Misplaced Pages

Talk:Palestinians

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) at 21:47, 24 January 2013 (→and another: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:47, 24 January 2013 by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) (→and another: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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
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 article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions.
See discretionary sanctions for details
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Palestinians. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Palestinians at the Reference desk.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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
Archiving icon
Archives

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


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


unexplained edits and reverts

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

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

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

  • I put Mediterraneans and Sea Peoples back just now. I replaced Levantines with Middle Eastern peoples, as it's more general.
  • Because when someone says "European Jew", they usually mean "Ashkenazi Jew". However, it appears that I forgot to take Sephardic Jews into account when I made that edit. A minor error in judgment.
  • Regarding "European Jews to non-Jewish Europeans", I thought the phrasing was confusing, so I tried to make it clearer. I also don't see how "indigenous Europeans" is inaccurate, unless you believe Jews are an aboriginal people of Europe.
  • I don't know why it says "immigration of the Jews" on the Aliyah page. However, in most if not all other contexts, it means "return of the Jews from the diaspora". In that sense, the word "immigrant" directly implies that Jews have no ties to the region. Not only is that inaccurate, but POV pushing in its own right.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Before editing again and again and again - can we get you to read over Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle one of our basic conduct essays. We talk - come to a consensus - then edit after the conversation is concluded.Moxy (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

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

You need to monitor your own neutrality as well as other peoples'. There is nothing neutral about "Jewish returnees" in reference to persons who have never been there before. It is a political statement and not a neutral expression. People who move from one country to another are called emigrants and immigrants. Those are the neutral words for them. Even the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics uses those words in its English pages. Zero 00:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps because those other guys dont believe it to be neutral to call European Jewish immigrants to Palestine returnees and that conversion among indigenous Europeans plays no role in the population of Ashkenazi Jews. That isnt a manufactured reality, and you would do well to understand that your view on a topic does not equate to what Misplaced Pages calls neutral. Academic sources routinely discuss Jewish immigration, including illegal immigration, to Palestine. It is no more neutral to call these immigrants returnees than it is to call them invaders. nableezy - 00:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

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

The two cases are not analogous, so I dont see the point of responding. I dont need you to concede, but Im hoping that youll recognize that Misplaced Pages is not Zionist, and that it shouldn't adopt a Zionist narrative. The idea that this is a return is a POV, one whose opposing POV is that this is an invasion. You very obviously identify with one of those POVs and reject the other, but that does not mean that yours is "neutral". nableezy - 01:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Evildoer, I do not understand your consistent reverts and edits on this area, if you personally believe certain groups are not related to eachother, that's perfectly alright, you're entitled to your own views, but you cannot make edits like this based solely on your beliefs. Also there is no reason to remove Levantines from the list and replace it with the countries that make up the Levant, that just adds more words, when people can simply click on the Levant and see the countries that make it up. Regarding the Jewish section, why did you change it to Israeli's? That is not very informative considering Israel has Palestinians in it's population, and other ethnic groups that are not related to Palestinians as well. Keeping it set as Jews, while linking to Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrahi, shows the various specific Jewish groups related ethnically and genetically to the Palestinians. Lazyfoxx 06:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No worries, I didnt see much wrong with it. But you may want to reign in the somewhat absurd analogies so that you arent comparing the work of a Jewish university professor at an Israeli school to an antisemitic forgery. As far as the content argument, Ill leave it to others to argue about the specific sources, but I dont think Misplaced Pages can take the position that all Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jews trace their origin to the Levant by any means other than tradition. nableezy - 06:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The article has been restored to the version before the edit war - And so we are all clear on this let me make sure all read the talk page main note at the top The article Palestinian people, along with other articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies - Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning.Moxy (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

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

  • "Other Levantines" is unnecessary, because they already fall under the bracket of Middle Eastern peoples, along with the Jewish diaspora, Arabs, etc.
  • Travelers is spelled wrong.
  • Bedouin is not capitalized.
  • "In recent years, many genetic studies have demonstrated that, at least paternally, most of the various Jewish ethnic divisions and the Palestinians – and in many cases other Levantines – are genetically closer to each other than the Palestinians or the various Jewish groups to European groups." This is a much more accurate and complete statement than what is already there. The study in question was carried out on multiple Jewish diaspora groups, not just Ashkenazi and European Sephardi. I don't hold a strong opinion on this one in particular, but I would still recommend this revision.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Evildoer, actually there is no reason to remove Levantines from the related peoples, in fact other Levantines are the most related peoples to Palestinians so that is a null point to have it removed, same goes for the Jewish diaspora and Arabs, both equally related groups to the Palestinians in different lights of view, it is nice to let readers know just enough specifics, but also to link them to the broader range as well, as is done with the "other Middle eastern peoples" at the end. Also if you find spelling errors, feel free to fix them, you do not need to worry, in fact I believe edits such as the misspellings of Travelers and Bedouin would be considered minor edits, because there is not much to dispute with spelling unless we are dealing with multiple language interpretation. Lazyfoxx 16:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)
Done. What about the fourth proposed edit. You still haven't commented on that.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello?Evildoer187 (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I looked it over and revisited the study, and do not think that it should be worded that way, because although the study does include some non-european jews in its studies, it also does include many european jews, such as ashkenazi and sephardic jews, who are classified as european jews by definition. If you still feel it should, I encourage more editors to share their insight on this, besides myself. Lazyfoxx 00:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Behar study

