Misplaced Pages

Talk:Palestinians

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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 Onceinawhile (talk | contribs) at 17:42, 5 February 2019 (→Arabization). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:42, 5 February 2019 by Onceinawhile (talk | contribs) (→Arabization)(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 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.

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Palestinians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Requesting addition to bottom of section: DNA and genetic studies

The following paragraph:

According to a study published in June 2017 by Ranajit Das, Paul Wexler, Mehdi Pirooznia, and Eran Elhaik in Frontiers in Genetics, "in a principle component analysis (PCA) , the ancient Levantines clustered predominantly with modern-day Palestinians and Bedouins..." Additionally, in a study published in August of the same year by Marc Haber et al. in The American Journal of Human Genetics, the authors concluded that "The overlap between the Bronze Age and present-day Levantines suggests a degree of genetic continuity in the region."

  1. Das, R; Wexler, P; Pirooznia, M; Elhaik, E (2017). "The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish". Frontiers in genetics. 8: 87. doi:10.3389/fgene.2017.00087. PMID 28680441.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  2. Haber, M; Doumet-Serhal, C; Scheib, C; Xue, Y; Danecek, P; Mezzavilla, M; Youhanna, S; Martiniano, R; Prado-Martinez, J; Szpak, M; Matisoo-Smith, E; Schutkowski, H; Mikulski, R; Zalloua, P; Kivisild, T; Tyler-Smith, C (3 August 2017). "Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present-Day Lebanese Genome Sequences". American journal of human genetics. 101 (2). doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.013. PMID 28757201.
Seems fine to me. Prinsgezinde (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Wishful thinking but it's not the case, I had read over a 100 of genetic studies since that one which came out in 2000, all of them point that the "palestinians" (I won't ever let go of the quotation mark as it wasn't their name till 1964 and while the British Mandate of Palestine existed they claimed to be "southern syrians" - ask philip khury) - despite the current tone of the genetics section in this article - do not cluster with the Jews, Samaritans or even with most of the lebanese. this is because of the fact that they're just MUCH later migrants than the ones who did originate in the Bronze Age Levant.-User:Wolfman12405 10:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Canaanite theory section must go

I am more than sure that anyone who's neither a muslim nor a Jew knows that the "palestinians" (I won't ever let go of the quotation mark as it wasn't their name till 1964 and while the British Mandate of Palestine existed they claimed to be "southern syrians" - ask philip khury) are people of arabian, north african, sub-saharan ("afro-palestinians" and african looking bedouins) and even european descents (if one thought ahed tamimi is a "Canaanite" then it's this whole section's fault). The Jews and Samaritans who lived here since before the arab conquest of the Levant never referred nor acknowledged the "palestinians" as Canaanites nor as even indigenous to this region (despite some of these two minority indigenous groups were converted to islam during times). I think it is about time to let go of the sharade and remove this section from the article. Besides even the genetic studies show that the "palestinians" do not cluster with Jews, Samaritans and even with most of the lebanese people.-User:Wolfman12405 10:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree the canaanism pseudo-science/theory should be trimmed, and we should emphasize that this is fringe. However, this should be based on strong sources.Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Icewhiz, I believe that even the earliest of genetic studies like Oppenheimer et. al (2001) point to the fact that the vast majority of the "palestinians" do not cluster with Jews in the last several milleniums but do have common Neolithic Period ancestry prior to the split into 2 groups: Levantines and arabians. Here is the link: and the quote: "The two haplogroups Eu 9 and Eu 10 constitute a major part of the Y chromosome pool in the analyzed sample. Our data suggest that Eu 9 originated in the northern part, and Eu 10 in the southern part of the Fertile Crescent. Genetic dating yielded estimates of the expansion of both haplogroups that cover the Neolithic period in the region. Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin differed from the other Middle Eastern populations studied here, mainly in specific high-frequency Eu 10 haplotypes not found in the non-Arab groups. These chromosomes might have been introduced through migrations from the Arabian Peninsula during the last two millennia. The present study contributes to the elucidation of the complex demographic history that shaped the present-day genetic landscape in the region."--Wolfman12405 (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
You are cutting and pasting 'stuff' from other articles, as here again, without reading the documents, and without apparently troubling yourself to study the respective issues in any depth. The results of genetics over the last 2 decades are highly conflicting, and Oppenheimer's result is challenged by other studies, that conclude, for example, that:

In a principle component analysis (PCA), the ancient Levantines clustered predominantly with modern-day Palestinians and Bedouins and marginally overlapped with Arabian Jews, whereas AJs clustered away from Levantine individuals and adjacent to Neolithic Anatolians and Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans.(Elhaik et al 2017

i.e. a diamentrically opposed conclusion, stating Palestinians profile as indigenous Levantine, while Ashkenazi do not. In any case, one should not be citing primary papers from a contested field of research, per WP:OR. Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Elhaik's works have been repeatedly excoriated for their ridiculous methodology (Armenians as proxies for Khazars when Central Asian Khazars have no relation to Armenians and did not rule Armenia) and might be called Khazarist pseudo-science. Please enough Khazar baiting.--Calthinus (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Don't be silly. He is a highly respected molecular biologist. for all of the newspaper know-alls who spout nonsense because he touched a sensitive issue (and redeveloped his ideas in response to criticism), I much prefer to trust his mentor Dan Graur's estimation. One of his genetics peers who criticized his methology made a complete arse of himself by mangling his mathematics. If his methodology was ridiculous, her wouldn't be so prolifically published in top-ranking science journals.Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you should inform Wikiproject Armenia on the close relationship between Armenians and Turkic Khazars, and we'll see how long it takes before you end up on drama boards for spreading ethnic incitement and spreading wild fringe theories.--Calthinus (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Insult away. 'Ethnic incitement' is a new one, and good for a laugh. Ware off a duck's back. You are not familiar with the scholarship. Scholarship, as opposed to ideology (of which Zionism is one, well represented here), has no truth claim, only hypothesis-making, and provisory models. I have no project here, other than to see that the precision and intelligence of serious scholarship find some minor voice in the urgent POV pushing of ethnonationalists of any description. Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
You are not familiar with the scholarship could be read as a personal attack. Alas, perhaps you would like to consider the scholarly credentials of Elhaik's hordes of critics. Elhaik's paper is so hilariously ridiculous and methodologically absurd that entire papers have been published by large groups of other renowned geneticists like this one ] like the prolific Mark G. Thomas from Cambridge. But its not just geneticists who find his claims absurd: demographer Sergio Della Pergola, Judaic historian Shaul Stampfer, Yiddish linguist Dovid Katz, Aptroot etc... ] --Calthinus (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the Canaanite section. It is basically negative, and contradicts a certain ideology. The Palestinians like the Jews are of mixed ancestry, neither being lineal descendants of the Israelites,- who were themselves a congeries of tribal groups of varying provenance, including the 'riff raff' Moses of the Exodus myth whinged about- yet both in their ideologies proclaiming direct descent.Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Lol u know what's the difference between my sources to elhaik? that he's just one scholar whose work is heavily criticized by the rest of his field while my sources are legit and widely accepted by peer geneticists. u can cry all u want, it won't alter history. Regardless of ur envy &/ hatred towards the Jews for returning here.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
You have twice or three times broken the 1 revert rule for I/P articles (See the banner above, at the top of this page). Self-revert or you will be reported. The rest of your fantasies about antisemitism as a factor in article composition when sources and other editors disagree with you means you are not a valid interlocutor here.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
ur getting mad there, huh? why is that? I'm cool as an ice cube.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - The section looks fine, as it is mostly a discussion of why it might be politically unadvisable (at this particular junction in time) for the Palestinians to affiliate with Canaanism, though it's pretty clear the Israelis are simply a separatist Canaanite faction, so in the end all people currently living in the former Roman province of Syria Palaestina are descendants of Canaanites, with descendants of invaders excepted, of course. XavierItzm (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  1. K. L. Noll, Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction, A&C Black, 2001 p. 164: "It would seem that, in the eyes of Merneptah's artisans, Israel was a Canaanite group indistinguishable from all other Canaanite groups." "It is likely that Merneptah's Israel was a group of Canaanites located in the Jezreel Valley."

I agree with Icewhiz and Wolfman12405 here. Nishidani is misunderstanding things here. Ethnogenesis does not equal ancestry (actually asserting the latter can come off as rather racist -- i.e. various people assimilating into the French identity does not fundamentally change when the French emerged as a group, unless you are, of course, Marine Le Pen). Jews emerged as a group very long ago; the specific Palestinian identity emerged quite a bit later (whether it was in the middle ages or the 1940s, that is more disputable but literally nobody who matters thinks they can trace the Palestinian identity back to effing 1200 BC). --Calthinus (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not misunderstanding anything. I happen to be peer-reviewed on a subject like this. Wolfman's erratic remarks and editing earned him a near indeff just after this. Cultural identity is one thing, ethnogenesis another. One cannot, as Wolfman did, define a cultural group in terms of biological origins, except in extremely rare cases, and this is not the case. Israel itself accepts in its aliyah policy that large numbers of Jews, Beta Israel, B'nai Moshe are not ethnogenetically 'Jewish', not to speak of the fact that half of Russian Jewish immigrants to Israel are not halakhic Jews. The point I made is if you are going to cite genetics as an identity marker to prove a superior historical rootedness to a country, it will backfire, since Palestinians turn out to be as, if not more, Levantine as (than) Jews. Nishidani (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, ok. Well, this page is not about Jews but about Palestinians. Second, not sure why Jewish genetics is relevant here, as I said in my previous, no one respectable nowadays equates ethnicity with ancestry. So, so what if Palestinians have some Jewish ancestry (or "Canaanite", Neanderthal, whatever) or if, by your tangent, some Jews many of whom aren't really regarded as Jewish by many anyways (in the case of many of Israel's Russian Christians and those with like, one Jewish grandparent). The genetic origins of Jews where they do occur in argument arise as a response to racialist Arabist and other anti-Zionist discourses that deny Jewish identity by stating Jews can't possibly be native to the Levant because some of them are blond (like Ahed Tamimi the … Crusader?) or blue eyed (never knew Bashar al-Assad was... uh French?) or that others look quite African, well responding to that we do have genetic tests showing substantial shared Jewish ancestry, showing Jews are not "FAKERS" (even with some admixture) as our favorite internet forums like to proclaim us as. Of course genetic tests also cast light on the fact that most Palestinians except Bedouins also have substantial Levantine (Aramaean, "Canaanite" and yes Jewish) ancestry, plus ancient but not Levantine ancestry (Qedarites are an Arab tribe in the region quite long ago after all). But this page is about Palestinians not Jews at all, and furthermore -- ancestry is relevant as group prehistory but not relevant to the modern Palestinian identity, which arose long after all of those groups were assimilated.
The question for me, I suppose, is why are we highlighting the Canaanite theory, which is the purview solely of Palestinian nationalism, on an a page that should be NPOV? We do not talk about Hungarian obsessions that they supposedly come from Sumerians on their page, nor Albanian nationalism's desire to claim Pelasgians on Albanians, etc -- and for good reason.--Calthinus (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we highlight the Canaanite theory. It's simply that sources, and editors, persist in wrestling with the hypothesis re both Jews and Palestinians, each side trying to wrest a charter from pre-history to 'authenticate' their respective claims to be indigenous. I regard all of this as rubbish, no matter which side promotes it, but unfortunately it is part of the record, ideologically inflected, but there. People, especially in a notorious ethnic crossroad like Palestine, are ineludibly mixed, genetically promiscuous in their heritage, and both have to face that fact. I'm for complexity, not comic simplifications of the past.Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Nishidani we currently include it under the "origins" section -- which could lead people to think the page views it as a notable and still relevant theory, which it is not. Instead it should be included in History of Palestinian nationalism. --Calthinus (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
It is a theory of origins which many sources state has an element of truth. The present Palestinian population obviously descends in part from peoples in that specific area. This is particularly evidenced by that part of it, Christian Palestinians whose contention of continuous communities going back two thousand years (as descendants of a core group of Jewish and Greek,etc. inhabitants of Palestine, no one challenges, because Christians belong to our ethnic block and their claims pose no problem for contemporary identity claims to rights over the whole area. By making an exception of Muslim Palestinians, treating their claims to continuity as false, one shows a profound bias. There is nothing inherently improbable in that claim any more than is the case for Jews or Christians of Palestinian descent. As to identity it is extremely labile. Jewishness is no more an ontological category with an Ockhamesque definition that covers the massive diversity of identities of people who identify as Jews, than any other proclaimed identity.Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Uhh who are you arguing against? It's not me. I never mentioned any difference between Christian and Muslim Palestinians (though there are those who challenged Christian Palestinian autochtony -- after all the Jewish population was ethnically cleansed from the region progressively by a combination of Roman/Byzantine deportations and massacres following a series of revolts, i.e. Bar Kokhba, Heraclius etc... such that Jews outside of the mountainous regions of Galilee and Tiberias were basically cleared... and replaced.). And what exactly is the topic here? This page is called "Palestinians". Not "is Jewish peoplehood legitimate". Flowery ideology and words (labile, Ockhamesque) aside, you're just using this post to impose your value judgment on the identities of millions of people. That's not our business here on wiki. Of course once again-- why are we talking about Jews on a page about Palestinians?? --Calthinus (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Calthinus I read your posts with interest. Two things confused me:
"Jews emerged as a group very long ago; the specific Palestinian identity emerged quite a bit later... nobody who matters thinks they can trace the Palestinian identity back to effing 1200 BC"
Here you are comparing apples and oranges – Jewish “existence as a group” vs Palestinian “modern identity” . In doing so you missed both the apple and the orange you should have compared against – Jewish “modern identity” (only a few decades older than Palestinian) and Palestinian “existence as a group” (defined by the clear geographical boundaries and similar language, and like the vast majority of other geographically-defined groups, under different labels over time)
"ancestry is relevant as group prehistory but not relevant to the modern Palestinian identity"
This point makes no sense to me.
Onceinawhile (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Onceinawhile I'll continue this on your tp. --Calthinus (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

False use of a citation

This section has a serious problem:

>Inscriptional evidence over a millennium from the peripheral areas of Palestine, such as the Golan and the Negev, show a prevalence of Arab names over Aramaic names from the Achaemenid period,550 -330 BCE onwards.

However the text being cited "Palestine in Late Antiquity" covers the period of period 300-650 **CE** not BCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origninal Evade (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. The other sentences there were also quite cherry picked to show any Arab presence. Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll give you an hour to self-revert. Your edit summary shows you have not examined the sources cited, which state exactly what they were quoted to show. There is nothing 'cherry-picked'. All historians acknowledge that Arabic names are a commonplace on ostraca from the Persian and Hellenistic periods which, note bene, are BCE.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Nish beat me to it. Would it have hurt either of these two to visit Achaemenid Empire to find out when it was? I'll add a more direct citation to Ran Zadok, who is the expert on the ethno-linguistics of that time and place. Zero 09:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the use is accurate, the relevance of Arabic place names in the southern Negev for modern-era Palestinians is WP:SYNTH - as is the connection to the Muslim conquest in the 7th century. Icewhiz (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I've warned you twice before about removing high quality sources dealing with known facts, simply, it would appear, out of dislike for the fact they contradict an ideological rewriting of the historical record. This is your third strike. This has nothing to do with synthesis, since the sources note the Arabic ostraca are attested in Palestine. This is not to do with the Muslims of the 7th century CE, but with the process of Arabization predating that by a millennium, absolutely appropriate to the historical record of Palestine and the Palestinians.Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Does the source mention Palestinians?--Shrike (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The ones I checked - don't seem to mention Palestinians. They also seem to be cherry picked to present an Arabic (or in one case - a coupled Edomite/Nabataean) narrative as opposed to a balanced presentation of linguistic patterns for the period (which would, one assume, focus on regions with significant population - as opposed to mostly empty desert border lands). Icewhiz (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
If the source doesn't mention the main topic of the article then its WP:OR and should be removed --Shrike (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry but that's a weak and pointy argument, a bit like saying that sources mentioning Jews, Hebrews or Israelites are WP:OR unless they use the modern term 'Israelis'. In English, the term 'Palestinians' refer to Arabs living in what is Israel and Palestine. Removing good sources talking about Arabs living in what is now Israel and Palestine with the argument that they don't use the term 'Palestinians' to describe them is not serious. Jeppiz (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Re this extraordinarily obtuse piece of edit-warring sources that doesn't mention Palestinians per WP:OR
Shrike, if you have neither the patience nor curiosity to read what you are reverting out, then you shouldn’t be editing here. You claim the source must mention the Palestinians or else it is WP:OR. Rubbish. The section header is nota bene: ‘The Arabization of Palestine,' not the Arabization of Palestinians, and the sources cited specifically address the history of Arab penetration of Palestine.
Icewhiz denied the sources given stated what they, on checking, state. That was either a lie, an equivocation, or a refusal to read the sources.
So I provided in the notes the material from which the contested remarks were paraphrased.
I also fixed an error in the original citation, which attributed to the editors Schmid and Mouton, text from an article written by someone elser, David F.Graf.
Zero added a third source, on which one of the two other RS is based, i.e. Ran Zadok (1990). "On early Arabians in the Fertile Crescent". Tel Aviv. 17: 223–231.
So your edit summary was utterly muddle-headed,(a) your revert maintained the textual paraphrase but elided the quoted original, as if quoting the fucking original source in a footnote was original research!, meaning you have not read the relevant policy on either WP:SYNTH or WP:OR.(b) you restored the faulty attribution I fixed, leaving the text now claiming Schmidt and Mouton wrote what David Graf actually wrote . (c) you excised Zero’s addition of the basic source-providing a source is not original research - and since the source you left in Hagith Sivan, directly cites Ran Zadok’s paper, you contradicted your own policy assertions ; If you thought the addition of Ran Zadok’s paper was original research, then you would have, in a logical world, have been obliged to obliterate Hagith Sivan’s text as well, which sums it up. (e) you made a preemptive strike out of material removed without any rational policy justification while discussion of it had just begun.(f) That text has not been questioned, i.e. has been stable, for many years. You need strong and rational policy grounds to tamper with it.
This level of crass misunderstanding, failure to read policy, and blind team-tagging reverting is not tolerable.Self-reverting is your only decent option. Please do so, since restoring at the least a false attribution, and refusing to admit it, and removing source evidence for statements that, themselves, are not questioned, is regarded very dourly at arbitration.Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
If it is ok to include a section on the Arabization of Palestine (which it is, since it is obviously relevant to the topic), then it is ok to include sources that study the Arabization of Palestine. Zero 23:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Dubious claim

"Palestinians are an ethnonational group comprising the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, including Jews and Samaritans, and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab."

Does that include the millions of Jews who are Palestinians (by definition) because their ancestors lived in Roman province Syria Palaestina and/or British Mandate Palestine prior to the State of Israel's independence in 1948? VwM.Mwv (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It means the former (the sentence notes that in past tense "who have lived"), the ancient and medieval population of Jews and Samaritans that underwent linguistic shifts to Aramaic and then Arabic with religious shifts from Judaism to Christianity and later with some to Islam, processes that formed a sizable part of the modern Palestinian population.Resnjari (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Resnjari: Then why include the claim that they "today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab"? Is there any evidence that the majority of the descendants of the individuals who lived in the region when it was officially known as "Palestine" (as imposed by the Roman and later British authorities) are "culturally and linguistically Arab"? Aren't most (or at least a substantial minority) of them culturally and linguistically Jewish? VwM.Mwv (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Because today that's what that population is. The Judaic populations (Jews and Samaritans) that remained in the region after the Bar Kokhba revolt and thereafter underwent transformations (due to revolts and subsequent persecutions under the Byzantines, Caliph Al Hakim the Ottomans etc), as did the wider Levant (especially after the Islamic conquests). Palestinians like other modern day Arabic speaking populations of the Levant have elements of past populations (some more then others -here it gets complicated) that resulted in making who they are today. Obviously past identities of ethno-linguistic and even religious affiliation have not been continuous (due to the many changes), so with the Palestinians its referred to in past tense. In present tense the bit "culturally and linguistically Arab" defines the state that they are in today because Palestinians at least for some decades now overwhelmingly use the self appellation of Palestinian and not Arab for themselves and associations with the Arab world and their identity are mainly cultural and linguistic.Resnjari (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Arabization

This section and related parts of the wider article are drafted very loosely re our use of the term “Arab”. Most of the time we are talking about the Arabic language (which developed locally, even if was codified in the Hijaz, and from which the Levantine dialect remains distinct) and the cultural influence of Islam. Yet occasionally we intersperse ethnic usage where we actually mean Hijazis. It makes for a hotch potch. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Locally? In the Syrian desert or Trans-Jordanian desert perhaps. The language shift to Arabic in urban and somewhat dense rural areas (in Palestine and Syria) was post 7th century. Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Almost all of the earliest Old Arabic inscriptions were found within a few dozen miles of the current borders of Israel / Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Palestinians Add topic