Talk:List of Palestinians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Question[edit]

Was Izz al-Din al-Muqaddasi (d. 1280) from Jerusalem? I assume so from his name. - Mustafaa 18:45, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kiran Banerjee[edit]

Does anyone know who the above (added by User:162.83.246.212) is referring to? Banerjee is primarily a Bengali surname and the only one I could near Chicago is Prith Banerjee of the University of Illinois, who does not appear to be Palestinian. I've left the entry for now, but will delete it in a couple of days if it's not clarified. Juko 20:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Samaritan[edit]

Samaritan JUDAISM is the religion of Samaritan Hebrews, people that are not palestinians but Israelites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.126.224.158 (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article on Palestinian people. The Samartian community worldwide number some 700 people. Half of them live in Nablus as Palestinian citizens, where they have lived for thousands of years. The other half moved to Holon in Israel after the 1967 war. They can most definitely be included in a list of Palestinians and in a list of Israelis too. I don't see why we should delete this information from here. Where else are the Samaritans to be covered if not here and at Israeli-related pages? So please stop deleting this information. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 17:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you a message to your user talk page. If you find in any history book that Samaritans are palestinians, or if you find this in the Gospels, please let me know. Citizenship means nothing, most Jews are not Israeli citizens. By the way, that person who includes Jesus Christ, adds "Our Creator". Such statement is highly arguable and cannot be considered an impartial comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.126.224.158 (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the Gospels are not a reliable source here at Wikipedia for historical information. And citizenship is in fact one of the ways in which modern people identify themselves these days. By that measure of identity, half the Samaritans in the world are Palestinians. You might also want to read the article I directed you to. If you had, you would have seen that many Samaritans identify as Palestinian and that some Muslim families in Nablus have Samaritan roots.
In any case, I don't really want to argue Bible history with you. If you notice, I did not restore Jesus to the listing again (though I might one day, if I find a source that describes him as Palestinian, since here at Wikipedia, we write articles based on what the reliable sources say, and not just what we believe to be true).
For now however, I'm not willing to WP:edit war over this and since you keep deleting the entry, that's the only thing that can happen if I respond by continuing to restore the information now. So, I encourage you to think of better ways to express your opinions, in a way more respectful to other people around you. While it looks only like pixels on a screen, there are living, breathing human beings typing these words and adding content to these pages, so it would be nice if you could interact with respect for the viewpoints of others here as well and not be so trigger-happy with the deletions buttons. Thanks and I hope there are no hard feelings about the frankness of my reply. Tiamuttalk 18:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have followed this argument. Actually, there are NO sources about Jesus Christ except the Gospels. Christians are mentioned by historians of the first century as Josephus Flavius, Pliny or Eusebius, and were considered by them a Jewish sect, but no mention of the historical Jesus Christ, therefore, you cannot find any other source except the Gospel. In any case, if you do not consider the Gospel as a reliable source, how can you admit the comment "Our Creator"? That's indeed a statement based on belief and not on science or history. Concerning the Palestinian issue, you cannot find any source in which such name is mentioned before the second century CE, and no Palestinian people at all in that time. Roman documents mention Jews, Samaritans, Greeks and other peoples as inhabitants of Judea, Samaria and Galilee, but no Palestinians or Arabs. Only Jews fought the Roman occupation of the land, as you can read in "Jewish Wars" by Josephus Flavius, considered the most creditable historian of the Holy Land during the first century CE. Definitely, Jesus Christ was not a Palestinian at all, as it was impossible as to be North-American by that time. Also Samaritans existed then, and they were not Palestinians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.29.2.157 (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confused about a few things. First of all, I did not add the Jesus, Our Creator entry. I mistakenly restored it after you deleted it along with the Samaritan entries, but I only did that once, for reasons I have explained to you above.
Second, I should have been clearer about the Gospels. They are not a reliable source for establishing incontrovertible historical facts, but we can use the Gospels as long as we preface the sentence by .... "According to the Gospels," ....
Third, you are misinformed about the use of "Palestinian". Please actually do read the article on Palestinian people. There you will find that Herodotus referred to the people of Palestine as Palestinian-Syrians as early as the 4th century. "Palestinian" is also commonly used in other historical texts before the establishment of Israel in 1948. That some Christian Zionists don't like to accept this information because it contradicts with their belief system doesn't mean these are not facts.
Again, many Samaritans were integrated into the Palestinain population. As I explained to you above, a number of Palestinian Muslim families in Nablus have family names that indicate Samaritan ancestry. In any case, I don't see why we are continuing this discussion since it is only barely related to the article's improvement. If I decide to bring sources to the table that establish the facts in question and move to reinclude the information you have deleted, we can discuss then. Right now, we're just pissing in the wind really. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 20:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the same person with whom you began the discussion, so I don't have your messages. In the case of the "Palestine" thing, what is an incontrovertible fact is that the Palestinian people that today is identified as such (an Arab people) did not exist in those times in that region. I don't care of Christian Zionists, and I'm not a Christian nor a Jew either. --88.29.2.157 (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Marco--88.29.2.157 (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Do Elazar ben Tsedaka ben Yitzhaq and Saloum Cohen sound Arabic? They are undoubtedly Jewish names. Samaritans are of Jewish origin, not Arab, therefore, they are not palestinians. If you consider them palestinians by birthplace, then you must exclude yasser Arafat, as he was Egyptian. It's not a birthplace issue, but ethnic. Samaritans are not palestinians, in the same way as Jews are not palestinians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.126.224.158 (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When were the first Palestinians?[edit]

Interested in views - should a person be included in this list if they lived before Mandate Palestine and the beginning of Palestinian nationalism? There are arguments for and against. On the one hand it would likely be sensitive to a number of readers (see comment about blasphemy above), as such additions could include such luminaries of history as:

On the other hand, it would be consistent with other articles for regions with a relatively new nationalism such as List of Belgians and List of Afghans, and consistent with List of Egyptians where use of the Greek word Egyptians has parallels with the region name Palestine used for 2500 years (see Timeline of the name Palestine). Thoughts? Oncenawhile (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am biased, it is the common idea among archaeologists in the region that the first Palestinian Arabs as they are now came in with the Muslim Conquests. Palestine itself of course comes from Philistine, which is as the article there suggests were probably originally a Mycenaean group of the Sea Peoples.
Just a note, I do not hold Genesis or Exodus to be true history. I find that history of Israel we actually have evidence for is from David (but not Solomon yet) and then Jeroboam on down with the Bible matching up more and more with the archaeological evidence as we get closer to Jehoash's reign iirc and then pretty much being accurate from then on. As for the patriarchs we have no current evidence of their existence, but as with Jesus and other things may find it some day.
I adhere to Israel Finkelstein's ideas of the Israelites originating as a subgroup of Canaanites, partly because it makes sense from the archaeological evidence. The Exodus to me is quite frankly silly for a number of reasons.
Those are some of my thoughts. =p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 07:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a problem, then rename the list "list of Palestinian Arabs". FunkMonk (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you do decide to do that please remember to differentiate between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Arabs like a note or something. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 08:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During certain periods the word "Palestinian" meant anyone living in Palestine. Currently, in the English language and on Wikipedia, Palestinian refers to the Arab population and their ethnic and cultural group, regardless of birthplace.

Birthplace alone does not make you a Palestinian, nor disqualify you. For example, Yassir Arifat was born outside "Palestine," but is still a Palestinian. Jesus Christ was born in Palestine, but we don't know what his ethnicity or cultural identity was outside some sources that call him a "Jew," another murky term.

No RS says he was born in Bethlehem. If you think the Bible is RS, then please review WP:RS.

Certainly Palestinians can predate Palestinian Nationalism, but including Saint George and Jesus seems like historical revision. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLASPHEMY[edit]

Somebody is listing Jesus Christ as a Palestinian. That person seems to ignore that Jesus Christ was a JEWISH RABBI and was acclaimed by his followers as the KING OF ISRAEL, being of the royal line of Israeli kings. So stop listing him as Palestinian, that's a blasphemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.126.224.158 (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's most certainly not blasphemy. But if he is listed, it should be with a source that describes him as Palestinian. There are some people who do hold that view of him, and not just Palestinian Christians themselves. As I wrote to you below, I may re-add the entry one day if I do go looking about for sources, with a footnote of course that explains on what basis he is listed here. Thanks for your comments. Tiamuttalk 20:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can sure find alot of sources that tell you what Jesus was like. Your Palestinian Jesus sources will be contradicted by Black Hebrew Israelite sources that are quite certain Jesus was black (the Bible says his hair was nappy). But, reliability is the better part of verifiability.

So instead of quoting a reliable source about historical Jesus, of which there are none, an IP has just added him/Him. This is what "I may re-add the entry one day" cloudtalk gets us... Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your obsession with me and what I write on talk pages or which articles I edit, even though I know you are a sock of a former user. In any case, there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Palestinian people about this very issue, should you be interested. I'm not, particularly not if you'll be there. Good day. Tiamuttalk 21:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You make your battleground behavior very plain. To twist the identity of one of histories most beloved characters so that you can score points in your political PR campaign is despicable.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh. Pleasant chatting with you. Tiamuttalk 20:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you throw around insults, accusations, and your bombastic opinions so much that it has become pleasant for you to engage in. Next time, can you stay on topic? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We only have 9 people born between 1800-1900. Has anyone seen any good lists from other websites?[edit]

I have seen this one from PASSIA:

Grateful for any others. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also found a bunch of categories which include some highly notable people missing from this list:
Oncenawhile (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And then there's for example Alia al Hussein, whose article has nothing about her being Palestinian. 85.217.15.248 (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

problem[edit]

This article says it's a list of prominent Palestinians. That link says Palestinians are modern descendants of certain people. Most of the first table is just a list of people who lived in the area in ancient times and the early middle ages. None are are sourced.

Either the name and lead of this article needs to be changed or the table needs to be fixed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journalist = Literature?[edit]

Does journalism really belong to literature? Journalist describes this way: A journalist collects and distributes news and other information. A journalist's work is referred to as journalism. So, the written part is only one aspect of it. Newsreader "distributes news", but it is hardly literature. 85.217.15.248 (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the article[edit]

The scope of this article, since it was created, was members of the Palestinian people. These recent expansion was never discussed, and as such I am returning this article to this state (prior to this edit), though I doubt the names in the first table belong, but I'll look into that another day. If you want to make an article List of people from Palestine go right ahead. But this article is a list of Palestinians, and that term is, in modern usage, most commonly used for Palestinian Arabs. I don't particularly care from which extreme one is coming from, as I can see both reasons for changing this article. But unless those reasons are articulated, and gain a consensus, this article will remain a list of Palestinians, not simply people associated with Palestine. nableezy - 03:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the names from the pre-Mandate section whose articles do not identify them, explicitly, as a Palestinian (or of Palestinian origin). nableezy - 03:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it is not clear at all. all people living in israel before 1948 were called palestinians. the companies they created included 'the palestine brewery (today it is 'nesher beer'), the palestine post (today it is the 'jerusalem post'), etc. - so, yes, the title needs to be changed even to this article. maybe, list of arab palestinians, or list of palestinian arabs. the other article indeed can be 'list of people associated with palestine' and include a link to this article as well. ok? Soosim (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no, current usage of the word Palestinian refers to members of the Palestinian people. We are not writing something prior to 1948, it is 2012, and the word Palestinian now has a common usage, one that this link should make obvious to you. nableezy - 13:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, but no. this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. the title needs to be clear, and links (redirects) need to be clear as well. let's ask around for ideas, ok? Soosim (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is an encyclopedia, an encyclopedia with policies such as WP:COMMONNAME, policies that were used to make the article Palestinian people not titled Palestinian Arab people. Common usage of the term Palestinian is exclusive to members of the Palestinian people. There isnt an argument to be had here, unless the target article Palestinian people is moved to another title this article should be titled List of Palestinians. The title is clear, the scope is clear, and the motive for denying that is likewise clear. nableezy - 14:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i don't understand what you mean about the unclear motive. clarity is the motive, no? Soosim (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said it was clear, and no, that isnt it. I really dont want to play this game. What matters here is that the main article is titled Palestinian people, not Palestinian Arabs or Arab Palestinians. If you think that Palestinian is not clear you need to take it up at Talk:Palestinian people. There, you can attempt to argue, contrary to WP:COMMONNAME, that the usage of the word Palestinian in 1930 matters more than the nearly universally understood common meaning of that word today. nableezy - 20:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, since when I was making this very same point at the Palestinian people article, it was vehemently opposed. If you look at the definition there, you could add anyone who "lived in Palestine over the centuries" to this article. Some consistency across articles would be nice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did I oppose anything there? nableezy - 13:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't, but a change along the lines of what you're saying here failed to gain consensus. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Partly true. But there an attempt to add any number of people to the infobox (including those that had been listed here prior to my edit) likewise failed to gain consensus. Jesus isn't mentioned once in that article, now is he? nableezy - 21:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's all kinds of inconsistencies between these articles. It would be nice if that could be solved one way or another. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy is right that the current usage of Palestinian refers to Palestinian Arabs. But that wasn't true throughout history. I changed this article to "people associated with Palestine" because it seems obvious that not all these people fit under the scope of the Palestinian People page. "Palestinian" taking a modern usage doesn't retroactively make everyone from that area a Palestinian in the modern usage, anymore than Native Americans from before Columbus are not retroactively US Americans. Where'stheanykey (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who on the list does not fit under the scope of the Palestinian people? nableezy - 13:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, your edit was disappointing. There are many other ways of dealing with something you don't agree with than immediate wholesale deletion. Creation of separate articles or clearer explanation of the scope of this article - either would have worked. Can you please suggest a middle ground here. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Middle ground? Go make an article List of people from Palestine. The List of Palestinians however will remain a list of Palestinians, as defined by reliable sources. nableezy - 13:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you can make that article if you like. In the meantime I will add sources to this article - I will add back all of the names you deleted, as every one of those names can be sourced as being "Palestinian". Oncenawhile (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't do that. The word Palestinian in a modern sense is not the same thing as the word Palestinian used in centuries past, and you are conflating the two. This article's scope is defined by Palestinian people. If you want to argue that this applies to Jesus, or pre-BC Rabbis, then go do that. But until the scope of the article Palestinian people is widened then this article's scope will remain as it has been since the article was created. nableezy - 13:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nableezy but you are wrong. For most of this article's life it has included pre-mandate names. It's just that now some hard work has gone in to organise it in to pre and post mandate names that it has become obvious. Before the hard work was put in this article was an impossible to read dump of information, now it's an interesting article (or at least it was until your aggressive intervention).
The work to split out pre and post mandate was exactly to your point - we shouldn't conflate the two. It was abundantly clear before with the two sections. If you think it would be helpful we can add some text at the top to explain the different definitions of the word Palestinian.
Here's hoping that we can reach agreement. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Im wrong? Really? Look at 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012. Where exactly are the pre-Mandate names in any of those lists? There are a few here and there, sure, but it didn't include early Christians or 1st century Rabbis. nableezy - 15:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That "there are a few here and there" is exactly the point. I think we're now in agreement on this fact.
More importantly I now understand why you behaved as you did, so thanks for your message on the other page.
Would you be ok if we kept the list of pre-mandate names but made it extremely clear what a Palestinian is and what a Palestinian was, so we have no inconsistency with the Palestinian people article? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would not mind that iff each person listed can be sourced as a member of the term Palestinian in the modern sense of the word. nableezy - 16:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please be reasonable. They can be sourced as Palestinian. But your qualifier "in the modern sense of the word" doesn't make sense - that is wholly subjective. A paragraph explaining the point you take issue with would surely solve your problem, no? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the definition on the other page is "modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab"- that says to me that it is mostly but not exclusively culturally and linguistically arab. yes? no? Soosim (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mostly agree. But defining "culturally" Arab is not an easy thing to do, so the only way we could define it without subjectivity is if they speak Arabic. And by defining it like that it ignores the scholarly view that the people living in Byzantine Palestine at the time of the Islamic conquest remained there but just changed their language. Frankly it is absurd for us to go back through history and try to draw lines as to who qualifies. The only clear line is the British mandate. That was the moment when the identity of people known today as Palestinians was locked down. It wasn't a cultural or linguistic issue at the time. If you lived within the new British borders you became Palestinian, if you lived outside you became Lebanese or Jordanian etc, no matter where your ancestors were from.
I'll draft a couple of paragraphs to define "modern Palestinians" and "historical Palestinians" to see if it can work for people. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have done as promised. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should be restricted in scope only for people who are part of the modern Palestinian people.Ben tetuan (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's the opposite of what was concluded above. The second list contains names which are referred to as "palestinians" in literature. See also Timeline of the name Palestine in case this surprises you. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic studies[edit]

The comment in the lead about genetic studies should be removed. As can be seen in Palestinians#DNA and genetic studies, different genetic studies resulted in different findings; some of them (the latest ones) completely contradicting the statement that the "majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of Arab citizens of Israel, are descendants of Christians, Jews and other earlier inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core may reach back to prehistoric times." Ben tetuan (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is good as it is now and is also in the lead on article Palestinian people. Nothing there "completely contradicts" the statement. I suggest you read it carefully. Furthermore, the wording has been changed to "reaches" to "may reach", which is consistent with the findings. And as the wording is taken from that article, it would be better do discuss it there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in the last sentence, It should better be discussed there then. Ben tetuan (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was Jesus a Palestinian[edit]

The revert battle is based on Brewcrewer's argument that there was a consensus. There wasn't a consensus. There was an inconclusive debate (marked by opinions of editors in the face of overwhelming source evidence that there is nothing controversial in this). Jesus, if he existed, was a Palestinian Jew, and Palestinian Jews, please note, are included in the pre-Mandate list, not least of them 7 Talmudic rabbis (Jochanan;Eleazar ben Pedat;Judah the Prince;Shimon ben Lakish; Rabbi Isaac the smith; Rabbi Assi; Rav Zeira). The thumbs down voting was highly ideological. You cannot, as I once suggested, put Jesus on the page for Jews (ethically he was thus); you cannot put him on a page that lists Palestinians (geographically he was, as sources state), but you can put rabbis (ethnically Jewish) born in Palestine (geographical term) there. Lists should have coherent principles, and there is none in this self-contradictory counter-source negationism.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

9-2 opposed.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take a refresher in WP:CONSENSUS. There was no consensus, because no decision making took place, and the thread died on its feet. I'd appreciate someone doing and RfC on this.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And of course you failed to address the massive inconguency pointed out: what are Palestinian rabbinical figures, close to the ascribed date of the other Palestinian Jewish figures, doing on the page? I expect an answer, not an appeal to a fiction of prior agreement. Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop being disruptive. An RFC is not required to determine a consensus. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous, asking for an RFC is not disruptive. In any case the discussion was over two years ago, even if there was a consensus back then, it does not mean one exists today. For instance a number of the editors involved in the discussion are now banned from the topic area, so any new discussion may well be very different to what was said in 2012. In my opinion an RFC would be a good idea as it would be more likely to bring in input from uninvolved editors and lead to a lasting consensus. Dlv999 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all for the suggestion. I have done my best to present a neutral picture. Hopefully all involved will read both sides of the links below (helpful for Abbas to have catalysed a media debate for us over Christmas)...Oncenawhile (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should Jesus be removed from the second "pre-mandate" list of geographical Palestinians?[edit]

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. I've discounted arguments that contained flagrant original research and personal, unsupported appraisals of how complex concepts like ethnicity and nationality ought to be reconciled. Consensus was in favor of retain the listing of Jesus under the "pre-mandate" list on the basis of reliable sources that consistently use these terms. Editors opposed to the listing failed to advance compelling evidence to the contrary, and no amount of "those Palestinians are actually x" in the absence of supporting reliable sources. In addition, some participants in this RfC offered opinions on whether pre-mandate list ought to be included here, moved elsewhere, or removed entirely. I will refrain from assessing consensus on this issue because it was not the central topic of this RfC, but I believe it will require a revisit down the line and will require an assessment of how pervasive this distinction is in reliable sources, much like was done in this current RfC. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please comment on whether Jesus should be removed from the second list of "pre-mandate" geographical Palestinians? (FYI Jesus has been on the second "geographical" list for more than 18 months.)
Many scholars of Jesus use the term "Palestinian Jew" (4,000 google books hits), and many scholars do not. The name Palestine was used to refer to the region throughout Jesus's lifetime, but not in the New Testament. Palestinian journalists say vehemently that he was a Palestinian Jew[1][2], and Israeli journalists say vehemently that he was not[3][4]. So there is an impassioned debate on- and off- wiki. The question is, should he be removed from this list?
Oncenawhile (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of procedure, I don't think we should take the slightest notice of how either side spins this in contemporary politics or journalism. Politicians make history, but they do not write it. The question is, for me, (a) a matter of internal page consistency, the use of a consistent criterion for inclusion or exclusion, regarding all wiki pages on peoples and their historical antecedents (b) what RS say. I argued earlier, adducing a few dozen sources, that numerous RS by historians and biblical scholars have no problem with speaking of 'Palestinian Jews' or specifically of Jesus and his Palestinian followers. They do this because 'Palestine' is the default term for the country in historical writing and, because they do not allow politics to get in the way of their historical judgement. (c) The third anomaly is that, while we accept 'Palestinian Jews' in antiquity for inclusion, the idea that one particular Palestinian Jew', Jesus, can be registered meets particular resistance. That contradiction indicates a failure to apply a consistent principle on the page. Wiki article prioritize quality (academic) RS usage in these matters, and we are failing to respect this usage here, in my view.Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a u-turn, but thanks for having the courage to do so. Since you now oppose removing Jesus from the list, it looks like we all agree. Will you self-revert or otherwise I am happy to? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally Oncenawhile is correct. It was wrong to cancel his restoration of a stable statement.
The confusion was caused by an Anonymous IP editor who removed an entry that had been stable for long over a year with the edit summary:’deleted Jesus from the pre mandate palestinian list.This is a political statement as the region wasn´t called Palestina until 135.’
This violates WP:CONSENSUS ('Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.' It was not disputed for 18 months), aside from the appalling ignorance (Josephus the Jewish historian called the area Palestine repeatedly in his several works several decades before Bar Kochba (135). (b)IT was inconsistent, since other pre-135 CE figures were not removed, and therefore the editor had it in for Jesus being cited on the geographical Palestinians list, but not for anyone else.
Oncenawhile, following policy, was unaccountably reverted both by Brewcrewer here and User:Epeefleche here. Other reasons are given below, and this RfC is whether to change the stable consensus and remove what Oncenawhile legitimately restored.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that you "oppose" without any rationale/evidence/policy is meaningless - consensus is not a vote, it decided on rational arguments and source/policy evidence. If you don't adduce any of the above your "vote" is meaningless (from a Wikipedia perspective). Regarding the procedural point, I don't think a discussion over two years ago is grounds for dismissing an RfC today. I don't have a strong opinion on the issue, but I think an RfC would be a good way of bringing in some uninvolved editors to comment and is most likely to lead to a long-standing consensus. Dlv999 (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brewcrewer. You are ignoring policies to which your attention has been drawn. Namely,
  • WP:CONSENSUS 'A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached.' There was no attempt to reach an agreement taking into account all of the proper concerns.
  • The discussion you allude to in your link was inconclusive. Policy says:'The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution.' There was no result and no solution and no recognition by all that a 'reasonable solution' had been obtained.
  • 'Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.' User:Oncenawhile was reverted when he restored an entry that had been undisturbed for 18 months, and therefore had consensus.
  • 'The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.'
  • In lieu of a consensus, one is advised to make an Rfc, which is what is being done.
  • 'Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive.' Two years is not 'recent', and two years ago there was no 'consensus' as policy understands that.
  • Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus")' You reverted as 'against consensus', which you are advised not to do. Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the removal. This is customary scholarly usage, and is not political. I.e.,

'Jesus, we may assume, was by all means a Jewish patriot, but rousing his Palestinian people to throw off the Roman yoke was no part of his message. Neither had it been that of John the Baptist.'

‘Given the fact that Jesus was a Jew, what were the religious concepts he learned, accepted, and perhaps adapted, as a first-century Palestinian Jew?’

  • John S.Kloppenberg, ‘Sources, Method and Discursive Locations in the Quest for the Historical Jesus,’ in Tom Holmén, Stanley E. Porter (eds.) Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, (4 Vols) BRILL Vol.1, 2011 pp.241-289 p.247

'The recovery of Jesus' identity as a first-century Palestinian Jew, begun with Klausner's Jesus of Nazareth and reiterated forcefully by such recent authors as Vermes and Sanders, does important conceptual work.'

'today most active Jesus scholars are convinced that Jesus was a real historical being, who existed as a Palestinian-Jewish person in the beginning of the first century CE.'Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

As the archived discussions shows, dozens of sources have been cited using this language, way beyond what wikipedia requires. It is also evident from Bilde, that this identification constitutes a scholarly consensus, which we are therefore obliged to respect.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are deliberately misrepresenting those sources to fit your agenda. Those academic sources you cited all use the word "Palestinian" the correct way, as a geographic adjective. However, politicians and all Israel-related Wikipedia articles, including this one, use the word to mean the Arabian settlers in Israel. The modern people who claim to be Palestinians are Arabs. Their ancestors were from Arabia. Ancient Palestinians (Jews, Canaanites, Greek settlers, etc.) are completely unrelated to the modern Arab Palestinians. די נעוטראַליזער (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article uses the term geographically, as explained in the lead.
Your last three sentences are exactly the opposite of Palestinian identity, again as described in the lead of this article. You will not find a single WP:RS supporting your views, because they represent pure propaganda. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support the removal - The term Palestinian has the connotation of Arafat and his brethren. I oppose any connection between Jesus and that term.--TMD (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are supposed to provide reasons that are based on Wikipedia's policies. Are you able to do that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TMD, your comment was a racist stereotype. Imagine writing "The term Austrians has the connotation of Hitler" or "the term Black people has the connotation of slavery". If your knowledge of a group of people is limited, it is generally not advisable to make sweeping generalizations. Obama gave some similar advice recently.... ("As a general rule, things don't like end well if the sentence starts, "Let me tell you something I know about the Negro."")[5]. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why is there a pre-mandate list to begin with? I though the Palestinian ethnic group was invented in the mid-20th century.--FutureTrillionaire (talk)

All ethnic group identities are no more than about two centuries old - see Historiography and nationalism. The "pre-mandate" list does not relate to this, as it is just a "geographical" list, following usage by WP:RS. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trillionaire. When this was discussed, no one wanting 'Jesus' to be removed (and all of them refusing to have, as I proposed, Jesus listed on the Jews page, though scholarship is virtually unanimous he was born and died as a Jew) could answer the extensive documentation showing how anomalous the Palestinian list was. A statement on the recent development of a specific Palestinian identity was used to say all ancestors before 1920 or even 1948 were not 'Palestinians'. But numerous pages on peoples who had no conceptualized national (political) identity before very modern times, listed figures from earlier ages. So the question is, why are Palestinians treated anomalously? (See Berber people for an egregious example of the unchallenged use of ancient figures, for a people that have yet to obtain statehood or emerge out of their clan identity). Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile demonstrates his complete ignorance of the subject by confusing ethnicity with nation. Ethnos is an ancient Greek word far older than two centuries, and Jews have existed as a distinct sociocultural racial group (a.k.a. ethnicity) for more than two thousand years. We are called Jews not because of our religion but because we are from Judea. Our religion is called Judaism because it is the religion of the Judeans. Denial of Jewish history is a common symptom of antisemitism, and I hope you people cease this disruptive historical revisionism. די נעוטראַליזער (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Vehemently Jesus was a Jew. He was not a Palestinian Jew. He was an Israeli Jew. The Palestinians did not exist then, only Israel did. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We edit according to sources. Sources say he was a Palestinian Jew. No academic RS I am familiar with speaks of him as an 'Israeli Jew', since 'Israel' is not a geographic toponym for the period. Nishidani (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources use the non-native geographical term "Palestinian" to describe Jesus, not the pseudo-ethnic term "Palestinian" that Wikipedia uses. The native geographical term would be Judean (for Judah or Judea/Iudaea). Yisraeli is the Ivreet word for both modern-day Israeli as well as ancient Israelite. The reason why the same word is used for both ancient and modern peoples is because they are in fact the same people. Although Israeli would work for Land of Israel, Judean is more precise. די נעוטראַליזער (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whole pre-mandate list should be removed or split - its just completely devoid of logic, modern era Jews aren't included but ancient ones are? This pretty definitely fails WP:NPOV, because it effectively establishes continuity between ancient inhabitants of the region and modern Arab Palestinians, while conveniently excluding modern Jews. Additionally, "Palestine" as geographical term has changed quite a bit in history, so using it as geographical term for list of people is somewhat dubious anyway.--Staberinde (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. User:Staberinde, please read the intro to the article - it says "This list does not include those Palestinian Jews who made up part of the population of Palestine prior to the creation of Israel, since very few identify as "Palestinian" today". It has nothing to do with convenience. The term Palestine is the scholarly term for the history of the region and its inhabitants. Israel was a religious term, primarily referring to a people rather than a place, which became a geographical term for the first time in 1948. The pre-mandate people have to fall under this list, because they have nowhere else to go. We can't consign a whole people to the lost corner of history just because of modern identity politics. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Putting this POV issue in simple terms, we have 2 modern nations engaged in extremely bitter territorial conflict. Important part of propaganda in that conflict is about historical rights, whole "who was here first? etc." stuff. Now, in this article we have list of one of the modern nations that participates in the conflict, and then everyone regardless of their nationality from pre-conflict era, with explanation that people of that modern nation consider themselves descendants of everyone who lived in the region previously. Other modern nation involved in conflict is not included. That simply fails NPOV completely. So what are solutions to guarantee neutral point of view? Simple, stick to one criteria in one article, if you are using nationality, then stick to it, if you are using region, then include everyone from that region. Easiest way to achieve this in current situation, without losing any people into "lost corner of history", is to split pre-mandate era list into separate article.--Staberinde (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect about Israel first becoming a geographic term in 1948. Although the latest government of Israel was founded in 1948, the country itself was founded around three thousand years ago. If you are so unfamiliar with Jewish history, perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on the subject. די נעוטראַליזער (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.If it is devoid of logic, why do we have so many peoples lists (Berber, Welsh, Armenians (I listed dozens in an earlier debate. Armenians even lists Tigranes the Great was born in Armenia, in pre-Christian times, before the nation was a nation etc.) You see discrimination against Jews, and protest. You can't see the obverse: that the objections consist of a discrimination against Palestinians, in refusing the page the rights that other people pages concede without editors problematizing them. Anyone born in Palestine, Jew, Christian, Arab/Greek, Roman, Egyptian in the pre-Mandate period can go in. It doesn't exclude necessarily modern Jews either. Juliano Mer-Khamis was born in Israel, was Jewish/Christian/Arab and is included here. Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I find most disconcerting in editorial comments over the years is that, for reasons that boil down to sheer distaste (the religion he is said to have founded had a long history of antisemitism (which wasn't his fault), or allowing a revered religious founder any lien of association with Palestinians is intolerable to those whose erudition consists in thinking that Palestine means Arafat and co.
I can't get one historical figure, Jesus into the Jews page (while no one doubts he was one of the most famous Jews in history) nor onto the Palestinian people page (while no one doubts he was born in Palestine, within the particular world of Palestinian Judaism). Wikipedia, on this single figure, cannot get beyond a few allusive cats on his page Category:Roman-era Jews Category:1st-century rabbis, while admitting:'Modern scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew of first-century Palestine.' And the only reason appears to be that Palestinians (even Christian Palestinians descending from the ancient communities that became followers of Christ) have no right to be proud that the land of their fathers also produced this figure. Palestinians now are mainly Muslims, and Christians, yet they both revere in their traditions a Jew. To state this is not a devious trick of endorsing contemporary Palestinian political claims.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Same goes for Saint George, revered by Muslim and Christian Palestinians as a hero. Here's something from our friends at the BBC. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being revered by Palestinians doesn't make someone a Palestinian. די נעוטראַליזער (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove all non-Arabs from the list. Jesus should be included in the List of Jewish people article because he fits all definitions of being a Jew (Halakic, ethnic, national), but this article is about Palestinian Arabs, so he should not be included in this article. If this were an article for all Palestinians, not just Arab ones, then Mandate-era Jews and post-Mandate-era Israeli Jews (such as the current PM Netanyahu) should also be included. In its current state, this article is purely Palestinian nationalist nonsense. די נעוטראַליזער (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments should not be based on political confusions grounded in enmity.Nishidani (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of "Arabs" in this article - this appears to be a figment of your imagination.
We need to find a way to keep the scope simple, whilst making sure we do not consign a whole group of people to historical limbo (ie such that they don't fit on any lists).
Your suggestion about including Jews who became Israelis has been considered before. We deal with it very clearly in the lead when explaining why they are not in the list. Modern Israeli Jews don't identify as Palestinians, nor are they referred to by scholars as such, so it would probably violate WP:BLP to include them here.
But historical Jews who were lucky enough to live prior to our world of petty bickering about identity are identified as Palestinian by scholars today. Perhaps because there is no other geographical designation available. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove pre-mandate list. Weather the list should be removed for good or moved elsewhere it's another matter.

The reasons to remove the list are the following:

  • The list excude modern Jews but include ancient ones. Why? This is quite suspicious.
  • The primary objective of the article is to list modern notable Palestinians. And we should stick to the modern understanding of the word "Palestinian". Otherwise the risk is to apply retrospectively modern understading (or worse, current geographic boundaries) to past events.
  • "Palestine" during the Roman Empire referred to a completely different thing. Even if the word is the same, the human geography and antropology connected with Palestine have changed a lot in twenty centuries. The inconsistency lies entirely in having the list of pre-mandate Palestinian in the article. Move it elsewhere. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, another refusal to look at evidence and, instead, use as the unique criterion for deciding, whether there's discrimination against Jews (who don't define themselves as 'Palestinian'). There is nothing 'suspicious' about describing as Palestinians Jews who, in all of the scholarly literature, are described as 'Palestinian Jews', and to assert so is malicious insinuation.
One implication you have totally ignored is that even the Mandatory Palestine List would have to be cleansed of the following figures, to name a few:
I.e. all premandatory Palestinians.
What is disgraceful in this preceding is that it started with a specific query as to 'Jesus', and now editors are wandering it to gut the whole article, when no one in years ever thought the presence of Jews in antiquity on this list, or of premandatory figures was problematical.
What is disgraceful is that no effort is made by editors drifting in to explain the huge anomaly being proposed, i.e. that a vast number of wiki people pages do not apply the historical criterion which the deleting editors wish to apply exclusively here. All people articles on wiki allow in principle that those peoples, Berbers, Armenians, Welsh, whoever, include people with territorial or ethnic origins in the places the present population dwells in. Unless this is answered (and in the preceding instance no answer was forthcoming) editors who wish to delete must explain why the Palestinian page is subject to such cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is something they habitually suffer. Historical cleansing, its ideological corollary, is, for wikipedia, proof of some specific animus, or systemic bias. Whatever the case, no wiki-cogent reasons are being given.Nishidani (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Problems flying under radar in wikipedia articles for extended periods is quite common. Anyway NPOV issue has been raised clearly enough. We have 2 modern nations engaged in extremely bitter territorial conflict. Whole "who was here first?" stuff about historical rights is very important part of propaganda in this conflict. Currently we have list of people from one of the modern nations that participates in the conflict, and then everyone regardless of their nationality from pre-conflict era, with explanation that people of that modern nation included consider themselves descendants of everyone who lived in the region previously. Other modern nation involved in the conflict is not included. The way to fix this NPOV issue is to stick to single criteria throughout article, if its by birthplace then everyone who was born in region goes in, if its by nationality then its limited to that nationality everywhere in article. While simply splitting pre-mandatory list is the easiest way to fix this issue, it is obviously not the only possible solution, so you are free to propose other alternatives that you find preferable.--Staberinde (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just watch these editors supporting inclusion throw a shit fit when someone shoves Jesus into List of Israelis. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Staberinde, thanks for getting involved in this - outside perspectives are definitely needed. I like your angle that both sides in the conflict are equal and should be treated as such. But you are missing one critical point. You will not find any scholars calling any of the people on the pre-mandate list Israelis. Yet all the people on the list are referred to as Palestinians by scholars. I can explain why, but you may prefer to read about the two competing identities to decide for yourself first? Perhaps User:Brewcrewer, who began this discussion, would like to explain? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how this is relevant for raised NPOV issue. I have no intention of suggesting merging pre-mandate list into list of Israelis, as that would be simply shifting POV to other side without fixing anything. "Palestinian" as member of modern Palestinian people and "Palestinian" as person born in region of Palestine are not same, although sources dealing with them separately may use the same term. Having same term/name refer to multiple different things is very common in wikipedia, and there is whole long policy about ways to disambiguate between those.--Staberinde (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Ok. I still think you misunderstand re "Israeli", but that's besides the point.

To put what I think you are saying slightly differently, the two lists are different for the following reason at its simplest:

  • List of post-mandate Palestinians excludes Jews, because Jews from the region no longer identify themselves as Palestinian
  • List of pre-mandate Palestinians is geographically defined, following WP:RS, and therefore includes everyone

I think i can live with your point that because of this difference they should sit in different articles. It's subjective, but I acknowledge that the Berbers, Welsh and Armenians cited by Nishidani, amongst others, do not share this oddity of a whole subgroup having been carved out of an identity in modern times.

So if we go down that route, the question is what should the two articles be called? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something like List of people born in Palestine or List of people from Palestine. If we want to be more specific in title then something like List of people born in Palestine before 20th century or List of people born in pre-Mandate Palestine or List of people born in Palestine before Mandate era or List of people born in Palestine before World War I or List of people from Palestine (before 20th century) are among options. There are plenty of possible ways to word that.--Staberinde (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal for reasons given by others. What matters is what's reflected in reliable sources. Arguments that it's "not logical" to include Jewish people in the list are OR. I don't see why Jesus is at the top of the list, though. It should be sorted by default either chronologically or alphabetically. Formerip (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@FormerIP, as you opposed to the removal you must have good arguments. Please explain me your arguments, because really I do not get them. This is not a list of people born in Palestine, but a list of Palestinians. Now I see in the infobox of the article a map of the State of Palestine. Under such circumstances it is clear that the list of Palestinians cannot include Jewish people born 2,000 years ago. Of course I could understand the inclusion of a Jewish if he/she was born after the mandate, but this is not the case. I could still understand the inclusion of Jesus if we were speaking of list of people born in Palestine, but as it is the article today I don't see how can be Jesus included. Am I wrong? Silvio1973 (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia goes off sources. Sources say Jesus was "Palestinian". Generally speaking, if you want to disagree with sources, you need an exceptionally strong argument. "Because I don't like Yasser Arafat", as is given above as a reason, is not good enough. That the definition of "Palestinian" differs depending on what historical period we are talking about is not problematic. We can easily deal with that, just as we would for other geographic identities that might be variable over time (Indian or French, for example). This is a non-argument in the face of sourcing.
I agree that there are wider issues with the article. It doesn't have a clear idea of what it wants to be, and that should be sorted out one way or the other. It might be modified to create a more cohesive but inclusive article, or it might be split into two or more articles. The answer shouldn't, though, be to delete encylopaedic material. In any case, the current discussion isn't about that. It's something that should be decided by careful consideration of the options, not because a few editors don't like Jesus being in the list. Formerip (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Arabs' usurping 'Jewish history'. Ethnic cleansing in nomenclature, in short. The premise underlying all of the pseudo-objections here is that any attempt to document liens to a past, recent or distant, for the historic Palestinian-Arab population in Palestine are a threat to a perceived Jewish prerogative to have the land bear only Jewish associations in time-depth, and the very fact that this ideological prejudice, for prejudice it is, can be taken seriously on wikipedia is a index of the peculiar atmosphere dominating I/P articles. It would not be tolerated, this treating one ethnic/social group with inflammatory exclusionism, on any other peoples' article (an argument no one here replies to, because it is unanswerable). The old natives are intruders with no history, the modern immigrants are only returning 'home', to their ancestral roots. The onus for showing that the Palestinians are an historic anomaly lies on those who continually interject comments like the above. Set aside the 'Arabs', and think of this in a 'Christian' perspective. The Christian Arab community has proven claims to derive from communities founded in Palestine 2,000 years ago, and editorial hostility to 'Arabs' is, by sleight of hand, denying the demonstrated continuity of this traditional culture's historic depth, simply because animus and prejudice stake an exclusive claim on Palestine as a 'Jewish' patrimony. Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You write complete nonsense. Stop trying to warp history to suit your twisted political agenda. Falsely claiming ancient Jews are the same people as modern Palestinians in order to ethnically cleanse Jews from history is anti-Semitic. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:F241:7A00:819A:D74A:3062:DBE6 (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC) looks like more block evasion by JarlaxleArtemis Sean.hoyland - talk 16:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no agenda on this. I am on record as suggesting Jesus be on the Jewish people page, and, when I noticed this, saw equally, since he was a Palestinian Jew (dozens of sources) that he be on this page. None of the arguments, on policy, precedents from other pages, or RS usage, have been addressed. There is simply a drive-by series of no votes which explicitly confuse the adjective 'Palestinian' with some modern political cause. I don't believe in subjectived judgements. I believe, as shown in the Judea-Samaria dispute, that the only way to be objective is to evaluate RS usage in order to determine what the world of scholarship thinks proper. And in that regard, there is not a shadow of a doubt that scholars are unanimous in finding the adjective 'Palestinian' appropriate to describing people born in Palestine in antiquity. I suggest that editors who allow their political reading of everything in terms of the contemporary I/P world are allowing ideological blinkers to blind them to what is, in a more serene world, an objective consensus. That you lambast anyone who disagrees with you as 'anti-Semitic' automatically registers how extreme, and abusive, the POV you bring to this discussion is.Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Jesus and other non-Arabs. A Palestinian is either "a native or inhabitant of ancient or modern Palestine" or "an Arab born in Palestine or descended from Arabs of Palestine."[7] If the list does not include Israelis, ancient Jews don't belong on it either. The Smart Cheetah (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC) !vote by sock of site-banned user struck per WP:BMB. Favonian (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. Again, people registering, making a few edits, and then coming down against this.Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the removal. Jews as an ethnic group and a nation of their own are not associated with the Palestinians. If the criteria is merely geographic (as i understand from Palestinian People article, which contradicts itself) then also other Jews, in Israel and around the world, should be labeled as Palestinians.--Infantom (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, ignoring the evidence. The List of French people has Marcel Proust,Raymond Aron and many others, just as the List of Germans has Karl Löwith Herbert Marcuse Leo Löwenthal Karl Marx Moses Mendelssohn and so many others, all of whom were Jewish. The same is true of Sigmund Freud, Karl Kraus, Ludwig Wittgenstein on the List of Austrians page, and Joseph Brodsky, Osip Mandelstam, Boris Pasternak, Vasily Grossman on the List of Russian people page. Territorial provenance is only denied Jews on this page, because most editors in denial cannot detach the adjective 'Palestinian' from the modern ethnonym, though all scholars do make that distinction and habitually use Palestinian to denote ah historical geographic area.Nishidani (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To underline the very peculiar antic discrimination or systemic bias, against any extended use of the word Palestinian as a toponymic designation for the birthplace of any pre-modern person of that area we see in the above comments, aside from the overwhelming RS evidence that shows no such politically-obsessive diffidence, compare the following examples, a partial list

None of the deleters will reply to the obvious fact that wikipedians nowhere apply the objection invented for, uniquely, the Palestinians. The criteria are not proper to wiki usage and custom, and the objection ignores scholarly conventions. Policy, RS usage and logical argument are the only criteria for deciding the question, not numbers. Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

So where does Moshe Dayan fit in? He was born on a kibbutz in 1915. He was a resident of Palestine throughout the entire mandate. To classify Israelis as a different people than ancient Jews is to indulge a quack anti-Semitic theory. I have yet to see any scholarship to support your position. Even there was such scholarship, good style is about following a widely available reference work, such as the Random House dictionary I quote above. Academic journals are not authorities on matters of writing style. The Smart Cheetah (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC) comment by sock of site-banned user struck per WP:BMB. Favonian (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the sources Nishidani listed above at 20:13, 16 May 2014 ? Also, can you try to keep your personal views about the real world off the page please ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I decide by RS not by my personal views. I just noticed Anton Shammas was on the list and immediately removed it because he is on record as denying he is a 'Palestinian'. ('I am an Israeli, not a Palestinian, writer'. Gil Z. Hochberg, In Spite of Partition: Jews, Arabs, and the Limits of Separatist Imagination, Princeton University Press, p.157 n.11. A Palestinian nationalist might object that he is ethnically 'Palestinian'. I couldn't care less. It is normative on wikipedia biography articles to remove or add cats relating to identity when there is specific evidence that the person has defined herself, as here. We cannot establish identity except by reliable sources, and all a priori arguments, or inferences from ethnicity, are irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As to Dayan, I am a bit late in replying, since the passage I remembered from his memoirs wasn't marked as significant. But he said he was born in Ottoman Palestine. But he then goes on to say:

'I was born in Deganiah and given the name Moshe. The Land of Israel was called Palestine at that time . . But I grew up in an independent Jewish society that spoke Hebrew and fostered the values of Israeli Jews who had struck roots and were living in their ancient homeland. (Moshe Dayan, Story of My Life:An Autobiography, Warner Books 1977 pp.24-25).

According to the explicit provisions of the UN Partition Plan, after the division, those who dwelt in the area designated for Jews were citizens of the Jewish state that Israel became, and Dayan adopted that identity. In the above quote, he explicitly repudiates the idea of Palestine, using the Hebrew designation Eretz Israel, and, as with the Shammas quotation, this indicates that he did not think of himself as 'Palestinian', neither in terms of geographical place of birth nor culturally. Nishidani (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dayan was a citizen of Palestine from 1920 to 1948. What he wrote in his memoirs doesn't change that. "The person has [to] define herself"?? Uh, I didn't think this RFC about gays, Lesbians, or transgendered individuals. But if we are playing by those rules, I say we put Menachem Begin on the list.[8] He was the master of this game. He'd tell anyone who'd listen how he was more of a "Palestinian" than that Egyptian Arafat. In fact, the Israelis of 1948 had all been "Palestinian Jews" up to that point. So it shouldn't be too hard to come up with RS for Dayan, Ben-Gurion, Allon, and the rest of the gang. The Smart Cheetah (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC) comment by sock of site-banned user struck per WP:BMB. Favonian (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the article states "the second list consists of people who were born in the region". So Sharon, Allon and Dayan, certainly were, in their early lives "Palestinians". To my mind this list should be as inclusive as possible, but we should ensure we are following WP:RS as the key factor. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was an editor who went round posting CATs of ethnicity on numerous pages related to people of Jewish descent whether those people recognized themselves as Jews or not. I think he was banned. As Oncenawhile says, what determines these things is not a priori, abstract inferences, but RS. Begin's quip doesn't override the fact that he was not born there, and dismissed famously Palestinians as the Arabs of Eretz Israel, denying them a right to be called Palestinians, and defining the land as Eretz Israel. In this his position was identical to Golda Meir who lived in Mandatory Palestinian with that citizenship but asserted that 'it was not as if there was a Palestinian people in Palestine'(var; 'After all there are no Palestinian people. We invented them, but they don't exist.'(Nur Masalha, Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: The Politics of Expansion, Pluto Press 2000 p.244)These quotes from self-defined Israelis, explain most of the drive-by 'votes' here, and the logic of wishing to deny the pre-Mandate list which follows, and no one is willing to face the evidence, absolutely normative for wiki peoples articles.Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2014
So now you're threatening me. If I am banned for protesting anti-Semitism, so be it. Aside from the threat, there is nothing new in this post. It's the same old combination of dripping contempt for those who disagree and last wordism. You don't even address the specific objections that have been made. When the word "Palestinian" appears in a book on ancient history, it does not mean the same thing as when it appears in a contemporary political context. So we need to start with a definition. Perhaps a dictionary or other authoritative source has a definition we can use. Once we have an agreed-upon definition, where ever it might come from, we can apply it to the names on this list. In some cases you want to use identification in the RS, in other cases self-identity, and in still others place of birth. No RS-supplied definition is given to support any of these methods. It's nothing but moving the goal posts around and handwaving. The Smart Cheetah (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC) comment by sock of site-banned user struck per WP:BMB. Favonian (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that you are not likely to get what you want for a variety of reasons including the low signal to noise ratio of your comments resulting from your histrionics, your advocacy of decision procedures that are inconsistent with policy, your ability to ignore sourced information, your belligerence, things like that. An experienced editor weighing the probabilities could easily dismiss you as a sock of a previously banned or topic banned user who has problems dealing with Palestinian related information in a way that will make sense to rational editors, someone who has come into conflict with Nishidani in the past and who apparently thrives on conflict. It even looks like you made a special effort to create this account and enough edits to get autoconfirmed just so you could argue with Nishidani. Very odd. You are probably wasting your time so you may as well give up now. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even address the specific objections that have been made. When the word "Palestinian" appears in a book on ancient history, it does not mean the same thing as when it appears in a contemporary political context.

Attempts to reduce the word 'Palestinian' to a modern 'political' context only reflect on an editor or writer's hostility to history. What is said above is true for every ethnic and geographical denominator, and not peculiar to Palestine/Palestinian. It is true of the word 'Israel' as well, which began as a personal name, and denominated then a people, not a land. The 'people of Israel' meant a global congregation united by blood descent, not a territory, and it no longer is used in this way. Palestinians form 20% of the people of Israel but no one gets upset (well, some do) that the phrase here has a different meaning than the one it bore in the past. The same is true of 'Christian' and 'Jew': both words meant in the past something often radically different from what they are taken to mean today, but in the popular and even scholarly imagination they are used to imply continuity.

'It is common knowledge that Christianity is different from the religion of the Old Testament, but some are still aware that Judaism (sometimes referred to as Rabbinic Judaism, as opposed to the religion or the Judaism practiced during biblical times) is a different religion from that of the Hebrew Bible. What is different about it? Nearly everything: its liturgy, its forms of worship, its codes of laws and its theologies ’Reuben Firestone cited by Bruce J. Malina, ‘Interfaith Dialogue : Challenging the Received View,’ in Philip Francis Esler (ed.) Ancient Israel: The Old Testament in Its Social Context, Augsburg Fortress 2006 pp.283ff. p.266

Malina then adds that

This common knowledge is not so common, it seems,’ adding ‘modern Jew and Christians have perhaps little in common with groups they label “Jews” and “Christians” in antiquity. ..the “rabbinization” of some Israelitic groups in the fourth century C.E. and the Talmudization of Israelite self-understanding in the fifth and sixth centuries, along with the rise of Zionism and its consequences in Europe and the Middle East in the twentieth century, have all radically reshaped the theology and self-understanding of people who call themselves “Jews”. The same holds for Christians.’

Likewise, a 'Palestinian' now is no more the 'Palestinian' of antiquity, than a 'Jew' now resembles the 'Jews' of the Bible, as rabbi Reuben Firestone notes. People who call themselves 'Briton' are not implying they are identical to the people of Boadicea's time, etc. It's not well known, but it is what scholarship has estabished without any tremor up the identitarian spine. Were your argument an argument, we would have, mutatis mutandis to revise all articles on the Jews to mark the different meaning at all stages of their immensely intricate and diversified ethnic, religious and political history.Nishidani (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything changes over time. That's not the kind of change I'm talking about. Prior to 1920, a Palestinian was someone who lived in Palestine, regardless of religion or language. Under the Mandate, the terminology was "Palestinian Jew" and "Palestinian Arab." In 1948, the Palestinian Jews became Israelis. Since there was no longer any need to distinguish Palestinian Arabs from Palestinian Jews, the phrase "Palestinian Arab" was gradually shortened to "Palestinian." In short, Palestinian Jews are not considered Palestinians under this terminology, ungrammatical though that claim may be. The dictionary I quoted above supports this view. The current list classifies Palestinian Jews in ancient times as Palestinian, but not those who lived under the Mandate. I have not seen any definition of "Palestinian" that justifies doing it this way. The Smart Cheetah (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC) comment by sock of site-banned user struck per WP:BMB. Favonian (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should address the RS evidence (and all the other issues I raised), which (aside from Palestinian rabbis, a page I for one have never edited, and which is the handiwork of editors identified usually as seeing things from a pro-Israeli or pro-Jewish perspective) no one seems to worry to death with obsessive POV challenges. You are arguing abstractly, according to your personal views, which conflict with scholarly usage. There is an excellent reason why we must retain 'Palestinian' for pre-Mandatory Jews in Palestine: Palestinian Jewish culture, as evinced in the Palestinian Talmud, for example, had its own specific milieu, traditions and culture, in which Jesus was born, and that is part and parcel of Palestinian (and Jewish)history.

'Palestinian midrashic compilations almost exclusively contain statements attributed to Palestinian rabbis. Often we cannot be sure who authored a particular statement, but generally we can be sure that it reflects a Palestinian point of view.' Richard Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia between Persia and Roman Palestine, Oxford University Press 2006 p.16

I have a list of over 20 academic sources using the word 'Palestinian' of Jesus and his movement, and I will happily post it if you are unfamiliar with this usage. The most decisive argument is that the attacks here on the use of 'Palestinian' for non-Arabs in the past does a serious POV injury to the Palestinian Christianity community, whose traditions date back to the Ist century C.E. This is not a POV bun fight between 'Israelis' and 'Palestinians', it is a simple matter of doing justice to RS usage, and to traditions by local Palestinian communities, Jewish, Christian, and Islamic, which in their respective cultures pride themselves on the depth of their historical liens to that country. Nishidani (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then explain why there is the flag of Arab nationalism displayed prominently at the top of this article and why this article links to the article about Palestinian Arabs. Pre-Mandate Jews never identified themselves as "Palestinians." Palestine is an anti-Semitic word that refers to the Philistines. 202.171.253.84 (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC) looks like more block evasion by JarlaxleArtemis Sean.hoyland - talk 16:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entire pre-mandate section. This article is a joke. Putting Jews in here is like putting Alexander the Great in a List of Slavic Macedonians article or Constantine the Great in a List of Turks article. 202.171.253.84 (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC) looks like more block evasion by JarlaxleArtemis Sean.hoyland - talk 16:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You ignore the gravamen of the evidence produced by other editors, and keep harping on a single point that interests you. The RS evidence for this usage is overwhelming. More importantly, there can be no ethnic veto over wiki articles dealing with a land with multiple histories, a plurality of historical cultures and a large mixed population. To challenge this list as an ethnic slur on Jews is, aside from the hysterical polemics of such language, to ignore that one community at least in Palestine, claims a direct historical descent from a religious founder of their creed, Christianity, and they have a right to see their Jesus (I am a pagan) listed here. cf. 'Jerusalem shaped my spirit, religion, heritage, identity, and earthly consciousness. . .My brothers, sisters, and I were baptized and confirmed in the Roman Catholic faith. Indigenous Palestinian Christians are descendants of those who first believed in Jesus Christ, We are families who have lived and worshipped in the land that gave birth to Christ and Christianity.' Jacob Nammar,Born in Jerusalem, Born Palestinian: A Memoir, Olive Branch Press, 2012 p.13. See also Julia Droeber,The Dynamics of Coexistence in the Middle East, I.B.Tauris, 2014 p.194 for similar convictions among the Christians of Palestine that they are directly affiliated with the earliest followers of Jesus. To stamp out what one indigenous Palestinian community takes as its descent tradition of 2,000 years because they are not Jews, is frankly, extremely prejudicial, implicitly biased against Christians. and assumes that Palestinian is some shibboleth of anti-semitic or anti-Israeli behaviour.Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) 'In the time of the definitive redaction of the Gospel, the differentiation of two groups of indigenous Palestinians, the Jews and the young community of the Christians, had become a fact.' Georges Augustin Barrois. Jesus Christ and the temple, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press1980 p,154
  • (2)Much is made today of pre-Pauline hellenistic Christianity, whether pre-Pauline hellenistic Jewish or pre-Pauline hellenistic Gentile. To this category all concepts that manifestly antedate Paul but are judged too advanced for native Palestinians (Jesus and his disciples) are assigned; . .Rather than building hellenistic castles in the air, this work will centre its attention upon Palestinian foundations.’ Richard N. Longenecker,The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, (1970 SCM) Regent College reprint 2001 p.8 n.15
  • (3) Those events and that teaching would have meant much to the dozens of Palestinian Jews we call the early apostles. . . .Could any of those who were not familiar with Jesus in his native Palestine have been totally incurious about his public life and teaching, what manner of man he was that some had thought him intimately related to God and others wanted him dead.?’ Gerard S. Sloyan, Jesus: Word made flesh, Liturgical Press, 2008 p.40
  • (4) Jesus’ rejection of divorce outright would have offended practically everyone of His day. Further, Jesus’ view that the single state was a legitimate and not abnormal calling for those to whom it was given, went against prevailing views in various parts of the Roman Empire about a man's duty to marry and procreate, but nowhere more so than in His native Palestine.’ Ben Witherington 111, Women in the Ministry of Jesus: A Study of Jesus' Attitudes to Women and and Their Roles As Reflected in His Earthly Life, Cambridge University Press 1987 p.125
  • (5) The earliest church was not entirely homogeneous culturally. Acts 6 indicates that almost from the beginning two groups existed.: the Hebrews and the Hellenists. Most scholars conclude that the Hebrews were primarily Aramaic-speaking Jews and native Palestinian in dress. The Hellenists were on the other hand Jews that had .. adopted Greek as their language as well as Greek dress and customs David A. Fiensy, New Testament Introduction, College Press p.167
  • (6) 'Jesus, a Jew of First-Century Palestine.' Frederick James Murphy, The religious world of Jesus: an introduction to Second Temple Palestinian Judaism, Abingdon Press1991 p.311
  • (7) 'As I examined these scenes again, I could find none where Jesus directly challenged the forces occupying his native Palestine.' Virginia Stem Owens, Looking for Jesus, Westminster John Knox Press 1999 p.250
  • (8) 'Jesus, and the message that he preached to the people of his native Palestine, was truly prophetic,' Joseph Stoutzenberger, Celebrating sacraments, St Mary’s Press, 2000 p.286
  • (9) As a man, he (Jesus) traveled throughout his native Palestine teaching the word of God (see Sermon on the Mount), healing the sick,and performing miracles.’ Eric Donald Hirsch, Joseph F. Kett, James S. Trefil,The new dictionary of cultural literacy, Houghton Mifflin 2002 p.12
  • (10) ‘The Bultmann era of New Testament scholarship did not encourage research into the Palestinian background of either Jesus or his movement’ (citing Freyne) Morten H. Jensen, The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod Antipas and its Socio-Economic Impact on Galilee, Mohr Siebeck 2010 p.5
  • (11) 'The "influence" of Sal terrae and Lux Mundi seems to have originated, as ideas, with the Palestinian Jesus.' Eric Francis Fox Bishop, Jesus of Palestine: the local background to the Gospel documents, Lutterworth Press 1955 p.73
  • (12) But of all the traditions to which Jesus and his Palestinian disciples would have been exposed, the most influential would naturally have been the Jewish.' John Davidson,The gospel of Jesus: in search of his original teachings, 2005 p.177.
  • (13) 'We can say that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew who lived during the reign of Emperor Tiberius.' Christopher Gilbert,A Complete Introduction to the Bible, Paulist Press 2009 p.187
  • (14) 'Jesus was a Palestinian Jew; Paul was a Jew of the diaspora.' William Baird,History of New Testament Research, Fortress Press, 2002 p.260
  • (15a)‘Jesus was a first-century Palestinian Jew. .His faith in God was nurtured within the context of a Jewish home and family, within the context of first-century Palestinian Judaism.’ p.30
  • (15b)'Catholic sacraments have their foundation in the preaching and teaching ministry of Jesus of Nazareth a first-century Palestinian Jew.' Gregory L. Klein, Robert A. Wolfe,Pastoral foundations of the Sacraments: a Catholic perspective, 1998 p.32
  • (16) 'Born in Bethlehem, Jesus was a Palestinian Jew,' George Kaniarakath,Jesus Christ: a Meditative Introduction, Society of St Paul, Bombay 2008
  • (17) 'Jesus, like many Palestinian Jews,..' Chuck Colson, Norm Geisler, Ted Cabal, The Apologetics Study Bible, 2007 p.1481 on Mark 7:35
  • (18) 'The title Kurios applied to Jesus by the Palestinian disciples,' David B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh texts in Paul's christology, Mohr Siebeck, Tuebingen 1992 p.13
  • (19) 'The reader also will notice the new beatitude generated by Palestinian Jesus culture—'Blessed is whoever is not scandalized by me' (Matt. 11.4/Luke 7.22).' Vernon Kay Robbins, The tapestry of early Christian discourse, 1996 p.140
  • (20) 'How did Jesus relate to Palestinian Judaism and how was he different from other Palestinian Jews?' Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a figure in history, Westerminster John Knox Press, 1998 p.170
  • (21) 'Christianity was at first essentially a sect of Palestinian Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah.' Kathryn Muller Lopez, Glenn Jonas, Donald N. Penny, (eds.)Christianity: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Guide, Mercer University Press, 2010
  • (22)'It also appears that the Nomos tradition is limited to Patristic authors with strong Palestinian ties. Justin was a native of Shechem, while Clement, who came to Alexandria from Athens, identified his greatest teacher as a Palestinian thinker “of Hebrew origins”.’Azzan Yadin Scripture as logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the origins of midrash, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004 p.175.
  • (22) 'There was another type of allegory that was familiar to the Palestinian thinkers.' Willis Allen Shotwell,The Biblical Exegesis of Justin Martyr, S.P.C.K., 1965 p.41(referring to Palestinians, Jews, pagans or others of the period of the 1st-2nd century CE)
  • (23) 'Jesus, we may assume, was by all means a Jewish patriot, but rousing his Palestinian people to throw off the Roman yoke was no part of his message. Neither had it been that of John the Baptist.'Gerard S. Sloyan, Jesus: Word Made Flesh, Liturgical Press 2009 p.23
  • (25) 'The recovery of Jesus' identity as a first-century Palestinian Jew, begun with Klausner's Jesus of Nazareth and reiterated forcefully by such recent authors as Vermes and Sanders, does important conceptual work.'John S.Kloppenberg, ‘Sources, Method and Discursive Locations in the Quest for the Historical Jesus,’ in Tom Holmén, Stanley E. Porter (eds.) Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (4 Vols) BRILL Vol.1, 2011 pp.241-189 p.247
Why are all of these scholars of high quality ignoring your message? The closing admin is required to assay the quality of evidence, not the quantity of personal opinions. Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Almost everyone living in the region before the first aliyah was Palestinian; it's not like there was anything of the current divide. We ought to remove Jesus and everyone else who lived long before the first aliyah. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that 'vote' doesn't address the arguments, and assumes that Jewish migration is the deciding factor (i.e. it assumes that the Arab-Palestinian Point of View is irrelevant - the default perspective of far too many editors in this area). It also sets a precedent no other wiki article has - i.e. uniquely, any premodern ethnos, or geographical area, should not have in its 'peoples' list anyone premodern, born before the modern nation-state. All peoples' articles have them, and only here is it challenged - and it is apparently challenged irrationally out of a peculiar obsession with the denial of equal rights of self-representation to one particular people, Palestinians. These 'votes' have weight if they address the issues with sources and cogent arguments: opinionizing is quite pointless.Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would oppose "So far" because you have used a certain term. Mostly from reading through the different points and deciding that Scholars term him such due to his geography not because of his religious convictions etc.. The main reason being the term Geographical. In this way I would say that UNESCO and Jesus's birth place being within the Palestinian territories or whatever you want to call them, main reason being Israel has neither annexed them nor are they an independent state (at least according to the security council and the powers of the region). My main points being from the British splitting Jordan and the mandate of Palestine long before this whole Israel-Palestine conflict came about means there was a level of recognition for the name even before the messy situation of today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines - The poeple said to be the origion of the term of Palestine and also information on the divide of Canaan and Philistine peoples

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people - although it is contested, it is assumed there is a connection the Philistines by some scholars and contested by others, this is an arguement to happen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan -- in refrence to the seperate wording or mentioning of Canaans from Phillistines which suggests they were actually two seperate groups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanites#Biblical_Canaanites - in refrence to the seperate wording or mentioning of Canaans from Phillistines which suggests they were actually two seperate groups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites - suggesting Israelites and jews were related to the Canaanites so perhaps this can provide a contrast between the phillistines and jews

Now while all these seem to suggest Jesus may have identified more as a cultural Jew and religious Jew, it is again the term Geographic you used that to me suggests geographically today his birth place is within the U.N. Partition plan, 1950s lines, 1967 than complicates things as time goes on and now I can't state Palestine is a part of Israel as even Israel has not claimed they are their territories and the people are citizens, however neither is it independent, so I suppose it can be contested in fact my whole position will be because I am human and I make mistakes, however to the b e s t of my knowledge he is geographically Palestinian, Culturally or religiously a Jew. Geography is usually cut and dry however in this case there are not really borders and there is not really complete recognition of either state by the whole world and blah blah blah lots of confusing situations like this arise.

I will redact this should he not be geographically considered a palestinian anymore but it seems pretty logical, if Bethlehem is not a part of Israel, what is it a part of, does Jesus than geographically become considered as that as some of these sources you have mentioned suggest - I just don't get how geography can really be contested but rather political nature is the thing at debate correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepSinghToor (talk • contribs) 21:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus per sources' was born in Palestine, within a milieu of Palestinian Judaism. The question therefore is, why shouldn't he be included as one of the figures in a list of Palestinians? The only objection is - 'Palestinian' would mean Jesus is a paid-up member of the PLO'. It really is depressing, that objectors are more familiar with the subject of Arab terrorism than with the scholarship, and cannot disssociate the word 'Palestine/Palestinian' from politics: scholars have no angst over this - it is widely accepted by Jewish scholars - only we get our knickers in a twist, forgetting that even Palestinian Christians, descendants of communities with a 2,000 year old continuity with their Holy Land, or Eretz Israel, or Palestine, have a right to see in him a cultural predecessor. This is not about the endless bickering between two groups, Jews and Muslim Arabs. Arab Palestinian Christians have an irrefutable cultural claim to have Jesus listed here as an intrinsic part of their historic patrimony and no non-Christian group should have veto power over sources, and the obvious.Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually after reading your reply I would like to apologize beforehand, I didn't even bother considering the large minority of Palestinian Christians — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepSinghToor (talk • contribs) 23:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is I who owe you an apology. I should not have shouted (used bolded script). But the point is important. Even a pagan like myself can see that Christians are lost from sight when political obsessions between the other two parties prevail in editors' minds (though Islam has a claim in its scriptures to Jesus as a prophet, and therefore Palestinian Muslims also find a lien of historic attachment). Cheers Nishidani (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

if living in palestine for two years made a person palestinian[edit]

Section created by yet another sock of a site-banned user. Hatted with reference to WP:BMB. Favonian (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

[[9]]

[[10]] Gamliel II - Nasi c. 80-

[[11]] Shimon bar Kokhba - Nasi 132-135

[[12]] Shimon ben Gamliel II - Rosh Yeshiva Usha_(city) second century

[[13]] Gamaliel IV - President of Beit HaMidrash 270-290

[[14]] Judah III - Nasi of Sanhedrin 290-320

[[15]] Hillel II - Nasi of Sanhedrin c. 320-385

[[16]] Gamliel V - Nasi of Sanhedrin c. 365-385

[[17]] Judah IV - Nasi of Sanhedrin 385-400

[[18]] Gamliel VI - Nasi of Sanhedrin 370-425

[[19]] Mar-Zutra III - Aliyah 520 later Rosh Yeshivah of Tiverias

[[20]] Binyamin of Tiverias - financed revolt against Heraclius 7th Century

[[21]] Achai of Sabha - 8th-century Talmudist

[[22]] Aharon ben Meïr - Nasi of Palestinian Gaonate in the early 10th century

[[23]] Sa'adiah ben Yosef Al-Fayyumi - studied in Tiverias at young age, published Hebrew Dictionary at age 20 - lived from 882 or 892 until 940

[[24]] Yefet ben Ali - Karaite commentator, lived in Jerusalem 950-980

[[25]] Daniel ben Azariah - gaon of Eretz Yisrael 1051-1062

[[26]] Shimshon ben Avraham of Sens - Tosafist - lived in Palestine c. 1211 - 1230

[[27]] Yechiel of Paris - Tosafist, Founder of Midrash haGadol d'Paris in Acre - lived in Palestine from between 1258 to between 1265 and 1268 (disputed)

[[28]] Ishtori Ha-Parhi - settled in Palestine after being victim of ethnic cleansing in 1306, physician in Bet She'an until 1355

[[29]] Yitzakh ben Shmuel of Akko - Palestinian astrophysicist, born in Palestine 13th Century, fled Mamluk massacre c. 1305 to Spain

[[30]] Ovadiah ben Avraham - March 25 1488 moved to Jerusalem, died c. 1515 in Jerusalem - commentator on Mishna

[[31]] Yosef Saragossi - left Spain after expulsion 1492 for Tsfat, Mekubal well respected by Arab community, died 1507 in Palestine

chronology edit - [[32]] Moshe Alshich - [[33]] Acharon born in Ottoman Empire 1508, died 1593 in Tsfat

[[34]] Elazar ben Moshe Azikri - born in Tsfat 1533, Songwriter, author of Yedid Nefesh, died 1600

[[35]] Sabbatean prophet for failed messiah - born Jerusalem 1643

edit - [36] Yisroel ben Shmuel of Shklov - among leaders of partially successful attempt to increase Jewish life in Palestine, died in Tiverias may 22 1839

[[37]] Makhlouf Eldaoudi - Hakham Bashi (Chief Rabbi) for Acre, Haifa, Tsfat, and Tiverias 1889-1909, born 1825 in Marrakesh

[[38]] Jacob Meir - Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Mandate of Palestine, born 1856 died 1939 in Mandate of Palestine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kol hator (talk • contribs) 07:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to sign, sorry Kol hator (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A person "whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict" made a person a Palestinian refugee according to UNRWA. What is your point ? Can you state it explicitly and clearly ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if any sources consider these people Palestinian, maybe as naturalised citizens? Not every Palestinian before the mandate was born in Palestine, there were immigrants of multiple cultures and religious identities between 1840-1920 including Nowar, Turkish, Armenian, Greek, Italian, Turkmen, Persian, Jewish, Kurds, assorted Christians including German "Templars", Bosnians, Circassians, Sudanese and Algerian settlers, according to Britannica. Kol hator (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should use just one criteria to keep things simple. If they are called Palestinian by WP:RS, then for wiki-purposes we can also call them Palestinian. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's my question, I don't have a lot of books, so if there are reliable sources calling long-term residents of Palestine Palestinians, someone could add them. There seem to be a lot for Yeshua ha Notzri, aka Jesus, but I'm not sure how many of those are consensus "Reliable". We're already using two criteria for the two different lists. I don't know how many residents of Roman Syria Palestina self-identified as Palestinians, or how many people self-identified as Palestinian before the founding of Fatah. I'm against getting rid of non-Arab Palestinians from the list because 'Palestine Post', Jewish Palestinians etc., by the way. 1920 seems arbitrary, since the Jewish-owned 'Palestine Post' name didn't change until 1950. Kol hator (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess 1920 because of start of Mandate? Kol hator (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also some of that list were born in Palestine, do they fit definition? (edit spelling) Kol hator (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Kol hator (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I thought there was some kind of definition of 'Who is a Palestinian', I guess WP is going by quotes in sources. Kol hator (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my point is that there were Jewish Palestinians for every century from Gamliel II to Rav Kook. It seems that Palestinian is a term created by Romans, embraced by Christians, and adopted by Muslims at some time(what time I don't know) after the Arab conquest and occupation of lands including Eretz Israel in April 637. It was applied by the British to their Mandate and used by Jews to describe their Yishuv. Then some time after 1950 it ceased to be a name for Jews and was used for refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars. Now Jordan is 70% people from Falastin, and it's occupied by Bedouin from the Hedjaz. Did I make any mistakes there? Kol hator (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to explain. If I built a time machine and went to Yaffa May 1946 and waited to June 1948 I'd be a Palestinian refugee. Of course I'd be dead when it rolled around to 2014 again. If I'd gone to 1846, waited till 1848 and cryo-slept till 2014 again, I'd not be a Palestinian. If I went to 131 c. e., got Roman citizenship, went to Betar and waited till 136 c. e. I'd be a Palestinian. Sorry for wasting everyone's time with a hypothetical situation, maybe the research I did making the list could help improve some other article, list, or category, such as 'Jews who lived in the Levant'. I don't know of any such category. Good Night, Layla Tov, TisbaHu 'ala kher Kol hator (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation in the lead.[edit]

The lead is for summaries of the article. The last sentence in the lead has little to do with the list, other than to attempt to connect past populations with current political labels. Looking at this talk page, there is obviously a lot of controversy around this and throwing in "some scientists think Canaanites are descendants because they connected genes to Biblical narratives" isn't helping anything. CSWP1 (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List leads cannot by definition summarize the content of the page. By their very nature, as enumeration of as category whose basis is outlined in full articles, they simply give the gist of the sister pages, which is what we have here. There is no reason to think that the word 'Palestinian' is a political term, any more than any other ethnonym, and all peoples have historic roots. Whatever the rest of the evidence, Christian Palestinian communities did not emigrate from Arab lands in recent times: their continuous presence in the land is a constant over two millennia, and they came from Greek-Jewish et al. stock that preceded A.D. in all probability.Nishidani (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While your personal opinions are fascinating and I look forward to you accusing me of racism, I must remove the poorly-sourced speculation on the origins of modern Palestinians. It is obviously quoted in an attempt to link past populations with current ones, which is soapboxing. CSWP1 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is well sourced, but I agree it is a bit long for the lead here. As a compromise I have moved it all to the footnote. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a sensible solution. Leads should not have individual views fully quoted or paraphrased, except in footnotes which are needed however when the statement in question is hotly contested (by editors, not by the scholarship). Khalidi's view is scholarly, and not 'poorly sourced speculation'. You haven't understood WP:SOAP. I would suggest your reverting over many Palestinian articles, and unresponsive assertiveness on the occasional talkpages, is only confirming a certain combative temper against one of two sides to the conflict, and that is not welcome in this area, CSWP1.Nishidani (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament figures ALL belong here[edit]

You cannot leave Jesus Christ/en-Nebi Issa (pbuh) alone, only in the company of His betrayer! Mother, Father, stepfather, brother, cousin, aunt, uncle-in-law, close associates, direct enemies - they all belong with Him. Give me one valid reason why not. Arminden (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Kant, quoted in the lead, Herzl, Einstein, Paul Newman - all belong here[edit]

If Jesus & Queen Melisende qualify, so, most definitely, do Theodor Herzl, Alberst Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Nostradamus, etc., etc. (see your sources: Immanuel Kant - European Jews are "the Palestinians living among us", Dowty 2008, Jewish Virtual Library's "Definition of Palestinian", Tessler 1994, and only the good Jewlestinanian, Mr Yahweh, knows what else you dug out and dumped into that list of "references"). I'll start putting them on the list. Shalomistan you want, Shalomistan you get. If you start pushing the limits of rational thinking over the BS cliff, you get - what you have, in this article and in Palestine at large. Arminden (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article inevitably suffers from problems of definition. The claim at the top of the page that "anyone with roots in the region that is now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza is technically a Palestinian" is not supported by any good references that I can see. Kant used "Palestinians" for "Jews" in an antisemitic swipe of which the rest is rarely quoted; that is not a source we should value as a definition. Tessler is clearly referring to the modern-day Palestinians and their roots as he explicitly distinguishes them from Jews. Dowty is also writing about modern-day Palestinians and not proposing a wider definition. All three of these sources fail to support the claim except via the "Aristotle is a man, therefore all men are Aristotle" fallacy. I can't see Hurewitz, so maybe that helps. The real and probably only source is JVL, which is an unreliable organization that pushes the line that Palestinians are a modern invention. Zerotalk 02:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the problematic paragraph. It needs serious work before it can be reinstated.

Anyone with roots in the region that is now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza is technically a Palestinian,[1][2][3][4][5] but today the term is predominantly associated with the Arab population of the region.[3][6][7]

Zerotalk 02:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Dowty, Alan (2008). Israel/Palestine. London, UK: Polity. p. 221. ISBN 978-0-7456-4243-7. Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries
  2. ^ German philosopher Kant referred to European Jews as "the Palestinians living among us." Kant, Immanuel (1974): Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Translated by Mary J. Gregor. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, cited in Chad Alan Goldberg, Politicide Revisited. University of Wisconsin-Madison
  3. ^ a b Definition of Palestinian (Jewish Virtual Library)
  4. ^ Tessler, M. "A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994), p. 62.
  5. ^ Hurewitz, J.C. "Diplomacy in the Near and Middle East: A Documentary Record 1914-1956" (New York: Praeger, 1956), p. 119-120
  6. ^ Dowty, Alan (2008). Israel/Palestine. London, UK: Polity. p. 221. ISBN 978-0-7456-4243-7. since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture.
  7. ^ Butenschon, N.A. Ed.; Davis, U. Ed.; Hassassian, M. Ed. "Citizenship and the State in the Middle East: Approaches and Applications" (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 2000), p. 210.
@Zero0000: thanks. This page is nonsensical and offensive as long as there is no definition. Arafat launching the BS propaganda slogan that "Jesus was a Palestinian" was short-sighted, counterproductive and an insult to people's intelligence, for those who possess one. Either one hangs on to shocking anti-logical propaganda statements, or one wants to legitimately create databases of identity items, like a list of prominent conationals. You can't have it both ways. I guess the JVL article (which I won't bother reading), unreliable as it might be, touches on the core issue: what is a Palestinian; when did the identity emerge, both de facto and de jure; how much of what is not yet "Palestinian identity" can be looked into in the attempt to study the background, which is a different animal altogether from the topic outlined by the definition. And so on. The rest is painful & backfiring stupidity. Figuring out Juliano Mer-Khamis's insights into his own identity is a trillion times more relevant and productive here than holding on to maximalist BS. And this covers the entire "Pre-Mandate" section, not just Jesus. Btw, if the BS continues, I still do insist that God as Yahweh, the tribal god of the Israelites, firmly belongs at the top of the list, next to His Son, earthly spouse, etc. Not saying it to you Zero, but to whoever else might bother to read this. Pushing claims to their logical limit (reductio ad absurdum) helps clarify things, and not just in maths. A guy on Reddit put it into the right words:
"...saying that strips the Palestinians of their existence as a unique nation and states instead that they have no actual distinct identity or common heritage and Palestinians are just a random group of individuals who happen to be in the same place at a particular time in history."
Activism may have its merits, but not here. Thinking and understanding always does. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arminden, I think we agree that the problem here is modern identity politics. If the last 100 years had played out differently, there would be no sensitivity in calling anyone Palestinian. Now you claim to find it offensive, and for what it’s worth, I find your claim of offense as being deeply offensive itself. There is nothing wrong with being Palestinian.
Now, we also agree that thinking and understanding is the way forward. I would like to investigate the boundaries of what you consider a Palestinian. To start with simple ones, do you consider it reasonable to label Timotheus of Gaza, Saint Reparata and Al-Shafiʽi as Palestinian? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: No. Go to the Palestinians article and read the definition, plus the "Emergence of a distinct identity" section. That article has been worked through; this one - the opposite. You got me 100% wrong (not my fault, I've been clear), and the people who put the pre-Mandate list together got the topic wrong. Never start w/o understanding the definition. The rest are useless words. Arminden (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arminden, there are (at least) two definitions for how the word Palestinian is used. There are also multiple definitions for how the word Jew is used. You seem to be proposing that we should use only the narrow modern identity when using the term Palestinian, but ignore the wider historical identity. But you haven’t explained why. Scholars use the term Palestinian in its historical (geographical) sense, so why shouldn’t Wikipedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS – if you are not familiar with the scholarly study of national identities (e.g. Anderson's Imagined Communities) then I would be grateful if you would familiarize yourself with it before we continue this discussion. All national identities as we know them today are modern social constructions. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By what modern construction does Raymond of Tripoli or Herod the Great qualify? The Pre-Mandate list is garbage. As Arminden said, this maximalist definition equates to denying the existence of a Palestinian people. 216.8.185.53 (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe those two names were added by Arminden, amongst other additions, with the specific goal of undermining the robustness of the pre-Mandate list. That seemed to be what he was saying with the comment at the top of this list. I have not reverted pending the discussion. Arminden is usually a thoughtful editor and open to discussion. He seems to be saying that the concept of being "Palestinian" is a modern invention, but needs some time to assess whether that is equally true for most other nations in the world (would Confucius and Ashoka have considered themselves Chinese and Indian respectively?). And if those who take an aversion to the Palestinian identity wish not to describe Timotheus of Gaza, Saint Reparata and Al-Shafiʽi as Palestinians, then what on earth were they?
It’s worth noting that the Assyrians used the term “Palestinian” in 700 BCE (and before you say Philistine, there is no evidence whatsoever for a narrow boundary to the usage). The Romans also used the term Palestinians, see for example Ovid in 8 CE.
What matters is that we follow how sources describe the people in this list.
Onceinawhile (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some ethnic identities are very old. Some are new. Sometimes words stick around but shift in meaning. Your question "what on earth were they" assumes that they had an ethnic identity. But not everybody does. The page on Al-Shafiʽi calls him an Arab. Is that not enough? 216.8.185.53 (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2021[edit]

Request to add Feda Almaliti Wikipedia to the notable Palestinians as an activist as she is of Palestinian descent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feda_Almaliti 2603:8001:6E01:92CC:CC95:EC97:72E9:9731 (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This list does not cover those with just a family history. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Palestinians&oldid=1202755933"