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

I think it's called original research. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Shrike, I do express some concern with your edits as you have only included a small sentence from the study with no context and also failed to include other relevant information from the study concerning the Palestinian's genetics. First off, Autosomal Dna is noted to be similar with covergent populations, that is basic genetics, and this section about Palestinians is about their genetics, so accurate information should be expressed. Palestinians have lived in very close proximity to Negev bedouins, as they are and have been geographic neighbors. Also the rest of my addition, especially the bit comparing the Palestinians tested to various Jewish divisions is blatantly stated in the study, I suggest you read through again, the whole study in PDF rather than the abstract that is linked to in the reference. I believe the focus of the study was concerning Jewish populations and their relatedness to Palestinians and others if i'm not correct.
"According to a 2010 study by Behar at al titled "The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people," there is a close relationship between most contemporary Jews and non-Jewish populations from the Levant, such as Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, and Jordanians. Behar's explanation for these observations is a common genetic origin, which is consistent with an historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant. "
If you wish to insist that some Palestinians are related to Negev Bedouins and Jordanians, you must at least not cherry pick what you wish to include from the study and also include the information about the Jewish populations and their relatedness to the Palestinians. The study shows in autosomal comparison and y-dna comparison maps that only a portion of Palestinians cluster near the Bedouins, Jordanians, and Saudi's tested, not all of the Palestinians tested. Lazyfoxx 06:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The extended version still includes original research. Palestinians and Bedouins living in proximitry is no guarantee that they are intermingling (baby-making). Samaritans live in the Levant but many studies show that they don't baby-make much outside their communities. Bedouins, open and generous though they be, may not necessarily have been adding genetic material to their trade goods.
Also, it isn't cherry picking to discuss Palestinians without mentioning Jews. That argument, in this case, is self-defeating. Certainly you aren't suggesting that Palestinian identity is inexorably linked to Jews, right? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Please show me relevant part of the source and how do you want to rephrase because your version doesn't appear to correspond to the source--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Living in close proximity is no guarantee by itself that they intermingled, I agree with you Chicago Style. In the Behar study Shrike posted, it is shown that a few Palestinians cluster away from other Palestinians, more towards the Negev Bedouins in the study, this could, but does not positively indicate some geneflow between those individuals, however minute. Either way it would only apply to the small group of individuals in that cluster, not the group as a whole, and certainly not to the entire Palestinian population as a whole so I do not believe it can be applied in that context as Shrike intended with their edit.
But yes it is cherry picking in this context to only include a small sentence concerning Bedouins with no context from a study about "Jewish Genetics and the relationship of Jews to other peoples." Those actions show a considerable bias if the rest of the study is not considered and acknowledged. Let's say for example it was study on Irish people and their relatedness to other groups, and in the study the Irish are found to cluster closely to both some English individuals tested but also with some Scottish individuals tested. Now by your reasoning it is sufficient to just say that the Irish individuals are related to the English, without mentioning the Scottish? That would lead a reader to believe that the Irish are only related to the English. That is not accurate reasoning and in fact seems like there would be some agenda behind such actions.
Also, inexorably linked to Jews? Some of the early Palestinians were Jewish while some Gentile individuals, that much is fact, Chicago Style, do you have an issue with that? Jewish individuals like others in Palestine have been absorbed into the Palestinian people, when discussing genetics there's no reason to leave anyone out from an unbiased standpoint, especially the Jews. User:Lazyfoxx Lazyfoxx 07:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Your last paragraph really threw me. Do you have a sexxy-time viewing machine? Did Able make babies with Eve? Was Da Vinci gay? Is the milkman my dad? Genetics studies can be used to make inferences about the past. Only sexxy-time viewing machines can give you "facts" about past events. Please, enlighten me about how you know Canaanites = Jews = Palestinians and ≠ Arabs. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I really wasn't going to dignify you with a response after reading what you just wrote, what kind of response was that, honestly? You really threw me, Chicago Style. I try to assume good faith, but you show you are obviously quite an immature and agenda driven individual. Also, englighten me where have I said, and I quote you, "Canaanites = Jews = Palestinians and =/= Arabs"?
Rather than put words into my mouth with whatever agenda you are trying to fulfill, I suggest you draw your attention to articles you'd actually be able to improve rather than degrade articles like this with your behavioral nonsense.
My goal here is the improvement of this article and the protection of it from bias, especially from radical viewpoints but also from personalized viewpoints on the other sides and angles related to these topics, what is your purpose here? Lazyfoxx Lazyfoxx 11:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll agree it was on the immature side, but I've shown no agenda. You expressed the belief that the Israelites of yesteryear were absorbed into the Palestinian people. Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seemed like you were expressing the belief that Hebrews weren't a race, while Palestinians had an identity 2000 years ago. It's basically the Leila Khalid version of Golda Meir's "there are no Palestinians". Both are wrong. In the article, Rashid Khalili says that the Palestinian roots are deep, but the national consciousness is "relatively modern". So, my math equation was a question of why you said "Some of the early Palestinians were Jewish while some Gentile individuals, that much is fact, Chicago Style, do you have an issue with that?" That statement, besides being confrontational and accusatory, makes a claim of "fact" and I wanted to know how you came to learn this fact. I honestly thought you had a machine that could view people from the past having sex, because no geneticist would tell you facts about the past, only what modern DNA suggests. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how long you've been on wikipedia, but it has been discussed in this article countless times the history of the Palestinian people and what peoples contributed to their makeup, some of those peoples included Jews, others included Gentiles. Whether or not the ancient Hebrews were a separate race, I'd have to say no, as they were able to reproduce with other homosapiens. They were an ethnic group of people with a shared religion and customs, yes. And did some of those people become absorbed into the population in Palestine and become Palestinians along with the Roman gentiles and others? yes again. Lazyfoxx Lazyfoxx 14:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
So you know this fact because it is your interpretation of past talkpage dialogue. That is even more ridiculous than telling me you saw it on a sexxy-time machine viewer. By the way, (I assume you're a trained biologist because you were lecturing Shrike on genetics) a race is capable of mating with other races in the same species. We can observe this in a laboratory, and therefore know it as fact. You're historical knowledge, no matter how politically convenient, is not.Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

@Lazyfox:We should say only what the sources say we can't add anything from our head its called WP:OR--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Chicago Style, stop assuming, I know it's fact because through past dialogue discussions countless sources have been shown to indicate the facts about Palestinians in this article. Again, you are being immature and confrontational in your response towards me. It is not my personal historical knowledge, it is the knowledge from sources and history. Homo sapiens are a race, Chicago Style, there are subgroups of different ethnic groups within the race of homo sapiens, an ethnic group is not a separate race, if that were the case they would be a separate species and thus unable to produce viable offspring with other humans. Also, politically convenient? Who brought up politics besides you just now? If you wish to be a good wikipedian you should not be bringing up politics and focus on the sources and studies already found on the page. I think you have agendas on your mind other than the improvement of this article, and frankly I'm a bit annoyed. Also, it's spelled "your", unless you are implying that I myself am historical knowledge. Lazyfoxx 09:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)

I think pointing out petty grammar mistakes is immature and confrontational. So is trying to justify your unique definition of "race". Stop trying to score points and show me one, just one, source that proves a fact from 2000 years ago. An historian or anthropologist's assertion is not a fact. Also, was consensus achieved in these talk page recreations of ancient history? I perused the archives and see a lot of dispute and disagreement, even amongst editors with similar edit histories. This article should reflect the researched history of the Palestinian people, noting minority views when necessary, not Lazyfox and Saeb Erekat's Since Time Immemorial conjectures. Science and academics are quests for truth. Politics is trying to make others believe what you want. Which iz youz doin'? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, this article should reflect the researched history of Palestinians, which it does for the most part, editors have been working improve it throughout the years, although neutrality has been disputed concerning bias toward Israeli/Zionist views as well as Palestinian bias, the article cites many sources and provides researched history of Palestinians, so I do not understand what you are asking, besides talking in circles. If you wish to claim that we must not post information in this article about Palestinians because you believe facts from thousands of years ago need proving beyond anthropological evidence and researcher works, then I suggest you take a look at the articles relating to many more ethnic groups of people on Misplaced Pages, including Jewish divisions, I believe that the major Jewish claim to the land of Israel is that "God promised the land of Israel to Abraham thousands of years ago." I believe Israel and Zionists have defended this "fact" with that of the writings in the Bible, what do you think about that? Lazyfoxx 02:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Trying to pigeonhole me, eh? You had an issue with Shrike's edit, which was sourced. You changed the edit, making it about Jews, oh the Jews. Then you went on an orgy of edits, including claims as ridiculous as Canaanite origins (even though they are only mentioned in the Bible) and something called "Palestinian Ottoman". Please take a look in the mirror and see you are POV pushing. For example, you added speculation about what languages people in Palestine spoke based on literature. Doncha know that writing is different than speaking? In modern Morocco, the people are more literate in French than Arabic, their spoken tongue. Additionally, finding some stuff written down in Petra (a trader city with no singular identity) doesn't let you speculate on what they spoke. You should restrict yourself to commentary on modern-day Palestinians, since your grasp of history is guided by political convenience. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I see you don't have a response aimed at the question you asked me, seeing as how you are "pigeon holed" according to you. You don't know what you are talking about here Chicago Style, if you look again my initial edit of Shrike's edit did not "make it about the Jews" it simply included more information regarding the rest of the information from the study to convey Neutrality in this article. I am laughing at your accusation that my recent edits are POV pushed, all of my edits on this article are for the improvement of this article and I convey neutrality on the Israeli/Palestinian topic. When you say "including claims as ridiculous as Canaanite origins (even though they are only mentioned in the Bible) and something called "Palestinian Ottoman"." What does that even mean and how does it relate to my edit? You are rambling. And your edits, notably your most recent are clearly POV pushed, you are personally denying Palestinian history, which is cited in literature and sources throughout scholars, your recent edit on the article is nothing more than vandalism, not improvement of this article, and you should revert them. If you are concerned that something inserted in the article needs validation I suggest you read Misplaced Pages:Citation needed, before you go on a tirade of deleting informative content. Lazyfoxx 07:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
"Denying Palestinian history"? So if I suggest that Palestinian national identity is less than 2000 years old, I'm a racist? Extremists from opposite sides of an issue are identical. You just pulled the "dont support Israel (unconditionally)? Must be an anti-Semite" card. Your last comment makes it seem that you see anything putting Palestnians in a bad light to be an indication of Zionism. Your black and white world must make you feel very righteous.
Upon rereading my comment, I noticed I misspelled "Palestinian". Betcha caught it and think Imma racist. But seriously, all narratives of history deserve a grain of salt. You seem to do what Creationists do, start with your beliefs and look for evidence that backs it up. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Who called you a racist? I simply stated you are denying the history of Palestinians, which is clearly what you're doing. And how did I "just pull" the "dont support Israel (unconditionally)? must be an anti-semite card"? Explain yourself clearly. And no Chicago Style, I do not start with my beliefs and look for evidence of it, but thanks for another accusation yet again. I use information I have researched and found to be both informative and educational regarding the Palestinians and their history. You on the other hand do quite the opposite, it seems most of your edits since you have joined wikipedia have been deleting content from articles that you find offensive or do not fit your viewpoint. Lazyfoxx 16:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You implied I was both a racist and a fundamentalist. Now since you cant explain how you know historical facts you cant possibly know, ill explain how you use Creationist logic. Now, this game only works if you are honest with yourself. Do you read scholarly material and then think, "hmm, should be on Wiki", or do you use google books searches to find phrases you want to back up your opinions? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that I implied things about you is not the same as me actually saying things about you Chicago Style, do not put words in my mouth, that is childish, the only one calling you a racist and fundamentalist is yourself. I know history on this subject, the Palestinians, by books on the subject, lots of reading, something I suggest you do in relation to this and every article you intend to edit, I also suggest you read Misplaced Pages's policies regarding vandalism, and also material regarding "citations needed", if you personally disagree with something on the article you are welcome to voice your opinion, do not go around deleting content left and right without discussing it. The goal here is to improve the article through understanding and consensus, not removing things you don't personally agree with. Lazyfoxx 19:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
So this is what it comes to when you can't respond? Personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. I say "assume" because I can't read your mind. But you said,"I believe Israel and Zionists have defended this "fact" with that of the writings in the Bible, what do you think about that?" What does the little quib on the end there mean? I assume it means you are lumping me in with "Israel" and "Zionists", which you seem to think are the same thing. Again, you are mimicking the extreme of the other side. Extremists lump "Palestinian" together with "terrorist" and you are doing the same thing in reverse.
You also said I am "denying Palestinian history". So if someone disagrees with your views, they are a "denier" or "in denial". Again, you think your opinions are facts. I assume you have good faith. You, in good faith, are trying to support the extremist view of Saeb Erekat and Leila Khaled. That's great, passion is a good thing. But maybe you should find a different website that lets you use your opinions, like Reddit, instead of something factual, like Misplaced Pages. Finally, I haven't removed material, I've rephrased it to be more neutral. It may be shorter, it may be longer, but it was never a hatch job. For example, I corrected the naming of Palestinian Arabic as a dialect to a sub-group. You changed it back. Why? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Langauge additions

Do you have the "ʻAl kanfei Yonah" book?Could you please scan the relevant pages that correspond with your edits?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Shrike, what specific part of that section are you concerned with? Feel free to propose a "citations needed' superscript. The Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, by David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, Astrid Biles Beck, as well as The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia by Roger D. Woodard support the edits I believe, the edits coincide with the general history in the region. Lazyfoxx 11:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I am speaking about this edit that your sourced to Greenfeeld please supply the source .Until that please don't restore it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Before blatantly removing material from this article because a person doesn't agree with it, do you not think one should give the benefit of the doubt and read Misplaced Pages:Citation needed while consensus and sources are shown regarding the content in question? Lazyfoxx 07:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)
Please read WP:BURDEN.You have failed to prove that material in the book you cited refers to Palestinian Arabs--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question, Shrike. Lazyfoxx 09:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)
Do you own the book or not?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Please stop avoiding, and answer my question Shrike. To answer your question, the book is available publicly thanks to Google, if you are interested look into it yourself, and understand it was not me who initially cited that book. Lazyfoxx 17:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The edit] is in itself fairly innocuous, except that (a) 'some traces of Hebrew' is wrong. One doesn't speak traces of a language as a language, and Hebrew died out as a spoken language in that area by the 3rd century CE. (b) the Arabaic Nabataean stuff raises complex issues, and even were it a precise description of a complex field, not relevant to the article. I can't see that in Greenfield, however. Greenfield, googled, gives pages 156 and 159 for me, with no sign of an intervening gap. Rather odd. How does one describe the languages spoken in Palestine on the eve of the Islamic conquest, by ethnos (Jews spoke Judeo-Aramaic and Judeo-Greek (not Yevanic). Christians in Judea spoke koiné Greek and Aramaic, often called Christian Palestinian Aramaic, which is quite close to the Amaraean dialects spoken by Jews and Samaritans at that period. It is improper for Shrike to ask if you own a book. You don't have to own books: you can google them, but any request, such as he has made, for a precise pagination and either transcription of the disputed content or a link to the page, is normal practice.Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The book is not available at Google books and any other sources hence I asked for scanned pages. Lazyfox ignored my request. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
To the contrary, Shrike. It's searchable. You should really do some homework if you ask others to do theirs. Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that you provided sources but didn't provide page numbers.Please do so.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Who is that addressed to?Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
To this edit --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your input Nishidani, I agree about the some "some traces of hebrew", that can be reworded to something to the extent of "and up until the 3rd century, Hebrew."
Now Shrike, you have yet to answer my question above, I wish you would, as I have responded to you. Also I do not own the book, I have read through it online and I will be happy to link you to it as it seems it is hard to reach, do not say I have ignored you, because I haven't, that is not being fair to me. Here, Al Kanfei Yonah Click on a page number once there and you are sent to the full volume, it's a good read. Lazyfoxx 18:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)
Opps, just noticed Nishidani had already beaten me to linking the book, thanks! Now Shrike, which part of the edit do you disagree with or express concern? Lazyfoxx 18:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
If you wish to edit these details in uncontroversially, write simply:'Before the Arab Conquest, the languages spoken in Palestine, among the predominantly Jewish and Christian communities, were Aramaic, Syriac and Greek. Arabic was also spoken in some areas.
and source this to the following
Cyril Mango Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome It is unlikely that the use of Greek should have been more widespread in Palestine than it was in northern Syria, except for an artificial phenomenon, namely the development of the 'holy places'. Starting in the reign of Constantine the Great, practically every site of biblical fame became, as we would say today, a tourist attraction. From every corner of the Christian world people poured into Palestine: some as transient pilgrims, others on a longer-term basis. Monasteries of every nationality sprang up like mushrooms in the desert next to the Dead Sea. Palestine was thus a babel of tongues, but the native population - and we must remember that it included two distinct ethnic groups, namely theJews and the Samaritans - spoke Aramaic as it had always done. The pilgrim Egeria, who witnessed the Easter services at Jerusalem about the year 400, has this to say:

"Seeing that in that country part of the people know both Greek and Syriac, another part only Greek and yet another part only Syriac, given also that the bishop, although he knows Syriac, always speaks in Greek and neer in Syriac, there is always by his side a priest who, while the bishop is speaking in Greek, translates his comments into Syriac so that everyone may understand them. Similarly for the lections that are read in church: since these must be read in Greek, there is always somebody there to translate them into Syriac for the benefit of the people, that they may receive instruction. As for the Latins who are there, i.e. those who know neither Syriac nor Greek, to them also is an interpretation given lest they be displeased; for there are some brethren and sisters, proficient in both Greek and Latin, who give explanations in Latin."

Another element of the population of-both Syria and Palestine consisted of Arabs who had spread as far north as Mesopotamia. Some of them, like the Nabataeans of Petra and the Palmyrenes, had become sedentary and lost their native language. Others roamed the deserts either as brigands or as vassals of the Empire whose duty it was to protect the settled areas and oversee the transhumance of the nomads. We should not, in any case, imagine that the Arab conquest of the seventh century introduced a foreign element into those provinces: the Arabs had been there all along, their numbers were increasing and, in Justinian's reign, they assumed more and more the role of keepers of the emperor's peace. When, for example, the Samaritans staged a bloody revolt in 529, it was an Arab chieftain, Abukarib, who put them down.
(2) Joseph Yahalom ‘Piyyut in Byzantium: A Few Remarks,' in Robert Bonfil, Oded Irshai, Guy G. Stroumsa, Rina Talgam(eds.) Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures, BRILL, 2011 pp.317.335 p.320 Greek was spoken by the cosmopolitan Christian elite, Syriac by the local Christian Palestinian population p.320
(3) See Cyril Aslanov in Robert Bonfil, Oded Irshai, Guy G. Stroumsa, Rina Talgam(eds.) in the same book pp.390ff. I should add that some disagree with the general verdict that Hebrew had died out as a living language (Paul Wexler puts its extinction as a spoken language at that date). Odd varieties that write a creole of Hebrew and Greek are attested.
(4) Claudia Rapp, 'Hellenic Identity Romanitas,' in Katerina Zacharia (ed) Hellenisms: Culture, Identity, and Ethnicity from Antiquity to Modernity, Ashgate Publishing 2008.p.135
(5)Shrike like most editors on that side, dislikes the use of the epithet Palestinian. That appears to be his objection, though historians use it for the said period in writing of Palestinian Jews, Palestinian Patriarchate, Palestinian monks, Palestinian communities, Palestinian Talmud etc.
(6)The following passage should perhaps be registered on the page:

‘the most distinctive phenomena of Palestinian Christianity in the fourth century: the re-invention of Jerusalm as a Christian city, the emergence of Holy Land pilgrimage, and the establishment of monasticism.’ (Hillel I. Newman, 'Early Halakhic Literature,' in Robert Bonfil, Oded Irshai, Guy G. Stroumsa, Rina Talgam(eds.) Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures, BRILL, 2011 pp.629-642 p.631) Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani has made valid points here, while citing reliable sources concerning the linguistics of Palestinians, so I will work to reword the section and source it accordingly. Lazyfoxx 21:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)

consensual lead on a Friday morning

Source 21, Michael Prior's, says "While population transfers were effected in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian periods, most of the indigenous population remained in place."

Source 18, Encyclopedia Britannica, says "These conversions to Islam, together with a steady tribal inflow from the desert, changed the religious character of Palestine’s inhabitants."

So my edit was not "WP:OR deductions that fail to follow the cited sources" I read the sources, then used what the sources said. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There also Behar at al study that tell about common origin from Arabian Peninsula .--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
These are not actually incompatible, since different time periods are involved. Zero 11:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The Behar study is a primary source. We need a secondary source to show how genetic research into the genome-wide structure of the Jewish people relates to the topic of this article, Palestinian people. Dlv999 (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Well Nebel at al is too primary source, so lets remove it too?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
As Zero says, there is nothing incompatible in those two sources, if they are read intelligently. Secondly 'multi-ethnic' is true of almost all populations, and, in any case, the sources adduced to support the sentence speak of the local Palestinian population, not the multi-ethnic character of that population. Thirdly, the recent trend to resolve all questions by rewriting general pages according to provisory genetic theories is not acceptable. Genetics is one of several discourses bearing on these issues, and cannot trump or fly in the face of what historical and linguistic research may argue. Most of these genetic papers are appallingly bad on historical questions, for example. It was WP:OR to construct a multi-ethnicity label for the Palestinians from the sources given. Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the Behar study doesn't have any bearing in the lead sentence. But the additions that I made all came from sources that were already sourced and quoted in the article. The two quotes above I paraphrased. I changed "desert" to "area" because the modern states of Syria and Jordan, the Northern Saudi, and the Sinai Penninsula are all largely desert. The multi-ethnic label came from the already quoted Prior source. He says "Palestine has been multi-cultural and multi ethnic from the beginning." I agree with Nishidani that many current populations of the world are multi-ethnic. This is largely from globalization, I would think. Palestine, being at the crossroads of Asia and Africa, not to mention on the Mediterranian, means it was probably globalized before globalization was cool. Not to mention the sight of numerous wars. Wars tend to cause dessertion and other "war baby" phenomenon. But this is all OR.
Since I'm using present sources, I think my edit was helpful. Even how I changed "people" to "peoples" follows the sources better as well as better reflects the body of the article. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, I think multi-ethnic is warranted because most definitions of modern Palestinians includes Samaritans, Druze, Bedouin, and others. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
What you or I think is irrelevant. We stick to sources, and write under the non-alcoholic influence of the language used in sources. I am opposed to 'special treatment' for Palestinians or anyone else. The next thing we will have is the sister page on Jewish people being re-edited to assert they are multi-ethnic because they have admixtures. It's irrelevant. Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Did you read my post? Did you read the sources? I've added nothing from my brain. It is all in the sources. If you don't like multi-ethnic, then rephrase it. Your flat-out reverts, not to mention your use of language in your edit summaries, is not condusive to good editting. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

the multi-ethnic peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, in addition to various population transfers from conquering powers and tribal inflow from the area.

'Population transfers from conquering powers' refers to Prior. The Assyrian population transfer was of a small administrative and sacerdotal elite from Jerusalem to Babylon, out of Palestine, except for the argument that the Samaritans were imported Cushites, a theory reflecting according to much scholarship reflecting post-exilic Judean enmity for the peasant class that remained rooted in idolatry, or another form of Judaism, Torah-worship, to the north. The section then adds 'most of the indigenous population remained in place'
I compiled nearly all of the sources, so it's fatuous asking me if I read them. Multi ethnic is used in one, Michael Prior again, who refers to the many tribes and groups who since Biblical times have had residence there. All of the other sources assert the indigineity of the people of Palestine, the fact that Jews (multiethnic) became Christians became Muslims i.e. relative population stability as opposed to credal instability and, territorially considered as a modern nationality, became 'Palestinians'. Your edit is designedly POV because it ignores some sources say an indigenous people, others people, several emphasize the continuity of one population base for the fellahin, several note that the influx from the east were of other semites throughout history, all related to one 'ethnic' complex, etc.etc. The sources conflict on mnany details, Parkes asserting the majority of Palestinians aren't Arabs, for example. You have, in other words, privileged one word in one citation of several to recast the content in a way that cancels out what several other sources are affirming, continuity of descent in the basso ostinato of a Palestinian people. What you did was look at Prior to find stuff you liked, and then use it against all of the other sources. The sentence was crafted to reflect all sources, not through just a part of one of them into highbeam relief. That The sentence was worked out by a dozen editors and has remained stable. Bad spelling is not 'conducive' to 'good editing'. The Chicago Manual of Style is not particularly strong on orthography.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Two of the sources clearly point to a small admixture. You seem to be overwhelming these two RS to say that the Palestinian People are a monolithic entity. I wasn't adding POV, and it is against AGF for you to imply that I was for the simple act of adding a more rounded story, straight from a pair of RS. The body also supports my contributions. For example, a genetic study finds the Palestinians to be related to peoples from the Levant (not the modern borders of Palestine). Additionally, only a "core" reaches back to pre-historic times, suggesting an arm or leg is from admixture. Rashid Khalidi agrees, saying Palestinians concider all the newcomers to be part of their heritage. Qleibo says (in the article) "Throughout history a great diversity of peoples has moved into the region and made Palestine their homeland:Canaanites, Jebusites, Philistines from Crete, Anatolian and Lydian Greeks, Hebrews, Amorites, Edomites, Nabataeans, Arameans, Romans, Arabs, and Western European Crusaders..." I've added a brief description of how these peoples influenced them, culturally and otherwise. Another thing from the body, "One DNA study by Nebel found genetic evidence in support of historical records that "part, or perhaps the majority" of Muslim Palestinians descend from "local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD". Notice the "part, or perhaps the majority". This corresponds with how Prior says "most" stayed in place. Most implies there is a statistically signifigant part that didn't.
If you don't like my wording, then rephrase it to something that doesn't make your knee jerk. But balance, and RS, don't allow for a description of Palestinians as an island. On a personal note, it's self-defeating to mock my spelling after two poorly worded sentences with typos of your own. Do the birds smack the walls of your glass house? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
NO. To simplify, since you don't grasp the point. You took one quote, of several, and prioritized Prior's slant in a way that cancelled out what the other sources for that sentence were saying. Those sources, parsed against each other, contradict each other in many nuances. The sentence must adequately sum up all the sources, not just one, and the essential point made by nearly all adduced sources was that the basic stratum of the population over time, millenia, has been stable, though enriched (as all populations are) by desultory immigration. No people is a 'monolithic entity'. In other words, 'races' or 'ethnoi' in a sense of uniquely uncontaminated descent from a Stamm don't exist. Excptionalizing them as your edit does, makes an anomaly of a people whose complex descent is within the norm of human populations which, on other pages, are simply described as 'Welsh', 'Kurds', 'Egyptians', 'Jews', 'Japanese' associated with a territory, a common culture and language. That's where you show a distinctly flaunted attempt to tilt in a POV. Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand your point. But Prior and the Encyclopedia Britannica aren't contradicted by the other sources in the lead off. They mention things that the others don't touch on and don't contradict. In addition, Prior and Encyclopedia Britannica are backed up by Khalidi and Qleibo from the body. My edit doesn't make the case that the people haven't been stable over time. You admit that Palestinians have had admixture, like all people. My edit shows the sources of that admixture, conquest (that spot of land so many have coveted for religious, economic, and geographic reasons) and migration (a fact of life where Africa meets Asia meets the Med). Saying that conquest and migration has happened does not mean that the area hasn't had a stable population base that expresses itself through a stable culture. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Please stop trying to force your proposed change through. The 1RR is not an entitlement to revert once a day. A number of people have objected to the WP:UNDUE weight that you give to a single quote. nableezy - 18:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
It isn't from one quote. There are two sources cited in the sentence that support the edit, along with numerous sources from the body. Please read my above post. Additionally, Shrike supported the edit, while all the others except Nishidani only opposed the Behar study. So right now it is two vs two. But more importantly, I am directly citing sources. If you feel it is undue weight, then please edit the material instead of removing sourced material that you don't like. I've reverted on average 36 hours later after posting a reasoned response on the talk page. So let's all try to be civil and stick to RS. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't support the edit. Prior emphasizes the continuity of the indigenous population: "the Palestinian Arabs are likely to have been descendants of the inhabitants of the region from the earliest times" (pp 200); "While population transfers were effected in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian periods, most of the indigenous population remained in place. Moreover, after Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 the population by and large remained in situ, and did so again after Bar Kochba’s revolt in AD 135. When the vast majority of the population became Christian during the Byzantine period, no vast numbers were driven out, and similarly, in the seventh century, when the vast majority became Muslim, few were driven from the land"(pp 201). While your edit seems to overemphasize the "population transfers" and "tribal inflow", especially when you consider you are trying to introduce this into the first sentence of the lead. The EB citation is a History of a specific period of Palestine. I'm not convinced as to why one particular historic detail in thousands of years of recorded history should be cherry picked and inserted into the lead of this article. The source certainly does not indicate the importance of this detail to the topic of the article: the Palestinian People. Dlv999 (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
As per Dlv. One might add that the trick here has been to take one several sources, take out two key phrases from one depicting one small event two and a half millenia ago 'population transfer' (an unfortunate lapse by Prior since it is a modern term of post WW2 vintage referring to Nazi projects, the Indo-Pakistan events 1947-8, the Zionist proposals that the nakba was a normative 'population transfer' opportunity (not yet, according to many tracts and positions cf.Yisrael Beiteinu, and Avigdor Lieberman's platform, exhausted). The two phrases are then used to destablise the point of the several sources, which is the relative stability of the basic or core population from antiquity. The 'population transfer' in Prior refers to the removal of 5-10% of Jerusalem's elite, not sensu stricto a population transfer or one read in anachronistic terms, referring to 3 events over 60 years that led to the Babylonian exile. It refers to Israelites,(themselves a huge ethnic mix of tribal peoples) and is an outflow. The 'tribal inflow' more or less could refer to anything in the history of Canaan-Judea-Palestine from the late Bronze Age to the 20th century, but to careful eyes, hints at the Islamic conquest of 630s CE. (Aside from the fact that coming fresh to wikipedia and to an article like this, suffering an immediate suspension for edit-warring, and then coming off it to edit war without an eye to consensus, does not inspire confidence).Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I was banned 48 hours for being a bit short of the 1rr rule. I've been civil this whole discussion and have come with RS and copious support from the body. When the article leads off with a history lesson instead of a definition, it should be a weighted history lesson. We can't interpet away what RS says. It says there was admixture. As DLV points out, only the majority stayed put. A minority that is mentioned by multiple RS is signifigant. Therefore the Wiki policy on weight requires that it be mentioned. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
What's interpet mean? Smooching with or grooming each other?
'are the modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries.' Let me construe that for you. That sentence is not a history lesson, it is a commonsensical definition paralleled by almost every definition of peoples on wiki, (and you want to make, by your edits, Palestinians look exceptional, definitionally). It is neutral as to these polemics. It does not say a people, implying a unified population. Without the definite aricle it is a plural, meaning any number of peoples/ethnoi. Since the place was a melting pot in the past, and since we are talking of the present politically constituted people called 'Palestinians' in the definition, what you are trying to overegg is already present in the carefully phrased, and much discussed sentence. You did not reply to the objections. Nishidani (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
As you recently said on the Hebron Massacre page "go with the sources and to heck with everything else." If I misquoted you or misspell something, be sure to ding me on it, because you're running out of ammo. Look at other "peoples" pages, they are defined by what they are, not what they were. The French people page doesn't mention their Celtic, Latin, and Germanic descent until the end of the paragraph. If you object to the edit, please explain what Rashid Khalidi was talking about. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Your edit summary is meaningless. 'Bounties from the body' sounds like a sheriff paying cash for a body of an outlaw'. You have a majority identifying your editing here as against consensus. You refuse to do anything more than reassert your convictions on the page, and ignore arguments that show their flimsiness. etc.etc. Seven sources are to be summarized, not the only one that supports your POV.'The French people page doesn't mention their Celtic, Latin, and Germanic descent.' Precisely. Neither should this page mention 'multi ethnic descent'. It merely states what all sources say, that they are mostly descendents of people who have lived in that territory for ages. Nishidani (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

ref moved from lead

I removed the following ref from the first sentence of the article:

<ref>'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.' Bassam Abu-Libdeh, Peter D. Turnpenny, and Ahmed Teebi, ‘Genetic Disease in Palestine and Palestinians,’ in Dhavendra Kuma (ed.) ''Genomics and Health in the Developing World,'' OUP 2012 pp.700-711, p.700.</ref>

This is from a medical paper, so doesn't seem to be RS for history. Thoughts? Some people are "completely indifferent to whatever geneticists say about history, unless they are practiced historians" . I'd assume this goes for medical doctors as well and not only when relating to specific religions. I wonder who added this ref to this article? Oh dear . No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

another

<ref>'the surviving mass of of the population, overwhelmingly rural, remained in place. The Romans did not have the means for deporting hundreds of thousands of peasants. Nor was it in their interest to depopulate the countryide: the peasant population was a valuable source of revenue for Rome. . . Ironically, the Palestinian peasants have a great claim than today's Jews to be descendants of the ancient Israelites'. ],''Israelis and Palestinians: Conflict and Resolution,'' Haymarket Books 2012 p.259.</ref>

What makes Machover RS for this? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

and another

<ref>'While population transfers were effected in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian periods, most of the indigenous population remained in place. Moreover, after Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 the population by and large remained ''in situ,'' and did so again after Bar Kochba's revolt in AD 135. When the vast majority of the population became Christian during the Byzantine period, no vast number were driven out, and similarly in the seventh century, when the vast majority became Muslim, few were driven from the land. Palestine has been multi-cultural and multi ethnic from the beginning, as one can read between the lines even in the biblical narrative. Many Palestinian Jews became Christians, and in turn Muslims. Ironically, many of the forebears of Palestinian Arab refugees may well have been Jewish.'],''Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry,'' Psychology Press 1999 p.201</ref>

Another person whose main credentials seem to be being an anti-Zionist. What makes him RS for this? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories: