural one. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe I am confusing anything. Numerous political claims have been made over recent decades, including the aforementioned remark from Arafat. However, if you were to ask today's Palestinians about their origins, many would say they come primarily from Arabia, as well as from Transjordan, Egypt, and other regions. Only a minority claim local origins. HaOfa (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, so again, you're just claiming some anecdotal oral testimony as something that somehow means something, and not even by way a source. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
While a bit of OR is acceptable on talk pages, please stop writing comment after comment with no reference to any sources. This is not a forum and it's just not helpful. Selfstudier (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
@Zero0000 I'm not sure you know what I am arguing for, so how do you know if I'll achieve it or not?
(1)The bottom line (literally) of your reply is that you admit that the word "native" doesn't have a precise definition. That means different people understand it differently, and that's a very good reason NOT to use it here as it can be misleading.
(2) Additionally you say that the solution is "to follow sources". Well here are several sources that point to the fact that some of the Palestinians trace their origins to outside of Palestine:
Swedenburg, Ted (2003). Memories of Revolt: The 1936–1939 Rebellion and the Palestinian National Past. University of Arkansas Press. p. 81. ISBN 978-1-55728-763-2. These primordialist claims regarding the Palestinians' primeval and prior roots in the land operated at the level of the collective. When it came to an individual's own family, however, Arab-Islamic discourse took precedence over archaeological justifications. I ran across no Palestinian villager (or urbanite) who claimed personal descent from the Canaanites. Villagers typically traced their family or their hamila's origins back to a more recent past in the Arabian peninsula. Many avowed descent from some nomadic tribe that had migrated from Arabia to Palestine either during or shortly after the Arab-Islamic conquests. By such a claim they inserted their family's history into the narrative of Arab and Islamic civilization and connected themselves to a genealogy that possessed greater local and contemporary prestige than did ancient or pre-Islamic descent. Several men specifically connected their forefathers' date of entry into Palestine to their participation in the army of Salih al-Din al-Ayyubi (Saladin), a historical figure whose significance has been retrospectively enlarged by nationalist discourse such that he is now regarded not merely as a hero of "Islamic" civilization but as a "national" luminary as well. (Modern nationalist discourse tends to downplay Salah al-Din's Kurdish origins.) Palestinians of all political stripes viewed Salah al-Din's wars against the Crusaders as a forerunner of the current combats against foreign intruders. Many considered Salah al-Din's victory over the Crusaders at Hittin (A.D. 1187) as a historical precedent that offered hope for their own eventual triumph even if, like the Crusader wars, the current struggle with Israel was destined to last more than two centuries. Family histories affiliated to earlier "patriotic" struggles against European aggression tied interviewees to a continuous narrative of national resistance. Villagers claiming descent from Arabs who entered Palestine during the Arab-Islamic conquest equally viewed these origins as establishing their historical precedence over the Jews
Grossman D. (1984), Spatial analysis of historical migrations in Samaria, Geojournal, Volume 9, pages 393–406: "Migrations of families (mainly during the past three to four centuries) were recorded on the basis of local traditions in Samaria — the N part of the West Bank. The same destinations were more important also for migrants from outside Samaria. A strong “push” factor was found to explain migration from Hebron, Gaza, and Egypt — all S of Samaria. Trans-Jordanian migrations were, however, the most important ones outside those originating in Samaria itself."
Muhammad Suwaed (2015), Historical Dictionary of the Bedouins, Rowman & Littlefield, p. 181 : "The tribes of the Bank region already penetrated the region during the period of the Ottoman rule. The history of the Bedouins in Palestine goes back a long way. It starts with the Arab invasion of Palestine in the 7th century". Vegan416 (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
That some Palestinians trace their origins outside Palestine is irrelevant to the question here. What is required is sourcing that contradicts the sourcing I posted above, which assesses Palestinians as indigenous. In fact, at this point I am not convinced that we should not just flat out be saying so, that was why I originally created this section, to discuss that, not what native means. Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
As Self says, the fact that some Palestinians profess ancestry from outside Palestine does not impact the issue of indigenousity. Most likely David Ben-Gurion was descended from Gengis Khan, so what? And the fuzziness of the meanings of words is more reason to follow what sources say, not less. Zero 12:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
@Selfstudier, I disagree that the sources I brought are irrelevant. But putting that aside, let’s look at your sources. In truth I didn't pay much attention to your sources before, as I was responding specifically to Levivich’s ridiculous claim that saying that not all Palestinians are indigenous is like saying that the moon is made of cheese, and I didn't have time to thoroughly go over all of this long discussion. But I looked at your sources now, and here are some comments: 1. The sources I brought actually directly contradict at least one of the sources you gave. Your source from Walid Hamidi says that the Palestinians see themselves as descending also "from indigenous peoples who had lived in the country since time immemorial". Whereas my source from Swedenburg says "I ran across no Palestinian villager (or urbanite) who claimed personal descent from the Canaanites".
2. Additionally, one of your own sources actually admits that the subject of Palestinian indigeneity is disputed among scholars: Native Peoples of the World: Steven L. Danver, An Encylopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues, Routledge, 2012, p. 554: "Thus, Palestinians are considered by some to be the indigenous people of present-day Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Other scholars dispute this view, asserting that Jews and others resided in Palestine-usually defined as the narrow strip of land bordered by the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea – long before the Arabs arrived in the seventh century”.
Now for @Zero0000, 3. As you can see in point 2 here, there are sources that dispute the view that the Palestinians are indigenous. Therefore if you want to follow the sources in a NPOV way, you need to mention this counter-view as well. At the very least you cannot write this claim in wiki-voice. I.e you should write the leading sentence as something like: “Palestinians are an Arab ethnonational group who, according to some scholars, are native to Palestine”.
4. Alternatively you can simply decide not to use the word “native” or “indigenous”. The fact that some sources use this term, which you admit is fuzzy, doesn’t mean you must include it in the lead section. Personally I have no problem to agree in casual conversation or a political debate that both Palestinians and Jews are “native” to this land. And I think I have said as much in one of our earlier discussions on another related topic. But while in casual conversation or political debates we can use imprecise and fuzzy terms, it is a different matter altogether to use such fuzzy terminology in an encyclopedia entry, without explication. In an encyclopedia, and especially when talking in wiki-voice, we should be as precise as possible, and therefore take from the sources the precise facts they contain rather than whatever fuzzy (and disputed) adjective they use.
5. My recommendation therefore is to change the leading sentence to something like: “Palestinians are an Arab ethnonational group who are descendants of various peoples who lived in Palestine over the millennia”. This has two advantages: (a) It contains a factual claim that appears more or less in all the sources and nobody disputes, so it can be said in wikivoice. (b) It avoids the fuzzy term “native”. Vegan416 (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Still waiting for you and any of the objectors to find any sources yourselves that contest indigeneity. I have provided one that says, in the meta, that some do, now please locate them so we can assess the comparative weight. Native was a sort of compromise that hasn't been accepted and I didn't much like myself not because it was fuzzy but because it seems like an unnecessary dilution, so I am returning to indigenous, which has plenty of sourcing in support. Selfstudier (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what sources the Encyclopedia refers to, as it doesn't have references. But I found some sources that it might had in mind, and several other sources that were published after the Encyclopedia:
Yahel, H., Kark, R., Frantzman, S. (2012). Are the Negev Bedouin an indigenous people?). Middle East Quarterly, 4, p. 5: "Far from being the indigenous inhabitants, the Bedouin were relative latecomers to the Negev, preying on the villages and caravansaries that dotted the sparsely populated wilderness."; p. 14: "Although there is no official definition of indigeneity in international law, Negev Bedouin cannot be regarded as an indigenous people in the commonly accepted sense. If anything, the Bedouin have more in common with the European settlers who migrated to other lands, coming into contact with existing populations with often unfortunate results for the latter."
Frantzman, S., Yahel, H., Kark, R. (2012) Contested Indigeneity: The Development of an Indigenous Discourse on the Bedouin of the Negev, Israel. Israel Studies, 17(1), 78–104 :"The relatively new Bedouin claim to be classified as indigenous, having gained some international and academic support, is increasingly part of the self-perception of the educated elite among the Bedouin. However, the claim and international recognition face hurdles that the scholars mentioned above avoided discussing, many of which mirror the disputes and debates throughout the world that deal with indigenous peoples. For instance, one issue in the case of the Bedouin is the important and critical element of original occupancy of the land. The current Negev Bedouin tribes arrived to the Negev, from their historical homeland in the Arabian Desert, Transjordan, Egypt, and the Sinai, mainly since the eighteenth century and onwards. Scholars and activists have not wrestled or debated this issue."
Joffe, Alex (2017). Palestinian Settler-Colonialism. Begin-Sadat Center Perspectives Paper No. 577: "Echoing Inbari, it is not to be argued here that 'there are no Palestinians' who thus do not deserve political rights, including self-rule and a state. To do so would be both logically and morally wrong. Palestinians have the right to define themselves as they see fit, and they must be negotiated with in good faith by Israelis. What Palestinians cannot claim, however, is that they are Palestine’s indigenous population and the Jews are settler-colonialists."
Ukashi, Ran (2018). "Zionism, Imperialism, and Indigeneity in Israel/Palestine: A Critical Analysis". Peace and Conflict Studies: Vol. 25: No. 1 , Article 7, p. 13: "Again, while making exception for those Arabized Peoples that could justifiably claim lineage directly to antiquity, it can be demonstrated that of the significant cohort of Arab economic migrants to Palestine from modern-day Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and elsewhere prior to partition in 1947, no reasonably Indigenous connection to the territory can be claimed."
Troen, I., & Troen, C. (2019). Indigeneity. Israel Studies, 24(2), 17–32: "We have argued that despite the admitted distortions there is a covert polemical advantage to designating Bedouins as well as other Palestinian Arabs as "indigenous" The deliberate use of the term “indigenous” in spurious scholarship furthers tendentious narratives for partisan and polemical advantage".
Block, Walter E.; Futerman, Alan G. (2021). The Classical Liberal Case for Israel. Springer Nature. p. 28: "Therefore, the claim to the widely held idea that Palestinian Arabs are the indigenous population of the land, with a millennia connection to it, is simply not based on facts." Vegan416 (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I have way more sources that that. And three of those are about the Bedouin? Keep trying tho. Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The Bedouins in Palestine are considered part of the Palestinians now. Don't you know that? And counting doesn't really matter here. If I show that there are RS that dispute the claim then it is disputed. Vegan416 (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't work like that. Wait and see. Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Wait for what? Vegan416 (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
To see. Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
To see what? Vegan416 (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Asked and answered (twice). Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Are you trolling me? Vegan416 (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Pot..kettle. Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand what you want. I told you - if different RS have different opinions on a claim then you cannot make this claim in a wikivoice. Vegan416 (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
We can if there is a clear majority, which there is, your sources, 3 of which only deal with a subset of Palestinians, are a distinct minority. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#Explanation Vegan416 (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
" including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." Your sources do not demonstrate due weight, whereas the sources I have provided (dozens of them) clearly do. Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with you. I think my sources have sufficient due weight. Vegan416 (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, we are back to wait and see. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I see you are back to trolling, so bye for now. I'll just note by way of parting that the editor/writer of the Native Peoples of the World: An Encyclopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues that you brought among your sources also thinks like me that this view has sufficient due weight to be mentioned. Vegan416 (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea why you think I am trolling. You ask a question and I reply is not trolling. I could just not reply at all if you would prefer. Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
You repeat saying "wait and see" and refuse to explain what you mean by this. Vegan416 (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
It means exactly that. Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have more interesting things to do than waiting for unspecified things to happen... Vegan416 (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
We have an article on the Negev Bedouin, its Negev Bedouin. It isnt this article. nableezy - 18:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The sources do not speak only about the Bedouins Vegan416 (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
They do except for a couple of them, one hysterical in its tone and the other representing a minority view published by an avowedly partisan think tank. nableezy - 20:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
On the subject of Arab Bedouins specifically in the Southern Levant, I'm not sure whether these scholars got their sources, but the Nabataean Arabs, and other Arab tribes and nomads, have indupitably roamed the deserts of the Southern Levant since antiquity. It doesn't get much more indigenous than being an tribal nomad in that desert. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
They're Bedouin. They move around a lot. And then come back. And then go away. And then come back again. What causes this strange behavior? Next up, on In Search of... (TV series).Dan Murphy (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
A single dated (2012 is quite old at this point) and generalist tertiary source by a non-specialist is not particularly useful in establishing current scholarly consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
It's off-topic, but incidentally Swedenburg does not affirm the claims. He says: "Many avowed descent By such a claim they inserted their family's history into the narrative that possessed greater local and contemporary prestige than did ancient or pre-Islamic descent." So far from lending these "avowed claims" any credence, he points out the ulterior motives that accompany them (as well as other ahistorical narratives such as Saladin not being Kurdish). Iskandar323 (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I checked a few more sources:

All three refer to Palestinians as indigenous. In addition to the sources posted above by Self and others, I'd agree with using the term "indigenous." Levivich (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Same, and the idea that you can argue against sources that directly say something with sources that do not directly dispute it is a non-starter here. nableezy - 16:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
More sources...might be some duplication, haven't finished checking them:
    • Palestinians are indigenous Abdullah, D. (2019). A century of cultural genocide in Palestine. In Cultural Genocide (pp. 227-245). Routledge.
      "The Zionist mission was, therefore, to ethnically cleanse the land. Theodore Herzl, the movement’s founder, was convinced that the fulfilment of their dream would result in the acute suffering and misery for the indigenous population."
    • Palestinians are indigenous Pappe, I. (2007). The ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Simon and Schuster.
    • Palestinians are indigenous Nijim, M. (2020). Genocide in Gaza: Physical destruction and beyond.
    • Palestinians are indigenous Culverwell, S. M. (2017). Israel and Palestine-An analysis of the 2014 Israel-Gaza war from a genocidal perspective.
      Cites others and adopts their framework: "Pappé (2005), Shaw (2010), Docker (2012), Lloyd (2012), Rashed and Short (2012), and Rashed, Short and Docker (2014) have all analyzed the 1948 conflict from a settler-colonial perspective. In this relationship, these scholars recognize the Zionist Jews as the ‘settlers’ and the ‘Arab Palestinians’ as the indigenous population."
    • Palestinians are indigenous Atallah, D. G., & Awartani, H. (2024). Embodying Homeland: Palestinian Grief and the Perseverance of Beauty in a Time of Genocide. Journal of Palestine Studies, 1-9.
    • Indigeneity is about identity, not practice, and both Israelis and Palestinians incorporate it into theirs Busbridge, R. (2018). Israel-Palestine and the settler colonial ‘turn’: From interpretation to decolonization. Theory, Culture & Society, 35(1), 91-115.
    • Implies in passing that Palestinians are indigenous Moses, A. D. (2011). Paranoia and Partisanship: Genocide Studies, Holocaust Historiography, and the ‘Apocalyptic Conjuncture’. The Historical Journal, 54(2), 553-583.
      "the mufti still features in Zionist literature as a co-perpetrator of the Holocaust, converting him from an indigenous, anti-colonialist to an Arab-Muslim-Nazi, the ancestor of Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran, and other 'Islamofascist' enemies of Israel"
    • Palestinians are indigenous Tabar, L., & Desai, C. (2017). Decolonization is a global project: From Palestine to the Americas. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 6(1).
      "In 1948, the Zionist settler colonization of Palestine culminated in the mass eviction of the overwhelming majority of the indigenous Palestinian people"
    • Palestinians are indigenous Said, E. (1999). Palestine: memory, invention and space. The landscape of Palestine: Equivocal poetry, 3-20.
      "The link between the metaphors of buildings and housing, and erasure, with the necessary steps to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine was always clear to the country's indigenous inhabitants"
    1. Palestinians are indigenous Abu-Saad, I. (2001). Education as a tool for control vs. development among indigenous peoples: The case of Bedouin Arabs in Israel. Hagar: International Social Science Review, 2(2), 241-259.
    2. Both have a claim to indigeneity Ukashi, R. (2018). Zionism, Imperialism, and Indigeneity in Israel/Palestine: A Critical Analysis. Peace and Conflict Studies, 25(1), 7.
    3. Palestinians are indigenous Pappe, I. (2018). Indigeneity as cultural resistance: Notes on the Palestinian struggle within twenty-first-century Israel. South Atlantic Quarterly, 117(1), 157-178.
    4. Palestinians are indigenous Blatman, N., & Sabbagh‐Khoury, A. (2023). The presence of the absence: Indigenous Palestinian urbanism in Israel. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 47(1), 119-128.
    5. Palestinians are indigenous, Israelis are explicitly non-indigenous Veracini, L. (2015). What can settler colonial studies offer to an interpretation of the conflict in Israel–Palestine?. Settler Colonial Studies, 5(3), 268-271.
    6. Palestinians are indigenous Nasasra, M. (2012). The ongoing Judaisation of the Naqab and the struggle for recognising the indigenous rights of the Arab Bedouin people. Settler Colonial Studies, 2(1), 81-107.
    7. Palestinians are indigenous, Israelis are explicitly not Krebs, M., & Olwan, D. M. (2012). ‘From Jerusalem to the grand river, our struggles are one’: Challenging Canadian and Israeli settler colonialism. Settler Colonial Studies, 2(2), 138-164.
    8. Palestinians are indigenous, Israelis are explicitly not Yiftachel, O. (2003). Bedouin-Arabs and the Israeli settler state. Indigenous people between Autonomy and globalization, 21-47.
    9. Palestinians are indigenous, while Israelis are attempting to become indigenous Monterescu, D., & Handel, A. (2019). Liquid indigeneity: Wine, science, and colonial politics in Israel/Palestine. American Ethnologist, 46(3), 313-327.
    10. Palestinians are indigenous Abu-Rayya, H. M., & Abu-Rayya, M. H. (2009). Acculturation, religious identity, and psychological well-being among Palestinians in Israel. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(4), 325-331.
    11. Palestinians are indigenous, Israelis are explicitly not Blatman-Thomas, N. (2017). Commuting for rights: Circular mobilities and regional identities of Palestinians in a Jewish-Israeli town. Geoforum, 78, 22-32.
    12. Palestinians are indigenous, Israelis are explicitly not Nabulsi, J. (2023). Reclaiming Palestinian Indigenous Sovereignty. Journal of Palestine Studies, 52(2), 24-42.
    13. Palestinians are indigenous Murphy, T. (2010). ‘Courses and Recourses’ Exploring Indigenous Peoples’ Land Reclamation in Search of Fresh Solutions for Israelis and Palestinians. Journal for the Study of Peace and Conflict, 54-69.
    14. (about Negev Bedouins) Israelis are not indigenous Kram, N. (2013). Clashes over recognition: The struggle of indigenous Bedouins for land ownership rights under Israeli law. California Institute of Integral Studies.
    15. We should move beyond a settler-indigenous framework Bashir, B., & Busbridge, R. (2019). The politics of decolonisation and bi-nationalism in Israel/Palestine. Political Studies, 67(2), 388-405.
    16. Palestinians are indigenous, Israelis are explicitly not Sasa, G. (2023). Oppressive pines: Uprooting Israeli green colonialism and implanting Palestinian A’wna. Politics, 43(2), 219-235.
    17. Palestinians are indigenous Khatib, I. (2021). Attitudes of indigenous minority leaders toward political events in their trans-state national group: Between identity, conflict and values. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 27(2), 149-168.
    18. Israelis are not indigenous, they've merely attempted to claim indigeneity Cheyfitz, E. (2014). The force of exceptionalist narratives in the Israeli—Palestinian conflict. Native American and Indigenous Studies, 1(2), 107-124.
    19. Palestinians are indigenous Arar, K. (2012). Israeli education policy since 1948 and the state of Arab education in Israel. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 4(1), 113-145.
    20. (about the Druze) Israelis are not indigenous Yiftachel, O., & Segal, M. D. (1998). Jews and Druze in Israel: state control and ethnic resistance. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21(3), 476-506.
Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Let's keep adding sources here so that this doesn't get archived while there are ongoing discussions on the matter. Selfstudier (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Adding more sources who hold the same partisan viewpoint does not alter the overall result. Yes, there are sources that adopt this framing, but most of them adhere to the settler-colonial paradigm of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and/or aligned with progressive and left-wing ideologies. The critical factor is the weight of evidence and whether this perspective achieves consensus within the scholarly community. Currently, this is not the case. ABHammad (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
This section is for sources, feel free to add some. Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Take, for example, The Economist's definition: 'Palestinians - A population of around 14 million people who trace their origins to British-ruled Palestine. Around 7 million Palestinians live in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Another 7 million are scattered across the Arab world and beyond. Nearly 6 million are registered as refugees.' This outlet is famous for its radical centrist, neutral position. In this case, it exemplifies how a neutral definition of Palestinians should look like. Misplaced Pages should be neutral, not a partisan source. ABHammad (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Not a scholarly source. Such sources should be trivially easy to locate if there is actually any support for the position. Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Great work, Selfstudier and Vegan416. I'd recommend you to create a separate page under this talk page about Indigenous Sources, similar to Talk:Sustainable energy/Air pollution statistics under Talk:Sustainable energy. Sustainable energy is an FA-class article.

If you have time, I'd also recommend for you to identify the authors of the works cited. Are they experts or academics? Do they have PhD? Things like that. It'd be also good to identify review articles (WP:Secondary).

For example:

    • It was under British protection and by the force of British arms that duringthe first phase, from 1918 to 1948, the demographic, economic, military, and organizational infrastructure of the future Jewish state was laid, at the ex-pense of the indigenous Palestinian people and in the teeth of their resist-ance.. This is a review article and would be considered WP:Secondary. The author, Walid Khalidi, would be considered an expert in my opinion. Bogazicili (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Palestinian diaspora in Indonesia

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There are about 7,000 Palestinians in Indonesia and no one includes them Keyscher5 (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bsoyka (tcg) 13:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

With this edit, editor @Pyramids09: reverted stable material with claim "Removing misleading information from lead and formatting", was reverted but repeated the revert without initiating any discussion, which I then reverted as tendentious.

Then @Shoogiboogi: reverted arguing no consensus and that in turn was reverted.

I trust that there will be a discussion before any further reverts, which judging by This RFC and the talk section #Indigeneity above, appear to have no valid basis. Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The indigeneity section of this talk page was begun after similar edit warring by two accounts later found to be socks of banned accounts. And round and round it goes!Dan Murphy (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I am also very concerned that information with respect to Palestinians being native or indigenous keep getting removed. Bogazicili (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I'll put together one of those giant multirefs for "indigenous", which should put that to bed; as far as I can tell that is the word used by every single scholar in this field (that I've checked so far). Also as far as I can tell, the only accounts that have challenged "indigenous" in recent years are the User:ABHammad sockfarm accounts (now globally locked). Levivich (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
The only issue with "indigenous" is that it has different definitions depending on the field, such as .
"Native" is far less likely to be challenged in the lead.
I'll also be improving the Genetics section in the coming days and weeks. Bogazicili (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, though, because if all the RSes use "indigenous" and none use "native", Misplaced Pages's hands are tied on this. We can't OR our way around it by picking a word we think will be less likely to be challenged (even though I agree, it's less likely to be challeneged). We can't rewrite history for the sake of bringing stability to our articles, V and NPOV means using the same word the RSes use. I think when we're looking at a list of dozens of sources that includes every historian we can think of, we'll all "get it." Levivich (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
That's what I mean by field. Historians may say "indigenous" but from international law perspective, it might have a more narrow definition. Maybe you can add a qualifier. Something like:
"Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون, romanized: al-Filasṭīniyyūn) are an Arab ethnonational group native to the region of Palestine. Historians see Palestinians as indigenous to their lands". Bogazicili (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I maintain it's about sources. We don't need to look up the definition of "indigenous" and then decide if it applies to Palestinian--that would be WP:OR. If the sources for this article says "indigenous," then this article says "indigenous," and that's it, even if we (or some of us) think the label doesn't apply. The sources are who decides if the labels apply. Levivich (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I think it was Levivich who added this to begin with, before the above mentioned RFC and when we were still collecting sources but it seems to me that the matter has been resolved in favor of indigenous now, no reason to use an inaccurate wording. Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
@Bogazicili, I think you're possibly confusing Indigenous (narrow definition; often capitalised as a result) with indigenous (broad definition; uncapitalised). The former is certainly more debated but the latter is broadly accepted when it comes to the Palestinians. We aren't capitalising indigenous so we aren't claiming the narrower definition. So Levivich and Selfstudier are right. Furthermore, when uncapitalised, native can refer more broadly to anyone born in a location ("an LA native"), so is broader than indigenous (which implies a connection to the land which preceded the age of European colonialism and imperialism – which is certainly accurate for the Palestinians). Uncapitalised indigenous is therefore preferable, and doesn't require minority status, settler colonialism (though many academics also argue for Zionism as settler colonialism), etc, as with capital-I Indigenous. Lewisguile (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@Lewisguile: you may be totally right! I don't claim to be an expert on this, I just suggested dispute resolution such as an RfC. Bogazicili (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This article states that Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine. However, this is very much wrong. If we go by the common definition of indigenous, which states "Inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists", then the Jews would be indigenous, as Jews (or, in this case, their Israelite ancestors) are the first recorded people to inhabit the land of Palestine, being recorded in the Merneptah Stele.. Expulsion does not remove the status of indigenous. Meanwhile, Palestinian Arabs came from Arabia during the Muslim conquests of the seventh century. Although some claim descendants from the Canaanites, this has been throughly disproven via archeological evidence, as well as testimonials from Palestinians themselves.. Therefore, a more accurate lede would go something like this: Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون, romanized: al-Filasṭīniyyūn) are an ethnonational group descending from inhabitants of the region of Palestine over the millennia, and who are culturally and linguistically Arab. This was the lede for a while, being accurate and well sourced. I restored this lede in a recent revision (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Palestinians&oldid=1265135214), which was then reverted without a stated reason along with a sockpuppet accusation. I believe that we should return to this correct lede, or at least hold a new RFC about this topic. Cheers. Pyramids09 (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

P.S. If someone could collapse the references that would be nice. Pyramids09 (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm open to RfC on this. The sources are clear. For example,
There was no Anglo settler colony style population replacement in Palestine:
  • Dowty, A. (2023). Israel / Palestine (5th ed.). Polity Press. ISBN 978-1-5095-5483-6., Chapter 3: The Arab Story to 1914:

    Palestine was part of the first wave of conquest following Muhammad’s death in 632 CE; Jerusalem fell to the Caliph Umar in 638. The indigenous population, descended from Jews, other Semitic groups, and non-Semitic groups such as the Philistines, had been mostly Christianized. Over succeeding centuries it was Islamicized, and Arabic replaced Aramaic (a Semitic tongue closely related to Hebrew) as the dominant language

  • Chapter 10: The Perfect Conflict:

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

  • Genetic studies also seem to confirm this. For example, The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant: People related to these individuals contributed to all present-day Levantine populations. Especially note Figure S4. Megiddo in the link refers to samples recovered from Megiddo, Israel. These samples: "most of whom date to the Middle-to-Late Bronze Age, except for one dating to the Intermediate Bronze Age and one dating to the Early Iron Age" Bogazicili (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Actually, I definitely want an RfC on this. This content seems to be subject to long-term abuse, so I'd like a Misplaced Pages consensus on this. Bogazicili (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
We could, although as I said above Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples#RFC Palestine is already determinative, the close "Editors in favour of inclusion have provided sources that consider the situation in Palestine one that is relevant to this article. Those opposed have failed to challenge the significance of this view, or the reliability of the sources.", in addition the plethora of available sourcing also seems conclusive. Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
We should be considerate about how much community time we consume in these RfCs, but I definitely think we should proceed with an RfC if the edit war continues. Bogazicili (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
All the available evidence suggests Palestinians are indigenous to the land, and are related to Jews and Samaritans, and others in the Levant (the links upthread to the study on Iron Age Canaanite populations is useful). If Arabisation removed indigeneity, then the Egyptians wouldn't be indigenous either. And would Hellenisation have the same effect, too? Incidentally, many undisputed capital-I Indigenous groups did arrive after/replace other groups – take the Kalinago, who reportedly replaced the Igneri and much of the Taíno, or the Inuit who reportedly replaced the earlier Dorset culture. So that's evidently not a deal-breaker, even if it did apply. But what we're learning more and more is that many of these cultures didn't so much invade and replace older cultures but were subsumed into them. Clean breaks are relatively rare. Which is why British people today still have genetic continuity with bodies from 40,000 years ago, despite all the different people – Picts, Celts, Romans, Danes, Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, etc – who have lived on the British Isles. Lewisguile (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Again, the edit war by another account continues. I'm considering the recent single change as part of a multi-account long-term edit war. We can proceed to RfC. Or perhaps we can put the claim that Palestinians aren't native to Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Bogazicili (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
No need to do anything just yet, let's wait a bit, see what happens.@Levivich:, are you still with the idea of just going with indigenous? Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
At this point, I'd recommend some form of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.
Articles in Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict seem to have constantly spawning socks: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Makeandtoss
For those that cannot constantly spawn, if you don't want to end up like this in a future arbitration case, I'd recommend dispute resolution. Bogazicili (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
First we need to resolve the indigenous thing, I already said above I would prefer that, do I have a dispute with you tho? Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
No, but I just want you to keep the reality of Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict in mind. My recommendation is:
1. Gather the sources and quotes from sources.
2. Proceed to dispute resolution.
Bogazicili (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I have been on WP for a while and am familiar with dispute resolution and source gathering, thanks for the heads up tho. Selfstudier (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
What I specifically mean by number 1 is that we can make a Talk:Palestinians/Indigineity page or a template such as Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate with the sources and quotes. I like the formatting in the template, because it also shows the expertise area of authors. Bogazicili (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
A template would be really helpful. Lewisguile (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with a template, I just don't see why it is necessary when it has already been demonstrated, namely by adding the Palestinians to the article Genocide of indigenous peoples and having that confirmed in an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
It's helpful to avoid future edit wars. I agree it's fine to include the language now, too, though. Lewisguile (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes I still think it should say "indigenous". Levivich (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bogazicili:, forgetting about templates for a minute, when you restored a version earlier, you reintroduced "native" and have made further comments about that since, so my question is are you also on board with "indigenous"? Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I reverted back to native because that was the stable version following discussion here: Talk:Palestinians/Archive_27#Indigeneous
I am not sure of "indigenous" without any qualifiers. There is no consistent definition of "indigenous" to begin with.
In human rights, it seems to be used something like minority rights, such as indigenous people living as minorities in colonized countries. Palestinians would be the majority in Palestine, even though it's currently occupied.
For fields such as history, or settler colonial studies, indigenous seem to be used. For science fields such as genetics, scientists usually avoid statements with 100% certainty .
If you say "various experts described Palestinians as indigenous", there would be no issues. My own writing could be too cautious though, it was called "wishy washy" before. Bogazicili (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, let me put it another way, do you disagree with the Palestinians being included in the Genocide of indigenous peoples list? Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Within the scope of that article that also includes Irish, Slavs, etc, no. Inclusion doesn't necessarily mean text in wikivoice by the way.
Instead of getting stuck on one word, we can also expand the first paragraph. This quote from the first source explains everything concisely: "Palestine was part of the first wave of conquest following Muhammad’s death in 632 CE; Jerusalem fell to the Caliph Umar in 638. The indigenous population, descended from Jews, other Semitic groups, and non-Semitic groups such as the Philistines, had been mostly Christianized. Over succeeding centuries it was Islamicized, and Arabic replaced Aramaic (a Semitic tongue closely related to Hebrew) as the dominant language". We can just reword some of this and add it into the first paragraph? Bogazicili (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The idea being that descended from Jews, other Semitic groups, and non-Semitic groups such as the Philistines are qualifiers? Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
No something like: According to Alan Dowty , Palestinians descend from the indigenous people from the Palestine area. Vast majority of Palestinians speak Arabic and they are mostly Muslim.
This is actually a rephrase of the second quote. "According to" part is the qualifier. Bogazicili (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
That's attribution, usually used when there is sufficient disagreement in sourcing so as not to allow a statement in Wikivoice. Is that your position? Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
This is why I wanted to see more sources to see if "there is sufficient disagreement in sourcing". I only covered several sources sources so far myself, I didn't go through the entire literature. So the answer to your question is that I don't have a fixed position. My position depends on the sources provided.
Currently, there is definitely enough for content with in-text attribution or saying "various experts" Bogazicili (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
We only say "various experts say X" if other experts say not X. So far I am unaware of any historian or other scholar who says Palestinians are not indigenous, and absent a showing that there is a significant number who say this (as significant as the number who say they are indigenous, which is certainly more than 10, I'm not sure exactly how many), I'm not convinced about attribution.
@Bogazicili: I understand what you're saying about not having gone through the entire literature and not wanting to stake a wikivoice statement on a small number of sources. How many sources saying "indigenous" would convince you that it's the mainstream view and should be said in wikivoice? Levivich (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
You can find several review articles and say "Historians consider Palestinians as indigenous."
Again, in science fields, you won't find that 100% certainty, they may say: "The overlap between the Bronze Age and present-day Levantines suggests a degree of genetic continuity in the region." (from Origin of the Palestinians)
Do you see the difference between an arts field and a science field? Bogazicili (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
You should talk to Harry Ostrer, a geneticist without any doubts whatsoever. Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
You can also argue the term "indigenous" is more appropriate for historians, and genetics is not a relevant context. That's another reason why I don't have a concrete position.
Bunch of ethnicity articles in Misplaced Pages use "native" though, so it seems easier to use. For example, Irish people, who are also in Genocide of indigenous peoples Bogazicili (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Then we would need sourcing for that instead, so same problem, maybe worse problem because I think that might be quite a bit harder to find. Selfstudier (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
This is another reason why I suggested an RfC after gathering sources.
I know it's extra work, but something like Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate could be very useful. This is a core area of anti-Palestinian racism
RfCs seem to be useful even when there are a lot of socks. The second RfC at Genocide of indigenous peoples seems to have settled to issue, even though some socks were later identified. Bogazicili (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. John Day (2005), In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel, Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 47.5 'In this sense, the emergence of ancient Israel is viewed not as the cause of the demise of Canaanite culture but as its upshot'.
  2. Spielvogel, Jackson J. (2012). Western civilization (8th ed.). Australia: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-495-91324-5. What is generally agreed, however, is that between 1200 and 1000 B.C.E., the Israelites emerged as a distinct group of people, possibly united into tribes or a league of tribes
  3. Thompson, Thomas L. (1 January 2000). Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written & Archaeological Sources. BRILL. pp. 137ff. ISBN 978-90-04-11943-7. They are rather a very specific group among the population of Palestine which bears a name that occurs here for the first time that at a much later stage in Palestine's history bears a substantially different signification.
  4. Hertz, Allen (2014-02-18). "Aboriginal rights of the Jewish People". Times of Israel. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  5. Katz, Samuel. Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine. p. 126. ISBN 978-0933503038.
Categories: