Talk:List of indigenous peoples

Content of archives

Please discuss all topics from archives on current talk page.

Archive of past discussion (2005-2007)

• 2 Current listing
• 3 Sorbs (Wends) do not identify themselves as an "indigenous people"
• 4 What should be listed under "Circumpolar North"
• 5 Are Copts considered a people
• 6 Are the Jews an indigenous people? also Talk:List of indigenous peoples/Comments
• 7 No more Ainu on Sakhalin island
• 8 Indigenous Finns?
• 9 Tongans: A problematic inclusion
• 10 Removal of two sub-lists
• 11 Palestinians are indigenous

Archive of past discussion (2007-2008)

• 1 Request for Comment Palestinian indigeneity
• 1 Bedouins vs. Palestinian Beouin
• 2 Bedouins
• 3 Jews - Martinez Cobo
• 4 Inclusion criteria for Southern Africa
• 5 East Africa
• 6 Terms of reference
• 7 Zambonji
• 8 Breakdown
• 9 Amero-Liberians
• 10 Proposal for inclusion
• 10 Table format proposal
• 11 Samaritans, Jews, Druze, Maronite Christians, Palestinian Christians, Palestinian Arabs, Bedouin.

Revised References for the Inclusion of Palestinians

I've added Palestinians and cited a number of sources for their inclusion. I'll list each sources under the relevant criterion below but before I do I want to address the matter of WP:RS. The guideline says, in part: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." I make no claims, pro or con, about the general reliability of the sources I cite for criteria 1, 2, and 4 but I do assert the sources are reliable for the specific context for which I cite them here. Regarding criterion 3, the two sources I cite are books published by well-established, mainstream academic publishers. I cannot say for certain that the books in question have been subjected to "peer review" but I am confident they have been subjected to professional in-house editorial review. Also, the criteria for inclusion are "suggested as guidelines," they are not rigid requirements. I submit that Israel/Palestine and the Encyclopedia of Diasporas satisfy WP:RS and criterion 3.

• Criterion 1. some government, regulatory body, law or protocol, which may be either sub-national, national or trans-national; and/or

United Nations (30 June 1978), The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988, Part I, New York: United Nations, retrieved 5 April 2011

• Criterion 2. some recognised body, NGO or other organisation, involved with indigenous affairs and recognised as an accredited participant, intermediary or representative in some legal, negotiative, national or international regulatory or rights-based process; and/or

Minority Rights Group International (1997), World Directory of Minorities, London, UK: Minority Rights Group International, ISBN 978-18-73194-36-2

According to their web site, MRGI has "consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and observer status with the African Commission for Human and Peoples Rights".

• Criterion 3. some academic and peer-reviewed literature or publication; and/or

Dowty, Alan (2008). Israel/Palestine. London, UK: Polity. ISBN 978-07-45642-43-7. Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture.

Farsoun, Samih K. (2005), "Palestinian Diasporas", in Ember, Melvin; Ember, Carol R.; Skoggard, Ian (eds.), Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World, vol. 2, New York, NY: Springer, ISBN 978-03-06483-21-9, OCLC 315151735, The Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine.

Forman, Geremy; Kedar, Alexandre (2003), "Colonialism, Colonization and Land Law in Mandate Palestine: The Zor al-Zarqa and Barrat Qisarya Land Disputes in Historical Perspective", Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 4 (2): 491–539

Peled, Yoav (2007), "Citizenship Betrayed: Israel's Emerging Immigration and Citizenship Regime", Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 8 (2): 603–628, Israel is the effective sovereign in the entire area of Mandatory Palestine, and it has incorporated the indigenous Palestinian population of this area into its control system in two different ways: some as second-class citizens of Israel, but most as subjects devoid of rights living under military rule.

Alan Dowty's scholarly credentials are discussed in his Wikipedia bio. The Embers and Skoggard don't yet have Wikipedia bios but they are cited numerous times as sources in Wikipedia. The two journal articles are both peer-reviewed and from Theoretical Inquiries in Law.

• Criterion 4. some representative body of the indigenous society itself, where that representation is made in respect of a claim or issue to a government or governmentally-supported organisation (eg the UN, African Union).

The Local Preparatory Committee of Palestinian NGOs in Israel (Undated), Statement submitted to: World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Haifa, Israel: Adalah - The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, retrieved 6 April 2011, Palestinians are also an indigenous group entitled to the recognition of their historical claims and the receipt of compensation, as outlined in the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Mossawa Center - The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel (June 2006), The Palestinian Arab Citizens of Israel: Status, Opportunities and Challenges for an Israeli-Palestinian Peace (PDF), Haifa, Israel: Mossawa Center - The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel, retrieved 6 April 2011, Consisting of those who remained and were internally displaced during the creation of the state and their descendents, Palestinian Arab citizens are an indigenous population to Israel.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DieWeisseRose (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 April 2011

Request to replace "Old Yishuv" with just "Jews"

I think this would make more sense because the majority of Jewish groups throughout the diaspora are, in fact, part of the Old Yishuv, but scattered throughout the world. How do you file a request for change?69.248.98.23 (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Many Jews are not indigenous people in southwest Asia, but are really foreign to the area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That would only apply to Ethiopian Jews, Indian Jews, and recent converts. Every other Jewish group has been shown to have origins in South West Asia.69.248.98.23 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, many Jews are from Europe. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

And those Jews largely trace their origins to the Levant, as shown by genetic studies, historical, and linguistic evidence.

Here's my proposal for the change. Jews- an ethno-religious group who trace their origins to the Ancient Israelites and Hebrews of the Levant. Outside of the Jewish diaspora communities, Jews have maintained a presence in what is today Israel and Palestine throughout the Roman conquest and Muslim Arab rule.69.248.98.23 (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I dont think so. Many Jews are foreign in the Levant and therefor they as a whole group can not be claimed to be indigenous in southwest Asia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Only Ethiopian, Indian, and converted Jews have no links to the Levant, although even the first two are debated. The rest are very much indigenous. Is there anyone else here I can talk to?Evildoer187 (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The claim that Jews "are foreign to Levant" is POV. Scientific studies carried out by world leading genetic institutions, (I have posted few as reference), have confirmed the common and Middle Eastern genetic origin of all major Jewish groups.--Tritomex (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Inclusion of any Jewish group will require a source demonstrating that they are considered an indigenous people under international legislation. All people are "indigenous" to somehwere, that is not what this list includes. Jews have their own nation state and members of the diaspora are not generally classified as indigenous peoples where they live, so inclusion will require very good sources showing the applicability of the international definition. Genetic studies and status as foreign in the levant are irrelevant.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Supreme Deliciousness, you are wrong. The truth is that Jews are indigenous to Israel, and the Arabs that call themselves "Palestinians" are colonists from Egypt and Arabia that are bent on usurping Jewish history and brainwashing the world with their anti-Semitic propaganda. We were ethnically cleansed from Judah by the Romans and forced to go to Europe. So we are not actually from Europe; we are from Israel. Wikipedia would do well to remove the lie that the Muslims have added to the article that says that "Palestinians" are indigenous, or else Wikipedia will seem like a joke, like some absurd Iranian newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smidej9e (talk • contribs) 06:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

Jews- an ethno-religious group who trace their origins to the Ancient Israelites and Hebrews of the Levant. Outside of the Jewish diaspora communities, Jews have maintained a presence in what is today Israel and Palestine throughout the Roman conquest and Muslim Arab rule.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done. Do it yourself. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor problem

It seems that everything under the South West Asia category has disappeared and I can't bring it back. If there's anybody here who is more proficient with the coding and could fix it, that would be great. However, in order to avoid an edit war, please leave everything in the South West Asia category as it currently stands. Under the parameters of the UN definition of indigenous peoples, Jews and Druze should be included.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Show a source that Jews fall under the UN definition.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I am fixing the page and adding 'Jews', as per EvilDoer's Request, to avoid further 'edit-wars'.

SSIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaleakalAri (talk • contribs) 18:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't say I completely understand the need for two more categories, but it will do for now.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It's for the same reason that multiple Arab-Speaking groups are listed under there. There are many different kinds of Jews. ari (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not ad any unsourced peoples into the article. I just removed to newly added both unsourced. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's sourced now.Evildoer187 (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

None of those sources are valid. They are genetic studies that show that jewish people originated in the Levant, not that they fall under any of the contemporary international definitions of indigenous peoples. For a statement to be "sourced" the source has to actually support the claim.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Jewish diaspora

Addition of Jewish diaspora - not sure the WP:SYNTHESIS of genetic information says anything about them being indigenous - In fact this should be clear by its title "Jewish diaspora".Moxy (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't. And if it did it would not be the definition of indigeneity this list uses.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Genetics do prove that they have roots in the Middle East. So in that sense, they are indigenous. However, that definition apparently doesn't apply here.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Proposal to exclude Jews and Palestinians

I sugges we exclude Jews and Palestinians since this is a hotly contested and politicized question that is not obvious and which depends entirely on the authority asked. Including one and excluding the other will be an eternal source of political discussion on the talk page, and inclusion of neither group is currently supported by any high quality sources that explicitly define them as falling under the international definitions. We could include a note in the introduction explaining this decision and using it as an example of why being indigenous is not a matter of objective fact, but of socio-political circumstances.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Support - I think this would be the third time we have gone over this in the past year.Moxy (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Do Not Support - We would have to remove 90 percent of the page if we used this definition.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That does not follow since this proposal has no effect on other groups. The inclusion criteria are already given and any group that does not explicitly have sourcing supporting the inclusion under the definition can and should be removed. This proposal is only regarding jews and palestinians and is about whether these two groups should be included on general principle. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that if we apply this definition across the board, then the majority of the groups included do not really belong on this page. So then what are we left with?Evildoer187 (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

We are not discussing the inclusion criteria here. They are already established by a broad consensus, if you want to challenge those file another RfC such as the one previouslyheld this year at Talk:Indigenous_peoples/Archive_3#RfC:_Scope_of_this_article. Here we are discussing whether to foreclose any further editwards regarding the includability of Jews and palestinians specifically. Also it is not a problem to restrict the article to only cover those groups that specifically meet the criteria, that is an advantage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll just leave it for now. It's not worth getting into an argument over. However, I am curious as to why Bahrani people are included, since they have a state of their own (Bahrain).Evildoer187 (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure - I have read criticisms of the "indigenous peoples" concept as applied to all of Asia, where continuous migrations and displacements have made such claims murky and endlessly disputable. The only clear-cut application of this concept might be to the Americas, or possibly to Africa vis-à-vis white people. But then again, the idea behind apartheid Bantustans was that the Bantu-speaking people were ultimately not indigenous to South Africa, so you even see a politicization of indigeniety there. Also, Indonesia disputes allegations from New Guinea separatist groups that, say, Sundanese people are less indigenous to the island than Dani people are. Tibetan-Bhutanese argue that they are indigenous and so have the right to force their dress on and deny citizenship to "illegal immigrant" Nepalese-Bhutanese, who marshal history and law to make their own counterclaims of indigenousness. Since indigenity has been the basis of the ideology of Malay supremacy, it has been disputed by local Chinese and Indians; this too around the world where the status has implications for land redistribution and secessionist movements. So this British National Party-type behavior ("we were here first; get out, foreigner scum") happens all over the world, and the "FAQ item" which asserts that Europeans are disqualified is suspect.

I anticipate that Maunus will respond by saying that none of my above doubts are relevant, since we are talking about certain "high quality sources that explicitly define them as falling under the international definitions". In that case, Maunus should produce exactly which sources he is talking about. Does this page rely primarily on one or two authoritative sources? The presence of that group in the preponderance of reliable sources? A lack of disputability of the claim in outside sources as well? I am sympathetic to the idea that we should exclude both Jews and Palestinians in order to stop endless disputes, but I am suspicious of the idea that "indigenous peoples" is an objective concept that is only or primarily politicized in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Shrigley (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not making the claim that the palestinian/jewish case is exceptional except in the degree to which it attracts controversy. Indigeneity is not an objective concept under any circumstances, but is always determined under socio-political negotiations. If we want to have a list of indigenous peoples we must have criteria for inclusion that are well defined and sourceable. I personally think the best solution would be to not have such a list because it makes indigeneity look like something that has objective existence, but since many people here love lists I dont think that is a viable solution.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I've been trying to say. If we apply such a narrow definition to indigeneity, it would be an arduous task proving that even half of the groups currently listed should stay. This is why I suggest using the Dictionary.com definition of indigenous: "originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country; native (often followed by to )". Under these parameters, obviously Jews and Palestinians should be included. Also, it would be naive to expect this to stop the disputes, because Palestinians and Jews/Israelis will just attach themselves to Bedouins and Samaritans, respectively.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That definition is nonsensical since all peoples are indigenous to somewhere. It would just be a list of ethnic groups then. Or it would lead to nonsensical conclusions such as calling Cherokee non-indigenous becausde they were forcibly removed from their ancestral lands, etc.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree its hard to define as seen at =Tony Simpson; Forest Peoples Programme. Indigenous heritage and self-determination: the cultural and intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples. IWGIA. p. 22. ISBN 978-87-984110-3-1.. But that seen no one calls Jews indigenous peoples not even within there community. However - Palestinians have declared they are indigenous - its just not recognized by the international community -Amal Jamal (17 March 2011). Arab Minority Nationalism in Israel. Taylor & Francis. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-136-82412-8.. So thus should not be included. Moxy (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't look like an objective source, to be honest. Simply because someone refers to themselves indigenous doesn't make it so. Furthermore, many Jewish diaspora people and especially Israelis have in fact considered themselves indigenous. And this is with justice, as cultural, linguistic, and genetic evidence has repeatedly shown that Palestinians and Jews are in fact very closely related. Either way, neither are recognized internationally as indigenous peoples, nor do they fit the UN definition of indigenous.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Moxy's point was exactly that only Palestinians themselves and their political allies claim status as indigenous, whereas Jews generally do not even claim the status. except in the literal (non-political) sense. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not true, because the same can be said of Jews and their political allies. I can provide examples if you'd like, but I'd probably end up flooding the talk page if I did. Besides, do you really think they would have put their state in Israel if they didn't believe they had any ties there?Evildoer187 (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You keep mixing up the definitions and contradicting yourself, they claim to be indigenous to Israel but they do not claim to fall under the international legal definition of an "indigenous people".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You got it!! they have not "applied" for indigenous recognition - And correct again - they do claim to be the first of the nomadic peoples of the area to culturies the land of Canaan (a point of contention).Moxy (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

My point is that Jews have made all of the same claims Palestinians have. As far as I know, neither Palestinians or Jews have made recourse to the international definition of indigenous people to support their claims, for obvious reasons. In most cases, claims of indigeneity are usually employed as a weapon to convince the other side that they have no moral right to be there and that they should leave. But since you accused me of mixing up definitions and contradicting myself, I'll make myself as clear as possible.

The internationally recognized definition of indigenous Nobody from either group (to my knowledge) has made any explicit claim that they are indigenous under this definition. Under this definition, neither can claim indigeneity (Jews also claim Canaanite descent).

The "we're indigenous because we say so" definition of indigenous Both groups have claimed this, in one way or another.

The common sense/dictionary definition of indigenous Ditto. Under this definition, both claims are justified.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If that is your point then your point is wrong. Jews have not claimed status as indigenous people under the UN convention of indigenous peoples rights. Palestinians have. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see some proof for that. In any case, Palestinians are no more indigenous than Jews are.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Moxy posted the source that shows that Palestinians have claimed to fall under the international definition above. Your personal opinion on the matter is not really of any weight.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, there is no need to be rude. Second, it's rather ironic that this petition for excluding Jews and Palestinians was meant to curb the dispute, when in reality it just revived it.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That is correct, especially since none of those who actually post here bother to read either the inclusion criteria or the wording of the RfC.I am regretting I filed it, but thats too late now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

And before I forget. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-sham-postcolonial-argument-against-israel/ Like I said, Jews have made the same claims.Evildoer187 (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You specifically said that Jews haven't made such a claim. And the blog you provide does not say that they have, but that they could.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I said "to my knowledge". That article came up after a quick Google search. He may not have lobbied for their inclusion, but he did still make the claim.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There is of course a qualitative difference between a Jewish person making a claim on a blog and a Palestinian political body filing for recognition with the UN.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Have they succeeded?Evildoer187 (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Jews and Palestinians should be removed UNLESS there are sources which label one or the other as indigenous under the use of the term in this and the other article. I note that very few of the entries are backed up in this way; however, as these two groups are likely to be the subject of further disagreements in this article, it would be worthwhile to declare that there is no consensus to add them to the article, unless and until that consensus changes (whereas there may be consensus about other groups, even if the sources are lacking). I'd be very opposed though at a declaration that a permanent consensus has been reached about their inclusion which pretends to bind future discussions. Count Truthstein (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep Jews From what I know it's genetically proven that the Jews came from the midddle east (at least that's what I read about Ashkenazi Jews), and historically we know that the place where they lived and had a kingdom was Israeli (see Kingdom of Israel, so I think the Jews do belong here. If you write "jews indigenous" you will find quite a lot of references.

About Palestinians, from what I know they are not an ethnic group, they are a nationality, which is a different thing. The Arabs living in Israel were not called Palestinians until Britain came into Israel and called the place Palestine (a name originally used by the Romans after some old nation which used to live in Israel simply to piss off the Jews after the revolt).

In fact, the whole reason why the Arabic countries are not one state is colonialists who created countries and gave it old romantic names like Egypt (name after the Egyptians, today an opressed minority called Copts), Syria (after another opressed minority called Assyrians), Jordan (after the river of Jordan)... During the Caliphate times they were all one country.

Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians... those are not ethnicities but nationalities. The ethnicity is Arabs. The origin of the Arabs was in Saudi Arabia (which makes it hard to describe them as indigenous in Israel), from where the Caliphate spread and reached as far as North Africa in the west and Iraq in the east. The Arabs who came to those lands mixed with the local populations. I read a book by Winston Churchill when he was talking about the big immigrations of Arabs from Iraq, Syria and Egypt into Israel, the question is, how many of the Arabs in the area are from those immigrants? When exactly did the Arabs come to Israel? I'm sure it was not before the Jews were expelled by the Romans from Israel. Those things are important when talking about such stuff! Danton's Jacobin (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

"Keep Jews" is not an option untill someone shows conclusive evidence that they fall under the criteria of the list which noone has been able to do so far. 1. You are wrong about the proposed distinction about ethnicity and nationality - there is no such distinction apart from the one that makes an ethnic group a nationality when it constitutes its own nation state 2. if such a disctinction existed it wouldn't be relevant for this list which is about indigenous peoples. 3. your reason to vote keep for jews is invalid given the current inclusion cirteria fort the list which is not about being original inhabitants of a place, but about being an Indigenous people under international legislation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ʍaunus, and there aren't any arguments or references to evidence in this comment which is relevant to the question. Count Truthstein (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment (and provisory Oppose. This is a fuzzy area and no easy solution is available. Denying both Jews and Palestinians 'indigeneity' rests on the dubious principle that, since this is politically contested territory, claims by either party cancel each other out. Because Jewish self-representations do not think in terms of indigeneity, but of reclaiming a homeland once inhabited by distant ancestors, we are, pari passu not to use the word of Palestinians, who have no such self-representation. The logic is, if a definition does not apply to the Jews, then it mustn't apply to the other population of Palestine. That means we are striving for balance by reciprocal exclusion from the topic area in obeisance to political sensitivities, rather than simply looking at the concepts.

Putting it in terms of "reclaiming a homeland once inhabited by distant ancestors" is stretching it, because that is, in fact, where the Jewish diaspora (or Jewish nationhood, at least) originated. I fail to see how Palestinians are "more indigenous" than Jews, or vice versa.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

We know the facts are that the diaspora is central to most of Jewish history, that it took place extraterritorial to Palestine. We have substantial bodies of evidence that there is a substantial continuity in the population now called Palestinian, which however has no ethnic or national identity. Of the Palestinians, we admit to the page Bedouin, who form a significant if distinct ethnos, and those who are not Israeli come under under Palestinian identity. We admit Samaritans who are part of the Biblical Jewish world, yet have Palestinian identity. I.e., the text as it stands is saying some Palestinians are indigenous people, as long as they have a sub-identity which separates them from the civic or national identity of a de facto state, or national administration (PNA).

I don't personally agree with the idea that indigeneity has an expiration date, that if you've been away from your historical homeland for long enough, you're no longer indigenous. Afrikaners for instance have been in Africa for centuries now, but nobody in their right mind considers them indigenous to Africa. I would also argue that Palestinians don't have a sub-identity any more than Jews/Israelis do. Further, I'm a little confused as to what you mean when you say that Samaritans have a Palestinian identity, because as far as I know, they do not.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I note that the Tibetans, who are as autochthonous and indigenous as the Basques, are missing from the page. Is this because of a political veto, or because no international legislation recognizes their obvious qualifications for such a definition. It is not, I believe, as subjective a definition as Maunus is arguing there. If indigeneity rests on international recognition, then a whole fresh can of worms is opened. That is as subjective a criterion as self-definition, because it rests on the throw-weight of major political powers in the appropriate international bodies. I'd prefer to live with the problem, rather than sweep it under the carpet.Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

All above sounds reasonable to me .... just need a ref saying Jews are indigenous - not our place to guess at definitions - all we can do is regurgitate what is out there in reliable sources.Moxy (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean, we must think in parallel terms, on the premise: If Jews, then Palestinians. If not Jews, then neither Palestinians (and vice versa). That will never work. There are two ways out of this. Maunus's proposal to elide both (the despair option), or a two line neutral thumbnail summary of both claims. Palestinian indigeneity and its claims withub Israel's Arabic minority are surveyed in Amal Jamal's recent book Arab Minority Nationalism in Israel:The Politics of Indigeneity, Taylor & Francis, 2011. No comparable book is available for the Jews, because the overwhelming majority of the Jewish population made aliyah, which excludes indigeneity. The generic Jewish claim is a particular one, based on an identity related to cuiltural and ethnic ME roots.

I agree with most of what you're saying here, but could you please clarify how making aliyah = non-indigenous? And how does writing a book make claims of indigeneity stronger?Evildoer187 (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If we need a compromise, that difference and the two claims could be clarified in two short sentences, preferably with a source for each. This is, I am suggesting, a diplomatic solution. I don't believe indigeneity applies to the Jews generically, and I think it does apply to the paleo-Christian community, the paleo-Arabic/fellahin communities and the Jewish Musta'arabim for instance, which hung on as religious minorities, conserving a distinct identity over thousands of years. Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe Palestinians should be included, if Jews are not. Neither group is more qualified for inclusion than the other. In fact, Palestinian claims of indigeneity are predicated on the idea that Jews are a foreign/colonial presence, with no real roots in Israel/Palestine (which is obviously not true, but still propagated nonetheless). Conversely, Jews claim indigeneity on the basis that they are a diaspora population initially stemming from the indigenous Israelites/Canaanites, and who in turn predate any Arab presence in the region (even though Palestinian and Jewish genetic similarity is largely a result of shared Canaanite/Hebrew roots). Include one and not the other, and it's just open season for more bickering and agitprop, which we all agree is something we would like to prevent.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, it seems odd that Assyrians and Kurds are allowed to stay, since neither category is even sourced at all. We know with about as much certainty that the Jewish diaspora and Palestinians have roots in the Middle East going back thousands of years. The only real reason I can think of for excluding them would be that they have their own nations with their own majorities (Israel and Palestine, respectively), which is absurd criteria if you ask me. However, Kurds have their own Kurdish majority nation as well, but are still included. Correct me if I'm wrong.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

One last thing. To those who are against using a less narrow definition of indigenous on the grounds that it would simply lead to a list of ethnic groups....isn't that what this page already is? Just take a good look at the article and you'll see what I mean. Besides, not every ethnic group would be included in the final list anyway, since Afrikaners, non-Amerindian Americans, Boers, non-Aborigines Australians, etc are clearly not indigenous.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, the article has no sources to show that any of the groups are indigenous under the definition which is supposed to be used. Unless this can be fixed, the article should be deleted or merged with a list of ethnic groups. Count Truthstein (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Support. The criteria for inclusion in this article have been previously defined and agreed upon by consensus. This definition appears in the lead section of the article Indigenous peoples and should also be included in the lead of this article. In this lengthy exchange no-one has presented a reliable source that indicates that either of these groups meet this definition of indigeneity. They should be removed. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

See the section below. I'm petitioning to use a more literal definition, because the current one is confusing and neither useful or accurate.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, hardly any of the groups listed are sourced at all. So it makes no sense to exclude Jews, Palestinians, or anyone else on these grounds.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That does not follow. It is not a valid argument to say that because some entries are unsourced all unsourced entries should be tolerated. Policy is that contested material must be sourced or excluded. If you feel that there are unsourced entires that do not meet the criteria then you should remove them. Both Jewish and Palestinian inclusion has been frequently and vociferously contested and thus requires, not just a sourced but a source of the highest weight and quality possible (following the extraordinary claims policy). Other unsourced entries have not so far been contested.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

One would need exceptionally good sources to assert that it is an exceptional claim to assert that the Palestinian population was not indigenous to Israel/Palestine, in the sense that they are the lineal heirs overwhelmingly of the demographic majority in that country at the time of the imposition of the League of Nations Mandate. The League of Nations mandate, assigned Palestine a Class A mandate, meaning legally that they were regarded as having reached ‘a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized. A line of polemic owning much to Joan Peters ' notorious book From Time Immemorial did make the extraordinary claim that the Palestinians were not 'indigenous'. No one takes it seriously. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If that is so then it is highly surprising that no one up untill this point has been able to provide any source that has been generally accepted to show the indigenous status of Palestinians in such a way as to preclude further disputes. (The reason is of course is that not everyone accepts the mandate of league of nations as being the cut-off point before which status as 'indigenous' (in the ordinary sense) is ascertained)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That is phrased in such a way that it precludes any acceptable argument. generally accepted . .in such a way as to preclude further disputes. That condition subordinates RS to an impossible demand. It is impossible to 'preclude further disputes' on any issue regarding ethnicity and especially anything touching on the I/P area because everything is utterly politicized. Give a source, where the obvious (as above) is stated (see the succession of quotations in the lead of Palestinian people, which were bitterly challenged for a long time), and you will get persistent challenges. But wikipedia is supposed to rely on RS.

'Even the United Nations partition plan of November 1947 recognized the Palestinians as a people not only entitled to self-determination but also to genuine recognition as indigenous inhabitants of the land.Amal Jamal Arab Minority Nationalism in Israel Taylor & Francis 2011 pp.48-49

Main indigenous and minority groups: indigenous Palestinians 3.9 million (89%), Christians (most of whom are Palestinians) 200,000 (4.5%), Jews 500,000 (11.4%), Jewish settlers (a subset of Jews) 364,000 (8.2%), Samaritans 400 (.009%)World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Palestine : Overview.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said, it is extremely difficult to find any scholarly support for the view that the Palestinians are not 'indigenous' to Palestine.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, what I said is that noone has provided sources that have been considered to be sufficient to establish that palestinians are generally considered to be an indigenous people. There is nothing unreasonable in this. According to the UN all nations are entitled to selfdetermination, not just indigenous groups so the 1947 declaration has no bearings , since the contempoorary concept of an indigenous group did not exist at that point.

On the other hand IWGIA, one of the largest and most well established indigenous rights groups, quite explicitly do not treat "palestinians" as an indigenous group in their treatment of indigenous groups ion Israel and Palestine.[1][2][3][4]. I am in fact not aware of any major indigenous rights group that accepts Palestinians as an indigenous group. Book treatments of indigenous peoples also tend to not include them. And quite frankly I think the reason they don't would quite likely lead to the concept it self being delegitimized entirely in international politics, and the struggles of actual indigenous peoples who share a number of political concerns that are very different from those of the Palestinians would be eclipsed by the Israel/Palestine conflicts to the detriment of the causes of these peoples (exactly as it is happening on this page, in which quibbling over the world's favorite political conflict is overshadowing those peoples who have suffered graver injustices than both Jews and Palestinians for a much longer time). Palestinians are an occupied nation, not an indigenous people.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you tried to keep dismissive ejaculations like "nonsense" out of our exchange. I have no idea contextually what you specifically intend to dismiss by that.

Indigeneity is not an objective concept under any circumstances, but is always determined under socio-political negotiations.

Almost true. There are two forms of representation in these contexts. One is self-representation, the other, recognition of that representation by the prevailing national or political power, or by some supranational body. To say that the former must negotiate its self-representation with the latter before it can gain conceptual legitimacy is dubious.

I have absolutely no problem with your definition to which we are referred, where one reads:-

The other specialized meaning used by international organizations like UNESCO, ILO, WTO, IWGIA and by disciplines such as sociology and anthropology is about ethnic minorities within nation states of another dominant (often colonial)ethnicity

As I understand it, you have dropped the second part, and zeroed in on the first part referring to the definitions as given in international political bodies and institutions, definitions that are subject to the pressures of international politics. You freely allow that Palestinians may tend not to be included because their inclusion might delegitimize the quest of other indigenous groups for recognition of their rights. Well, we are talking of a concept, and if the criterion for inclusion in a concept is political, then you are right. I don't think that way, and I don't believe sociologists or anthropologists do either. There, analytical adequacy to a given or set definition, whatever the political fall-out, determines the case. There is a substantial literature on indigeneity in the Palestinian definition of themselves as 'an ethnic minority within a nation state of another dominant ethnicity.' It is a commonplace of the academic literature on the subject.

it is important to note that the idea of the indigenous group as a key component in analyzing the politics of Palestinians in Israel is not a new trend, as it is a core component of the basic assumptions of the many previous works.' See As’ad Ghanem 'The Victory of Discourse vs. the Retreat of Politics,'in The Middle East Journal,Volume 66, Number 2, Spring 2012 pp. 361-368, p.364 (which contains an extensive bibliography on the issue)

I provided what you requested, i.e., the data from the World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples, which includes the Palestinians. You don't answer but simply state that the IWGIA only classifies, among the Palestinian population, their Bedouin clans as indigenous, like the Jahalin tribe which is now being relocated to dwell on the Abu Dis rubbish dump. According to IWGIA, Israel refuses to recognize the Negev Bedouin as indigenous, but IWGIA does, despite that. Yet IWGIA Indigenous peoples in Tibet at the same time includes Tibetans. The Tibetan experience is perfectly parallel to that of the Palestinians. So that august body's taxonomy exhibits an idiosyncratic randomness that reflects political fears rather than analytical cogency, and I see no reason why your preference for political authorization over academic analysis is persuasive. To the contrary, where political pushing messes conceptual clarity, I retreat to scholarship, where of course politics plays some part, but peer review tends to spot it on sight, and adjust our categories to fit definitions and evidence, wherever they lead.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If we are to use scholarship, in place of politics, as the basis for inclusion, then we would have to include Jews too, which you seemed to argue against in one of your comments above. Analytically speaking, Palestinians are no more or less indigenous than Jews/Israelis (except foreign, non-Jewish migrant workers from China and whatnot). Palestinians do not predate the Jews in any meaningful way.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"Be polite, and welcoming to new users" and "Avoid personal attacks": Maunus has breached these rules more than enough times over the course of the past few days. Mind your manners. I will take the appropriate action necessary if you do not your attitude in here does not improve.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani - are you just making it up as you go? World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples does mention Palestinians, but only as a MINORITY, not as indigenous. They are listed FOUR TIMES, but

• here] as a minority in Syria
• here as a minority in Lebanon
• here as a minority in Israel that shares this status with the Negev Bedouins
• here as a minority in Jordan

On the other hand Tibetans are NOT just like Palestinians, having had their own Tibetan Empire about the time of the Islamic conquests. I don't recall there ever having been a Filistin Empire. Tibetans were ruled by proxy from China, and eventually re-occupied by the Communist Chinese. If the situation was similar for the Filistin, they would have been re-occupied by the Turkish Republic c.1930s has the British Empire collapsed completely during the Great Depression, or in the 1940s had Germany been victorious in the Second World War.Crock81 (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Crock81, those are good references, which would tend to support the case for including the Palestinians. Being a minority is usually a characteristic found in the prevailing definitions of indigenous peoples, though not a prerequisite.

I have to admit to not being well-versed in the history of the ME, but aren't the Jews and Arabs basically derived from a group of people having essentially the same genetic pool? That in turn renders genetics data of secondary importance to the historical disposition.

Furthermore, isn't the region referred to as the land of Canaan referred to as such because there were a number of comparatively small kingdoms and other polities, including your preferred referent of "Filistin", and that over the course of history those small kingdoms and polities were subjugated by empires or simply conquered and ceased to exist?--Ubikwit (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Not quite. While Palestinians are certainly a minority in every country except their own (although some would find this questionable considering they are themselves Arab-Muslim in a region that is predominantly Arab-Muslim), the same is true for Jews, who can legitimately be considered a minority in the context of the greater Middle East. So to include Palestinians, it follows that we would have to include Jews as well. Personally speaking, I think nationhood is irrelevant since the Kurds are included and they also have a country.

And in terms of etymology, the meaning of Canaan is still uncertain. Some have argued that it means "lowlands" in contrast to "highlands". Others have postulated that it means "Land of Purple".Evildoer187 (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ubikwit This is a list of Indigenous peoples not minorities, so the 'references' do not apply. Being a minority refugee population has no bearing on their indigenous identity.

Genetics do not come into the identification of indigenousness.

Filistin is a term that appears only in Arabic, and is extant only from the Islamic conquest of the 7th century CE, therefore separated from the city-states of the Plishtimby well over a millennium without any record of continuity of the demographic. No one suggests that the original Plishtim were in any way associated with the Arabs.

Canaan was initially known from the story of Abraham's life in the Torah, and their later defeat by the Israelites.Crock81 (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring everything else (which I've argued in the section below), I have to agree with Maunus here. Palestinians do not fit the international definition any more than Jews do.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That would mean something if you had any other evidence than your personal opinion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is the definition: "those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a apart of". So as far as that definition goes, Jews and Palestinians are in the same boat. They both inhabited the area prior to colonization (you can check the Wiki articles on them if you want proof), and yet neither are ethnic or cultural minorities in their respective territories/nations. Given everything you've stated above, you know this, but insist on being combative for no apparent reason.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I think you have wasted enough of my time with your blather at this point. Get sources to support your views or stop wasting our time.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Likewise.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Counter proposal in favor of including Jews and Palestinians, and applying a different definition of "indigenous"

I propose that we use a less narrow and more literal definition of indigenous for this article. The current one is nonsensical because it rests on the idea that indigeneity evaporates once an ethnic group achieves a nation state and majority status. I mean would you argue that a Persian or a Malay who has lived in their respective territories since the beginning is not indigenous just because they have a flag and international recognition? Of course not, but that's what this article seems to convey. My suggestion is to include all of the original peoples of a given continent or sub-continent. I also don't agree that this would simply result in "redundancy" or a repeat of the "Ethnic groups" list, as it would still exclude all post-colonial groups like the Afrikaners, Boers, non-Aborigines Australians, non-Amerindian Americans, Cajuns, and so on.

Under the definition I just proposed, obviously Jews and Palestinians would have to be included, as both ethnic groups/nationalities stemmed from, and are a continuation of, the original inhabitants of the Levant.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a bad idea as I think the common meaning of indigenous will be what readers will tend to understand, and not understand that it's being used in a special sense. Count Truthstein (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What sources would you base inclusion on? Since most sources that deal with "indigenous peoples" use the internaitonal legal definition. Also see this RfC from 10 months ago Talk:Indigenous_peoples/Archive_3#RfC:_Scope_of_this_article. Those arguments will have to be addressed. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So the definition is one which is used by international organizations. That's only a good definition if sources can be found which can label groups as indigenous or otherwise based upon this definition. At the moment, this article is very poorly sourced, so it's not surprising that readers don't understand how the term is meant and why some groups are listed and others (e.g. Jews, Palestinians) are not. True, most of the entries have not been contested, but if more of them were backed up, it would be more apparent what the criteria for inclusion were. Otherwise, this issue will keep on coming up, with discussions which are completely irrelevant to the main question: can sources be provided to show that this group has been categorized as indigenous by relevant international organizations. So until such sources can be found, I think it would be better to merge this article with a list of ethnic groups or the indigenous peoples article. But there is definitely a problem with editors continually challenging the scope of this and the other article, and I'm not completely sure how to stop this. Count Truthstein (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that can be used as sources for status as indigenous peoples under the international definition. There is in fact a very large body of academic literature on the subject. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So source them then. Otherwise, it will continue to confuse people and attract the kind of bickering we've seen an endless amount of on this page and others pertaining to it. I get that this is politically contested territory, but we have to look at facts here.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no reason or motivation to do that. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I just gave you reasons. You argued that sources exist which can be applied to the indigenous peoples currently listed. So why not just do it, and end the debate? Your attitude here is not particularly helpful.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Likewise.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Evidently, you could also add 'evasiveness' to that.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, I don't work for you, I don't have to do anything at all here unless I choose to. If you want to challenge particular entries add a "citation needed" tag and I'll decide whether to source it or remove it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You will decide? As far as I can tell, you do not own this page, nor are you any more of an authority here than myself. Please get off your high horse.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You are being obtuse. Yes, I will decide what I do with my time - I do not take orders or advice from you. And frankly I don't think I will spend more time talking to you, either since you are incapable of making a rational argument.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

"No, you will not, untill there is a consensus to do so." You'd be wise to take your own advice here. I have addressed all of the points made on this page as clearly and pragmatically as humanly possible. Since you've made it abundantly clear that you don't agree, I will simply wait for someone else to chime in.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I will edit the article in the manner that I have envisioned, and see what everyone thinks.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you will not, untill there is a consensus to do so.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is commenting here anymore, so what now?Evildoer187 (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing. For the record, I concur with Maunus's remarks. You have not made a case for your proposal, so it's in dead water.Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did. This section itself IS my case. It's not my fault that not enough people agreed with me.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I might need some help, as I'm only proficient with what I am (South West Asian).Evildoer187 (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Pointless to keep talking if no reference is provided.Moxy (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice added under Southwest Asia

It reads as follows: "Note: Even though Palestinians and the various groups of the Jewish diaspora are indigenous in the literal sense of the word, neither group falls under the scope of the international definition of "indigenous peoples"." It is meant as an explanation as to why neither Jews or Palestinians are included as indigenous South West Asian peoples (although it seems that someone else went to the liberty of including Israelites and Arabians anyway), and thus put a stop to the confusion, outrage, and edit warring that said exclusion has lead to in the past.

Although both the Jewish diaspora and Palestinians undeniably have roots in the Levant, neither group is indigenous under the parameters of the UN definition, as both groups already have their own ethnic majority state. Please do not attempt to argue otherwise, because it's a dead horse and it's probably best that we do not go down that path again.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(a)Your edit violates WP:NOR. (b) It flies in the face of the ongoing argument on the talk page (c) and since this is under discussion, you are not allowed to assert as given in the article, what is still considered dubious on the talk page. Read the rules.

Where is your source for the edit summary that 'Palestinians are not indigenous under international law.

Where is your source for the statement that 'Palestinians already have their own ethnic majority state'?Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

A. Nothing in my edit constitutes original research. It may not be sourced, but it's by no means original. B. In what way? C. Fair enough. D. Read the definition at the top of the page. Palestinians do not apply. E. It was just recognized a few days ago. Palestinians are an occupied nation, not an indigenous people. Evildoer187 (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

In short you can't supply the information I requested, and blather as a substitution. 'Palestinians are an occupied nation, not an indigenous people' is a meaningless, (and unsourced) opinion. I am interested in sources, not your opinion.

I am not trying to push the Palestinian agenda. I don't, as opposed to some here, edit in a point of view under challenge. I note that there can be a source-backed claim for the Palestinians as 'indigenous', but none, as far as I can see, for the Jewish population of Israel, which is a nation predominantly of settler immigrants. The only productive difference here is between Maunus and myself. He takes the narrow reading of indigenous per international organizations that deal with the question, I take a larger one, because the concepts is notoriously labile, and results from political interests (the UN distinction urges some groups to define themselves as 'indigenous' in order to acquire international legislative protection. All bureaucratic definitions are however fuzzy. See Will Kymlicka, 'The internationalization of minority rights,' in Sujit Choudhry (ed)Constitutional Design for Divided Societies: Integration Or Accommodation?, Oxford University Press, 2008 pp.111-140, esp pp.120ff.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

First off, I'm going to ask that you refrain from WP:INSULTS and debate respectfully.

Second, you clearly did not read the definition: "indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a apart of". This is the definition we are using here, and so long as the Palestinians have an internationally recognized state, they are not an indigenous people under international law. It's the same reason Persians, Turks, Jews, and Syrians are not included.

DEFINITION The definition used here "indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a apart of" can't be right because that would make Thais for example non-indigenous to their own country! This definition also assumes that indigenous populations will never regain their lands, but the ongoing indigenous conflicts world-wide and success of some suggest this not to be the case.

There is also the issue with the List of extinct peoples, i.e. those populations which were either destroyed or assimilated by the new arrivals which then re-settled the forcibly vacated lands. The process of conquest repeated many thousands of times around the globe over several thousand years of archaeologically recorded history, and there is no option than to accept the claims of the conquerors as being indigenous settlers, settlement being the best proof of possession. The question is who can substantiate the claim of settlement and which of the conquerors can enforce their claim. The last to claim the lands under question as occupied territories were the Royal Jordan Army after ceasing it from the British Administration following its post-Mandate withdrawal. Israel, in

Third, Jews are an ethnic group with roots in the Levant that go back thousands of years. It is true that they are also non-indigenous under the UN definition, seeing as they have a state now, but your insinuation that modern Jews do not have origins in, or historical ties to, the Levant is flat out wrong.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

To make an inference from a definition on the page, and using that inference, to edit in new material, is WP:OR. We go by sources,not by editors' personal deductions. Your thinking is so totally irrational, and therefore it's pointless to reply. On the one hand, Palestinians (those in Israel?) have an internationally recognized state and therefore are not indigenous (part of that 'state' is under military occupation and has no borders, one of the keynote definitions of a state). On the other hand Jews have a state in Israel, and are at the same time 'indigenous' (and are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state, Israel, that they are a apart of!!!!!!!!'). With that aliceinwonderland logic, I doubt you could fight your way out of a paper bag. Try it elsewhere, not on wikipedia. You are editing for a POV. Since you refuse to provide sources for the inclusion of Jews that fits the above definition 'indigenous to a territory prior to be incorporated into a nation state etc', you are, by logic, obliged to remove any material that goes in the face of that definition, including that by your new ally, crock. You revert my edits, and not his. He maintains the Jews are indigenous, you maintain the Palestinians are not. Ergo, POV-pushing, without sources.Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not say Jews were indigenous under international law. I merely asserted that Palestinians weren't either. Please don't put words in my mouth. Under the literal definition that I proposed earlier (i.e. the dictionary definition), I surmised that Jews and Palestinians could (and frankly should) be considered indigenous. As for Crock, I initially deleted his additions (as his first source seemed Biblical in nature, although he maintains it isn't), but I wanted to give him a chance to defend himself, and his sources, in here first. I have not deleted any of your edits, but merely reverted your deletions of my own.

In addition to the assumptions you've just made about me on here, I also discovered this little nugget on your talk page: "In short, you and Evildoer are combining to push into this article as well contemporary political rhetoric about Israel's right, as a state of presumptive autochthones, to take over the West Bank, whatever logic, the historical complexities of the issue, and the non-existence of sources for the notion of Jews as indigenous to Palestine allow us to say. The POV pushing comes out clearly in your formulation above"

This is an outrageous (not to mention offensive) accusation, as well as one that is not in line with the assume good faith rule we have here. Just for your information (although I'm sure you'll say I'm lying), I am opposed to the settlement project in the West Bank, and I support the Palestinians aspirations of nationhood. None of this is particularly incompatible with acknowledgement of the fact that Jews have firm roots in the region.

You seem to be getting very emotional over this, which is completely unnecessary. I really do not want to have to report you. However, I will not hesitate in doing so if you leave me no other choice.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, sir, your aggressive attitude here tells me that you are the one who is POV pushing. It's pretty well known by this point that the historically revisionist "Jews are just foreigners" argument is merely a rhetorical device meant to discredit Israel's right to exist. Nobody who has done any serious research on Jewish origins can claim with a straight face that Jews are not an aboriginal/pre-colonial population of the Levant.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TLDR Nishidani (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're too stubborn to read and absorb what I'm saying, then that's not my fault.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I take it there still is no references - thus it should still not be added. Just need a ref...not guess work.Moxy (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some misconception here.

In the first place the Biblical citations I gave are not references to my edits, but point to where the sub-group divisions in Israelite religious rituals originate.

I have provided two sources, one by an academic non-Jewish author, which confirm that within the indigenous culture "Jewish" does not exist, and is an imposed diasporic identity, and which was never used within the culture regardless of the location of the community.

Secondly, the United Nations is not the sole determinant of the indigenous status of the population. Even the Wikipedia article provides for two other international organisations.

However, the recognition of "Jewish" claims to the British Mandate of Palestine by the Balfour Declaration, and later the UN Special Committee on Palestine (1947) that confirmed this, by default assure confirmation of the claim, including that the state which was created, was named State of Israel, and not the "State of the Jews".

I note that denial of "Jewish" indigenous origins did result in charging Chandra Roy-Henriksen, Chief Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, with violating provisions of Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People and Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and other UN and United States antidiscrimination laws. Israeli representatives continue to attend Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

Interesting. Do you have any sources for that?Evildoer187 (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Never the less, I am happy to discuss the ways in which you think Israelites do not conform to definitions of indigenousness, UN or otherwise.Crock8 (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I posted numerous genetic studies stating that all major Jewish group have common Middle Eastern origin. As the nativity is genetically related and as there is clear genetic factual evidence that all Jewish groups are originating from Middle East (as it is directly written in Hammer and al, originating from ancient Israelites as it is wrriten in Behar and al I will revert any removal of this facts as they are sourced with the names of leading population genetic experts---Tritomex (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Unjustified reversion of edits

Nishidani, I just had a look at your most recent revert, and your edit summary was "Revert POV pushing and WP:OR violations for which there is no consensus on the talk page, nor support in sources"
I'd like to note that my editing: a) lacked any expression of my point of view, b) does not contain any original research, c) was never previously discussed, so d) could never have gained consensus a prori, and e) included no less than four sources all of which conform to Wikipedia standards.
I would therefore suggest that all you did was "good faith" vandalism.
Please desist from further such 'participation'.Crock8 (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in self-interested assertions, i.e. pontificating, but in relevant sources on topic. a prori is a priori. Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you are very interested since it is you who made the revert, the utterly misleading edit summary, and had been an edit warrior and disrupting editing of the list article. I suggest you look up what a priori means. I have read the talk page before editing. I put it to you that you have a political agenda that won't let any cultural sensitivities stand in the way, which makes you abusive of identity of Arabs and Jews alike, so long as you can have your way here, keeping the subject "controversial" Crock8 (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Definition of indigenousness

Here is a quote from a recent work on the subject which I think takes a better approach to the issue than Sanders.

This notion of 'cultural security and continuity' is a central aspect of Indi- genous peoples' relationship with their territories. As summarized by members of the former Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC)5: the land is the basis for the creation stories, for religion, spirituality, art and culture. It is also the basis for the relationship between people and with earlier and future generations. The loss of land, or damage to land, can cause immense hardship to Indigenous people.

(ATSIC 1997: 5)

The recently adopted UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does recognize Indigenous peoples' holistic approach to land rights. Article 25 of the UN Declaration affirms that: Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.

Hence, based on Indigenous peoples' holistic approach to land rights, the UN Declaration recognizes the cultural inter-generational approach to land rights. The holistic nature of Indigenous peoples' attachment to land is also reflected in the different legal attempts to define who Indigenous peoples are. While there are no agreed international legal definitions on who Indigenous peoples are, the different existing definitions agree on the specific territorial attachment of Indigenous peoples to their lands.

William Logan, Máiréad Nic Craith, Cultural Diversity, Heritage and Human Rights: Intersections in Theory and Practice, Taylor & Francis, 2010, p.33

It seems to me the list needs to be based on the establishment of existing or claimed land rights of the various entities in the list or those not in the list, but which ought to be included. Crock8 (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis of references

So I see that dispite the talks above this is still being added. The references do not say a thing about them being indigenous. Can anyone provided a source that says the people are indigenous and not just as synthesis of what the books says. At this point I belive we need a thrid party involved before blocks for disruptive editing are handed out.Moxy (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Moxy that you hadn't actually read the sources because they explicitly say exactly that! Crock8 (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

To quote Russell "More recently, scholars have emphasized the local archaeological data from Israel, which show clear continuity between Late Bronze Age "Canaanite" forms and Iron Age "Israelite" ones. These data suggest that Israel was indigenous." Crock8 (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

OOOOOOoo i see - that quote is from a different page then is quoted in the ref... Stephen C. Russell (2009). Images of Egypt in Early Biblical Literature: Cisjordan-Israelite, Transjordan-Israelite, and Judahite Portrayals. Walter de Gruyter. p. 197. - page 279 is the index of the book. As for the other ref "Spielvogel" is it in volume 2 or what ISBN # - because again I think its the wrong page ...as page 27 is about women Jackson J. Spielvogel. Western Civilization: A Brief History. Cengage Learning. p. 27. Lets fix these so the next person does not make the same mistake as I did thinking they were BS refs. Do we have any source that say indigenous under the current terminology? As can be seen by the recent revert - the type of source is being questioned. Moxy (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have and will continue to remove all material that attempts to insert a thesis that has no basis on the RS literature on indigenous peoples. The several attempts to do this with 'Israelites' (ancient tribe) to make modern Jews 'indigenous' to Palestine is a blatant case of non-sourceable wp.editorializing or theorizing or wp.synth. It's a thesis with no support. Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

He provided sources that meet all of the criteria for this article, and the sources he provided (in addition to common sense) all say that Israelites and their descendents (i.e. Jews) are indigenous to Western Asia.Evildoer187 (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Either study policy or keep off the page. I can have excellent sources on astronomy for a geology page, but it's the wrong page for that RS, such excellent RS are irrelevant to the topic. No sources have been given in his essay for the theory that the Israelites are 'indigenous' in the sense given here. No reference on indigenous peoples includes them. This is a list, not a place to make an argument as crock is doing. It's wildly WP:OR. Crock is publishin g his own short essay on wikipedia, and that's not allowed.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll just copy and paste this argument between Crock8 and yourself from the formers page, and post it here. This is so none of us have to repeat ourselves.

"== List of indigenous people - Israelites ==

(Moved after deletion by Nishidani from his talkpage) − I'm not sure why you reverted my edit last week, as you left no explanation.

− However, I noticed that I had made a mistake in any case, so I had placed it back in the corrected form.

− I might note, reading the extensive discussion in the talk page, that it seems Wikipedia editors involved lack cultural awareness enough to edit this article since you have been discussing the wrong subject!

− Please discuss before taking any further action. Crock8 (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

−

I gave an explanation: 'reverted crock'. Crock may be your handle, but the word, among other meanings, signifies 'nonsense'. I reverted a crock of crap, which you have now restored with this edit.

−

You are rude as well as ill-informed and tending towards being misleading. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

− −

• Arabians – a Semitic people who live in a tribal societies and maintaining ancient tribal affiliation, customs and culture. Found in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Israel (Negev), Sinai (Egypt), Saudi Arabia, Lebanon (Beka'a valley), Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman and Yemen.

−

• Israelites – An ethno-religious group of the Eastern Mediterranean with recorded settlement in the area of modern Israel, Jordan, Syria and southern Lebanon, that had been mostly exiled from their tribal lands. Subsequent exiles and cataclysms created a global diaspora. Since the creation of the state of Israel, its government enacted the law of the Right of return which anticipated the principle of international law, codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, giving any person the right to return to, and re-enter, his or her country of origin. This principle is sometimes reflected in special consideration in a country's immigration laws (called "repatriation") which facilitate or encourage the reunion of a diaspora.

− It's all a motherlode of crap because:-

−

• (1) Replacing Bedouins with Arabians consists in eliding a specific tribal group with an extensive page about it, by an indefinite term linked to an ostensible synonyn, on a new page that has no content other than a brief lead saying Arabians is the general term for a people sometimes called Bedouin. The page has no references save one, to the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Arabia, which talks of ethnic Arabs. Thus the Arabians are 'ethnic Arabs', but you don't even link to Arabs. The POV strategy is obvious.

−

The article is a list of indigenous peoples. Had you looked at the Arabs article, you will have seen that it, like the Arab people deal with the entirety of the global Arab populations. Arab tribes doesn't help much either. I would suggest, if you are so unhappy, to propose a merger of the four articles in whatever way please you, but Arabians, despite the obvious shortcomings of the article, suits the purpose of the list best. The use of Arab when referring to Bedouins is appropriate, while the reverse it seems is not, within the culture. Perhaps you can expand the Arabians article to a better standard? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

− −

• (2) Israelites. You haven't apparently even clicked on the link. The article is about 'indigenous peoples'. You have introduced a highly ambiguous historical, mythic term to smuggle in the POV that the Jews are indigenous to Palestine, which the talk page is undecided about, and thus are acting objectively on behalf of User:Evildoer187, to push this POV.

−

"a highly ambiguous historical, mythic term"? Israelites appears to be the correct plural adjective form in English of a member of any given ethnic group with a known place of origin, in this case Israel. Israeli, is not the correct grammatical adjective that would be Israelian, but Israelite is still a correct, though more archaic usage form. The people of Israel, Kingdom of Israel, and Israel as individual and community identity seem to have been fairly well established in history, Western and Easter, and supported by archaeology and linguistics among others. You may think its a 'myth', but its a fairly consistent 'myth' that the "Jews" preserved for over 2,000 years given the Greeks and Romans certainly believed it. But then, other cultures have myths also, right? So why don't you bring this up in other Wikipedia articles. If you are going to start debunking cultural myths, you may as well do a thorough job. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

− −

• (3)Israelites, in biblical lore, are an historic congeries of peoples, ancestral to the Jews, and neither in prehistory nor today an indigenous population. They are registered in ancient records in Egypt, the Sinai, in Syria and many other places, where biblical lore sets them. In the Biblical account they are nomadic tribes who invade Palestine and wrest it from the indigenous Canaanites. Secondly, the page lists contemporary peoples who are listed as 'indigenous' minorities. It does not list ancient peoples who may have been indigenous to a country. Thirdly, you provided no source saying these Israelites are listed as a (contemporary) indigenous people. There are no such sources.

−

Within the culture, the record (Torah) shows that the progenitor of Israelites, Abraham, purchased land in the Canaan. Lore to you, but cultural property to others. I think you are trespassing! It also details that he settled in the land, engaging in planted agriculture. That Israelites were nomadic is a theory. However, I would be happy if you enlightened me as to where in the Torah it says the Israelites were 'nomadic'. A subsequent invasion was in fact God-directed, so not really a subject to modern ethical analysis.

−

There are many contemporary indigenous people that are not minorities. In fact the largest indigenous people are the [Han Chinese|Han]] who are the majority in the Peoples Republic of China.

−

All indigenous peoples are 'ancient' by definition since most non-indigenous populations date only to early medieval (European) period, for example the Franks reaching the Pyrennes in the early 6th c. by displacing and assimilating the Gaulic Celts, or the Arabs (from 7th c.). The "Jews" however are fairly unique in that they have claimed a place of origin from the ancient times which comes with perhaps the best ancient identification of individual tribal lands and borders in existence.

−

Do you know what you are talking about in seeking a source for a "(contemporary) indigenous people"? If they are not 'contemporary', they are extinct! There are many such ethnic groups, and if you agree with the Nazis, Israelites also would have been "non-contemporary" along with Levites and Kohens. It seems to me that no sources are required to establish this fact. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

− −

• For these and many other obvious reasons, your edit was a 'crock', and will be reverted, I hope by neutral third parties who can see that your behaviour constitutes an intrusive attempt to tagteam and get round the objections on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

−

My avatar in Wikipedia is crock8, so I like to play with words just like you Glen, Glen West is it? However, it does not give you the right to sling personal abuse by converting my avatar to something entirely unsavoury.

−

As for tagteaming, cute try, but I had never heard of Evildoer187 until I started editing this list. I think this would be obvious from the edits.

−

Nor am I 'getting around' the objections raised in the talk page. Its just that the subject of the objections was wrong in the first place, as I informed when I began editing. Its called re-framing the question. I note that you make your entry there citing Tibetans and Basques, who are in fact Bodpa[ites] and Euskal[ites]. I therefore quoted John Trudell for your benefit. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

− −

• You are with this second edit further trying to game the process. The citation from Scharfstein reflects a religious POV, and happens to be controversial, not a statement of fact. The distinction between the ostensible self-defining ethnonym Israelites, and the putative foreign ethnonym, imposed on the Israelites by outsiders ignores the fact that the Hasmonean state used as its official term 'Judeans' to self-define, and used ḥever hayehudim on its coinage. Both Philo of Alexandria and Josephus use 'Israelites' for the Biblical era, and 'Ioudaioi' increasingly for for the post-biblical era, and their contemporary fellow Jews. and they are in this 'self-identifying'.

−

Of course Schaferstein is reflecting a religious point of view...its a book about religious rituals in Judaism!!! Doh! However, he doesn't seem to be the User:Schaferstein participating in the editing of this article. In what way is it controversial and not a fact?

−

The Hasmoneans were out to restore independence of Judea! What else would they put on the coins?! This did not overnight cause the Levites and Kohens to become 'Yehudim' from the date of minting!

−

You want to get into the analysis of why User:PhiloofAlexandria and User:Josephus switch between these terms? Are you saying that either of them made a difference to the self-identification of the millions of non-Levites and non-Kohens in their times? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

−

−

In short, you and Evildoer are combining to push into this article as well contemporary political rhetoric about Israel's right, as a state of presumptive autochthones, to take over the West Bank, whatever logic, the historical complexities of the issue, and the non-existence of sources for the notion of Jews as indigenous to Palestine allow us to say. The POV pushing comes out clearly in your formulation above:

−

'An ethno-religious group of the Eastern Mediterranean with recorded settlement in the area of modern Israel, Jordan, Syria and southern Lebanon.'

−

Actually, I reflect a plethora of maps way before any record of 'Palestinians' emerged in the 20th century which show Israelite tribal lands. Judea happens to be a reference to the tribe of Judah, and Samaria was the claimed capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. That you' read political overtones into the editing only says something about you. Most "Jews" appear to have a fairly good case of claiming for their land rights that geographic toponym from which the "Jew" is derived, but which only became "al-Ḍiffah al-Gharbiyyal" in 1950. So to be utterly consistent, those that live there are Gharbiyyalites, and I may well question their indigenousness. Instead perhaps you can find some sources of the Filistin indigenousness claims and claims of land rights in the Ottoman and earlier records? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

− −

Modern Israel does not refer to Judea or Samaria (the West Bank) which is where the Jewish people of high antiquity were concentrated. In leaving that obvious fact out, you are openly insinuating that Modern Israel includes the West Bank. I.e. you are pushing the settler POV of Eretz Israel.

−

The "West Bank" is not a recognised geographic toponym. The "al-Ḍiffah al-Gharbiyyal" was created only to distinguish the 30 deputies in the Jordanian Parliament from the "al-Ḍiffah al-Sharqiyyal", or "The East Bank" deputies. Since the west bank of the Jordan is not a useful geographic identifier of an area (being limited to a linear feature), I used more common and familiar identifiers. Is it my fault that the king of Jordan had no other Arabic name for his newly annexed territory? So what exactly do 'settlers' have to do with my editing? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

− −

Why do serious editors have to keep AGFing this continual incremental thrashing of POV bullshit in the encyclopedia by prevaricating blowins, who make their usual dozen edits in other articles and then zoom in on the only area that interests them as POV warriors?Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

−

Since apparently you think my editing is "continual incremental thrashing of POV bullshit in the encyclopedia", I will not give you the benefit of "AGF".

−

You accusations is striking though, as I have not edited so frequently in Wikipedia as you had, nor for so long, and this is my first dispute, which is more it seems than you can say.

−

I'm curious why you think that this "area" is the only one that interests me? Admittedly it is an area of interest, and it was only when I was wronged in a conversation, and informed that Wikipedia does not list "Jews" as indigenous that I was forced to wade through the "incremental thrashing of POV bullshit" in the talk pages before editing. I'm sorry you feel slighted, but facts are facts. Most "Jews" that care anything about their cultural practices know if they are Kohen, Levi or Yisrael. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)"

Evildoer187 (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nishadani, As I said above the population genetics fully support the common Middle Eastern origin of all major Jewish groups, as "originating from ancient Israelites" (Behar and al 2010) Any attempt to censor well established genetic facts, supported by numerous scholarly material will be reverted by myself.--Tritomex (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with genetics. This page lists people recognized by RS on indigenous peoples as indigenous peoples. If none of you can come up with a source for that, then refrain from messing up the page with this absurd POV pushingNishidani (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Until you can provide credible evidence that his sources are not RS (i.e. reliable sources), then the article stays as it is.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

-

Nishidani, you are clearly POV pushing. It is common knowledge that the Jews, as an ethno-religious group, have their roots, both culturally and genetically in the MidEast, more specifically in Israel-Palestine. Jews have had an uninterrupted presence in the region (as Mizrahim especially), regardless of waxing and waning in their population. This is clear to everyone involved in this absurd back and forth, except you. Further, to accuse others of pushing their POV while a very significant portion of your contributions to wikipedia center around the Israel-Palestine debate, working from a solely Palestinian and Arab Nationalist POV, is disingenuous, unintentional trolling at best. Most involved in the discussion regarding this issue, have been fine with including both Jews (or Israelites) and Palestinians (or Arabs) as indigenous to both Israel-Palestine and the greater Middle East, the fact that you are only concerned with removing references to Jews (or Israelites) as indigenous, belies your clear bias.User:HaleakalAri (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Read the page. There is a very specific definition of indigenous people. There are organizations that discuss, list and determine who qualifies. No one has shown that 'Israelites' figure in these lists. Crock invented an argument, that is not grounded in any relevant source on indigeneity. I'm not interested in your various opinion. I am waiting for someone to come up with a strong academic source that says that the modern Israelis and Jews are indigenous to Israel/Palestine in the face of what history tells of the formation of that state's demography, and in the face of the standard meanings of the word 'indigenous'.Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

No there is no specific definitions of indigenous people. I just red that article and I have to inform you that what is written in the lead (was a working definition proposal never accepted ) is misleading disinformation which has to be removed.[5] [6]

"In the thirty-year history of indigenous issues at the United Nations, and the longer history in the ILO on this question, considerable thinking and debate have been devoted to the question of definition of “indigenous peoples”, but no such definition has ever been adopted by any UN-system body. One of the most cited descriptions of the concept of the indigenous was given by Jose R. Martinez Cobo, the Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, in his famous Study on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations.[1] Significant discussions on the subject have been held within the context of the preparation of a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[2] by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations since 1982. An understanding of the concept of “indigenous and tribal peoples” is contained in article 1 of the 1989 Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, No. 169, adopted by the International Labour Organization....Similarly, in the case of the concept of “indigenous peoples”, the prevailing view today is that no formal universal definition of the term is necessary. So to use one proposal which was not adopted by any UN or other international body (but by some Labor organization) is unacceptable and has to be changed. As a reliable source for this question any dictionary can be used. Indigenous or Native people represent peoples belonging to, or connected with a specific place or country by virtue of birth or origin.[7] --Tritomex (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR

• Israelites – an ethno-religious Semitic tribal group of the Middle East with the oldest surviving settlement record in the area of modern Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria and southern Lebanon, that had been mostly dispersed from their tribal lands. Subsequent exiles and cataclysms created a global diaspora, who then settled mostly in Europe, North Africa, and other parts of the Middle East. This resulted in different diasporic names being imposed upon the populations: Jews in English speaking countries, the Ashkenazi (Hebrew for Germany), Sephardi (Hebrew for Spain), Mizrahi (Hebrew for Eastern), Yehudi (Arabic for Judah). Since the creation of the state of Israel, its government enacted the law of the Right of return which anticipated the principle of international law, codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, giving any descendant of the Israelites, Kohanim or Levim the right to return to, and re-enter Israel as their historic homeland. This principle was reflected in Israel's considerations in immigration laws (called "repatriation" or aliyah) which facilitate or encourage the reunion of the diaspora allowing entry to populations that had not resided in Israel for thousands of years, such as the Yemenite Jews. Nevertheless, large diasporic populations of Israelites currently reside in the United States, France, Canada, United Kingdom, and Argentina as a result of the fleeing the Holocaust and Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. A large remnant population also remains in Russia. The common native Middle Eastern origin of all major Jewish groups is supported by population genetics.

Apart from bad writing, this is an essay constructed to make out that Jews are an indigenous people in the sense 'indigenous' is defined in the literature on that subject. There has been zero efforts to show they fit the definition.

• Indigenous people regards native peoples of the modern world. No ancient indigenes are listed.
• The Israelites were an ancient group in the ancient world
• To get round this, the author says that the real name of all modern Jews is 'Israelite', hence they are identical to the indigenous population of the Middle East. All names like 'Jews'/'Sephardi'/'Ashkenazi' have been imposed on the Jews by foreigners. No proof, required for the general proposition (challenged in RS I mentioned on my page), exists for the idea that in each of these several populations the outsiders imposed the respective designations.
• No academic evidence has been given to show that the Israelites/Jews are regarded as 'indigenous' to the Middle East as opposed to hailing in part from the Middle East.
• The genetic evidence has no validity for indigeneity.

Israelite indigenousness is to the Eastern Mediterranean (Near East) is widely accepted in the academia, and is confirmed by a variety of data from multiple disciplines.

None of the modern indigenous lists include the Israelites. You cannot engage in 'original research' in order to smuggle in an idea unattested in the relevant literature. None of the RS above bears on the question of indigeneity. It's a personal construct with no foundations in RS. I shouldn'teven be required to argue this, the abuse being so patent. Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

- The idea is clearly expressed in a variety of relevant academic texts. That section is thoroughly sourced and you are simply melting over the fact that you're the only one who is taking serious issue with it. It is not at all a personal construct. Further, the study referenced on Samaritan genetic relations to various Jewish groups also supports the genetic link, and quite relevantly, the Samaritans not only consider themselves to be Israelites, but are recognized by a wide variety of reliable sources as indigenous to Israel-Palestine. The same can be said for Jews (and especially the Mizrahi variant). Lastly, your claim that genetics have nothing to do with indigeneity is patently false. There are several components to indigeneity, chief among them; genetics, culture and a historical connection to and/or presence in the land. All 3 of these criteria are clearly met by the vast majority of Jews.HaleakalAri (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani you violated 1RR, which could lead to block from further editing. More so, you have violated this rule 2 times. If you further continue with edit warring regarding this issue I will have to report you. The question of nativity is solely genetic question and if you did not read population genetic studies, please avoid commenting. Behar specifically states " Jewish genetic origin is consistent with the historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from the ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant" and the dispersion of the people of ancient Israel throughout the Old World"-

I've warned him repeatedly over the past week about the rules he's broken, which just resulted in him deleting the warnings. I am considering reporting him, but I have not decided yet.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. Tritomex reverted me before I could self-revert. This doesn't resolve anything of course. No one has produced any RS that Jews/Israelis are 'indigenous' to Israel/Palestine. In fact it defies all uses of the word, and all official cites dealing with indigeneity.Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes we have. Numerous reliable sources that you are either ignoring or choose to disregard because you disagree with them. There are several components to indigeneity, chief among them; genetics, culture and a historical connection to and/or presence in the land. All 3 of these criteria are clearly met by the vast majority of Jews.HaleakalAri (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Provide the source that defines Israel's population as 'indigenous'. Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• FOR NISHIDANI - you seem to have a problem. Your problem is that you have no respect for culture. Anyone's culture. I appreciate that Wikipedia does not accept the "Bible" as a reliable reference source, but the TaNa"Kh happens to be a number of cultural property texts, cultural property, that define the Israelites as a culture. Aside from this important fact, which can not be disputed, it also provides one of the few sources of knowledge about the Eastern Mediterranean indigenous milieu over a period of over a thousand years for which there is only scant support from other sources. If not for the Torah, almost nothing would be known about the very early processes of regional tribal relationships and interactions. One of the very VERY interesting things about the Israelite text is that it clearly states the progenitor of the Israelites came to the region from elsewhere, bought land for a ritual burial, and took land that was apparently undisputed to commence settled agriculture. During all this, including a temporary departure of the descendants due to harsh environmental factors, there wasn't any dispute to the Israelite claim to the land. The Canaanite tribe details given in the Torah are the best detail records of the regional culture available, and no one would dispute the Canaanites were indigenous to the region, which makes Israelites their contemporaries.
• Israelite is not a reference to an ancient 'biblical' population, but is the reference to an ethno-religious group that has an extensive cultural practice spanning over 2,500 years of referring to themselves in this collective term Yisrael, which best translated to English as Israelites. "Jews" is about as accurate a term to apply to these people as calling all Europeans 'ferenji' (from French) in Arabic, or for that matter Europeans calling all Arabic speakers 'Arabs', though within the culture tribal identities have community, society and even international implications.
• Ethno-religious means that the culture determines individual's membership in the community by mechanisms other than blood relationships. Genetics research is therefore fairly useless in identifying who is an Israelite, though more so where Kohens are concerned. Wikipedia 'doesn't have a say in cultural practices of any one culture on this planet. It simply records the facts.
• Clearly you don't like these particular facts. You seek for example some mythical "definition of indigenousness" although none exists. Wikipedia for example questions the claim by the Kelts that they are indigenous to Europe, but include Crimean Karaites who were not recognised as being of Semitic descent only by the Nazis. I think there is something seriously wrong with this list article. Crock8 220.238.42.127 (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

They are right in front of you.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, for an outsider, could you give me a quote or two? For contemmporary Israelites of course. And hopefully something that matches with the way the lead describes the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Quotes from population genetics experts

1. Behar and al 2011 [8]

An illustrative example at K58 (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Note 3) is the pattern of membership of Ashkenazi, Caucasus (Azerbaijani and Georgian), Middle Eastern (Iranian and Iraqi), north African (Moroccan), Sephardi (Bulgarian and Turkish) and Yemenite Jewish communities in the light-green and lightblue genetic components, which is similar to that observed for Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, suggesting a shared regional origin of these Jewish communities. This inference is consistent with historical records describing the dispersion of the people of ancient Israel throughout the Old World.Our conclusion favoring common ancestry over recent admixture is further supported by the fact that our sample contains individuals that are known not to be admixed in the most recent one or two generations."

"Our PCA, ADMIXTURE and ASD analyses, which are based on genome-wide data from a large sample of Jewish communities, their non-Jewish host populations, and novel samples from the Middle East, are concordant in revealing a close relationship between most contemporary Jews and non-Jewish populations from the Levant. The most parsimonious explanation for these observations is a common genetic origin, which is consistent with an historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant"

1. Hammer and al 2001

"The Jewish populations were characterized by a diverse set of 13 haplotypes that were also present in non-Jewish populations from Africa, Asia, and Europe. A series of analyses was performed to address whether modern Jewish Y-chromosome diversity derives mainly from a common Middle Eastern source population or from admixture with neighboring non-Jewish populations during and after the Diaspora. Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities. A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non- Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora."

1. Atzmon and al 2010

"Jewish Populations Form Distinctive Clusters with Genetic Proximity to European and Middle Eastern Groups In this study, Jewish populations from the major Jewish Diaspora groups—Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi—formed a distinctive population cluster by PCA analysis, albeit one that is closely related to European and Middle Eastern, non-Jewish populations. Within the study, each of the Jewish populations formed its own cluster as part of the larger Jewish cluster. Each group demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry."

1. Nebel and all 2001

[9] Nebel and al 2001 "Our recent study of high-resolution microsatellite haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome pool (Nebel et al. 2000). Of those Palestinian chromosomes, approximately one-third formed a group of very closely related haplotypes that were only rarely found in Jews. Altogether, the findings indicated a remarkable degree of genetic continuity in both Jews and Arabs, despite their long separation and the wide geographic dispersal of Jews. " "

1. Predicting Ancestry and Phenotype Using DNA by Tony Nick Frudaki

[10]

1. Campbel and al 2012 [11]

"Jewish groups generally demonstrated closer relatedness with other Jewish communities than with geographically near non- Jewish populations...These findings demonstrated that the most differentiated of the North African Jewish populations was Djerban. The smallest FST was between Greek and Turkish Sephardic Jews (FST = 0.0024), who were close, in turn, to Italian, Algerian, Moroccan, and Ashkenazi Jews. The second smallest FST observed was between Algerian and Moroccan Jews (FST = 0.0027). As a point of reference, the average pairwise FST between Jews and non-Jews (excluding African and Asian reference populations) was 0.019. Thus, North African Jews were identifiable as a third major group along with Middle Eastern Jews and European/Syrian Jews, albeit with a higher degree of relatedness to European Jews

Of course there are many additional material as well--Tritomex (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Question - are you implying (inferring) that the genetic data says they are indigenous because I dont see that term used anywhere. In fact its states clearly they are decedent of a Middle Eastern ancestral population that is related to others in the area. Moxy (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont know why you are not seeing obvious facts-all this genetic studies clearly confirm " shared Middle Eastern origin of Jews" This is a quote-and beyond any reasonable question. Originating from Middle East, being native to Middle East or indigenous to Middle East are exactly the same terms.Of course I did not copy/pasted whole studies, yet this are terms usually used--Tritomex (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The data does not imply what your assuming at all - your guess that they mean Native or indigenous - infact your quote above proves this "shared" this means from the people before them for more info on this topic see Genetic studies on Jews (note how old the y-DNA types are).Moxy (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex of course the Ashkenazi population has ME genetic markers, so do Italy's Tuscans. On how many pages do you have to hammer at the obvious? This has nothing to do with the concept of indigeneity which the page defines as

"those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a apart of".[

How do Israelites fit that definition? I.e. how were 'Israelites' the indigenous population of Canaan, then incorporated into a nation-state, presumably the The United Monarchy of Israel, who then remained 'politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are (present tense) a apart of.' How are, again, the Jews or Israelis the indigenous population of a nation-state (Mandatory Palestine or Israel as the case may be) who were incorporated into Israel, and remain separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state of Israel, which is a Jewish state? I mean, really, this is utter garbage.Nishidani (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Moxy I am very much familiar with the article to which I was one of main contributor. The word "shared Middle Eastern ancestry of all major Jewish groups" is directly taken from Hammer and explains that all major Jewish groups have shared and common Middle Eastern origin. If you insist I can find you 20 identical quotes, from another studies, yet you can do it for yourself by simply reading those genetic studies. If your allusions have to do something with racial purity, genetically there is no a single ethnic group on planet without genetic admixture from outside.--Tritomex (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok this is good turn of events - as a geneticist I take it your fully aware that Jews are not used in studies of indigenous populations at all. So why would you assume that "shared Middle Eastern ancestry of all major Jewish groups" means indigenous? Dr. Michael Hammer of the University of Arizona does not make this indigenous claim - its you assuming that "shared and common" means indigenous in someway - pls see THE JEWISH STORY AND A REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA EVIDENCE - As a someone who also writes articles like Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas I am concern with interpretations over stating what is actually said.Moxy (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no specific definitions of indigenous people. I just red that article and I have to inform you that what is written in the lead (was a working definition proposal never accepted ) is misleading disinformation which has to be removed.[12] [13]

"In the thirty-year history of indigenous issues at the United Nations, and the longer history in the ILO on this question, considerable thinking and debate have been devoted to the question of definition of “indigenous peoples”, but no such definition has ever been adopted by any UN-system body. One of the most cited descriptions of the concept of the indigenous was given by Jose R. Martinez Cobo, the Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, in his famous Study on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations.[1] Significant discussions on the subject have been held within the context of the preparation of a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[2] by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations since 1982. An understanding of the concept of “indigenous and tribal peoples” is contained in article 1 of the 1989 Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, No. 169, adopted by the International Labour Organization....Similarly, in the case of the concept of “indigenous peoples”, the prevailing view today is that no formal universal definition of the term is necessary. So to use one proposal which was not adopted by any UN or other international body (but by some Labor organization) is unacceptable and has to be changed. As a reliable source for this question any dictionary can be used. Indigenous or Native people represent peoples belonging to, or connected with a specific place or country by virtue of birth or origin.[http://www.thefreedictionary.com

We could work on the definition - but will have to pass on any definition by a dictionary - would be best to use proper ref like Wilhelm Kirch (24 July 2008). Encyclopedia of Public Health: Volume 1: A - H Volume 2: I - Z. Springer. p. 741. ISBN 978-1-4020-5613-0..00:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Moxy I am medical doctor, pediatric geneticist. The person named Ellen Levy-Coffman is charlatan. She never carried out any genetic study among Jewish people, nor she ever participated at any, she is not geneticist, her article is self-published website, and full of major errors which no one familiar with population genetics would made. You have some 20 genetic studies carried out by world leading geneticists like Hammer, Behar, Shen, Semino, Atzmon, Harry Ostrrer, Thomas, Campbell, Kopelman, Nebla and others to name some of the most important names. To quote Hammaer "Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non- Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora." Read our article mtDNA studies carried out by Behar and autosomal DNA studies. All this studies confirm the Middle Eastern origin of all major Jewish groups and what is "shared" is their common origin. Off course as all peoples, Jewish people also underwent admixture, however their Middle Eastern origin is scientifically undeniable. Considering the term "indigenous people" geneticist use usually other wording,(geographic place+origin) and as this term ("indigenous people") is not defined through universal definition, we can see why. Today I will be absent, tomorrow I will be back.--Tritomex (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes very good point, Wilhelm Kirch book seems very good as a source for the definition. I will work on lead from tomorrow--Tritomex (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The error here is, the page has a definition which excludes the inclusion of material you favour. Hence you procede to change the definition in order to make it compatible with your proposed edit. That fails all basic methodology.

Your second problem is is you are mixing a selection of stray remarks in genetic papers written by geneticists with no grasp of up-to-date historical and linguistic scholarship concerning the origins of Jewish male populations as often as not, with a concept of indigeneity that has nothing to do with genetics, and the result is WP:OR. You may or may not be a geneticist, but you show no understanding of historical method, nor of what the phrase ‘the paternal gene pools’ implies. The male gene pool shows ME origins, the female gene pool is far more heterogeneous (Genetic studies on Jews). It is totally arbitrary to make conclusions from one of several data. If someone is of mixed Irish and Japanese descent, (s)he could claim Irish, while ignoring the other side, or claim Japanese descent, while passing over in silence the Celtic factor. People are profoundly irrational when their identity, which is a cultural construct, is mentioned. Logic says mixed descent implies mixed origins, not one origin, and this is the case in all of the genetic papers you marshall. The point was well point by Halkin recently:-

'And who is we? Each of us has had many thousands of forebears, and each of those had many thousands in turn. The traces of millions of human beings are in our minds, our hair, our eyes and noses, our inner organs, the shape of our toes, our trillions of cells. By pure chance, two of these trillions are passed on unchanged and can be given labels like R-M117. Instructive as they are, we needn’t make too much of them.' Hillel Halkin Jews and Their DNA at Commentary, September 2008

In Jewish law, descent is by the matrilineal line, not the patriarchal line. This is in conflict with the geneticists who casually assert that the ME descent evidence is proven from the paternal gene pools. There is a fundamental conflict between identity as a religious concept, and identity as a genetic concept. The selective use of sources to prove a theory is not proper to Wikipedia, which must simply survey the state of opinion. There is no source for your repeated use of the concept of consensus on any of these questions. As with Ashkenazi Jews a very large body of historical, linguistic and cultural work has arrived at no consensus, despite you insistent defense of passages which assert that. That page looks irretrievable now because of the confusion caused by loose use of genetic papers that appear to assert what the relevant scholarhip (Jacobs, Wexler and many others) say is a theoretically unresolved question. My position has consistently been to survey the variety of theories on this issue, never to take sides, as you and evildoer are consistently doing. Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Taking sides? I offered to include both groups. You haven't. If anyone here has a bias, it's probably you.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I have included neither, but shown that in the indigeneity literature, there is support for the Palestinians as indigenous, but no mention of the Jews. Therefore these edits are anomalous. I certainly am not going to introduce the Palestinian material, though it might squeak through. I oppose any attempts to finangle the evidence in order to argue that the Jewish population of Israel is 'indigenous'. Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a straight up lie. I saw your argument with Maunus, you did lobby to get Palestinians included and not Jews. Both are equally qualified for being considered indigenous.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And yet again - how a culture identifies itself has nothing to do with the genetic data that can be gathered on it. In Judaism in particular the maternal identifier prevails, and inclusivity is a part of the legal lore of Judaism, with both the Christian and Islamic religions borrowing the concept of conversion which didn't exist until the Torah. Many Israelites are virtually indistinguishable from their diasporic host populations, for example the Yemenite community, so what are you going to do, institute a DNA test for the test on who is a "Jew"? That would be telling the state of Israel how to identify its demographic, which is way more of a responsibility than the job of an encyclopaedia. <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

'the concept of conversion which didn't exist until the Torah.' What's that got to do with the price of fish? This is not a forum for discussing Judaism. It addresses a specific question: are the Israelites of the Ist millenium BCE to be included, uniquely, in a list that deals exclusively with contemporary indigenous peoples. The anomaly of this position is blindingly obvious, as is the POV pushing behind it.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The definition of indigenous we use here does not say anything about "contemporary" or "ancient" peoples, so your argument isn't valid.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani Although you have showed that you are totally unfamiliar with population genetics you keep commenting on this issue, even making certain claims and mixing religious law with the science-To claim that some of the most notable scientists and population geneticists are " with no grasp of up-to-date historical and linguistic scholarship" is not just WP:OR it is unbelievable that you entitled yourself to such remarks, maybe because you see yourself as " up-to-date historian and linguistic scholar"

For your knowledge, although I cant spent here my time explaining you the basis of population genetics ,the Middle Easter origin of Jewish groups is both paternal and maternal. Humans have 44 autosomal chromosomes and 2 sex chromosome X or Y. 23 chromosomes are inherited from mother, 23 from father. Autosomal genetic studies confirmed the Middle Eastern orgin of all Jewish groups. The same is truth for Y chromosome. Concerning X chr. Behar and most of recent studies confirmed also the Middle Eastern origin for at least 40% of Jewish females.--Tritomex (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The question of indigenous status does not directly relate to genetics. It relates to whether a group of people inhabiting a defined territory have been subjected to oppression by a superior entity constituting a nation state and marginalized in their own territory.

That's odd, because I could have sworn this also applied to Jews in relation to the Romans. So I guess the Jews just forfeited their homeland to the Romans willingly?

The Palestinians clearly fit the description, whereas the Jews were themselves usurpers of territories of the Canaanites, which in turn is irrelevant as they were groups contesting the territory and of cultural parity. That is ancient history, and has nothing to do with this article. In fact, as I have stated below, the Jews were newcomers to the territory in question which has a history of many thousands of years before Jews came into existence. The Canaanites, like the Israelites, are groups that exist only in the distant past in history.

Ubitwik, this is some of the most mind-numbing and self-defeating logic I've ever read in my life. So Jews were usurpers of the Canaanites, so what does that make the Arab tribes from whom Palestinian Arabs descend culturally and genetically, whereas the Jews, Samaritans, Druze, and others who lived there much earlier don't? It is true that they also have Canaanite/Hebrew ancestry (hence their closeness to the Jews), and this is why they are indigenous along with the Jews.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Genetics holds no sway over the fundamentally anachronistic thrust of the arguments being made by those in favor of including "Jews" or "Israelis/Israelites" on this list.--Ubikwit (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Genetics is one of the chief components of indigeneity, along with culture, and historical connection. It seems that you just wish to ignore it because it's inconvenient.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What is your source for that claim about genetics? You make a lot of assertions and provide no sources to support them. I consider it to be a waste of my time to have to repeatedly ask you for sources.

See the criteria in the UN document Defining "Indigenous Peoples". As the document in question can only be viewed by downloading it, a quick word for word copy of the criteria should suffice.

"This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors:

a) Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least part of them;

b) Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands;

c) Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.);

d) Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language);

e) Residence on certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world;

f) Other relevant factors."

I would also recommend doing a quick Google search of UN Indigenous Definition. TL;DR version: Genetics, culture, and historical connection are all there. Jews fit the criteria.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You've also added "culture" and "historical connection" without sources defining the relationship or supporting your claim, whereas I have already provided several sources relating to historical connection as well as the modern historical context. The has been much discussion in relation to "contemporary status" on this Talk page, and the concensus would appear to be that we are not talking about ancient history, no matter where anyone chooses to arbitrarily start.

There is nothing, anywhere, in international law, or in the definition at the top of this page, that excludes indigenous groups on the grounds that their connection is "ancient". In fact, it does the opposite.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you examine the UNPFII page on thematic issues, for example.

I've already posted the link to this UN document once, but I'll do it again here, with emphasis on the modern historical context, for your consideration. I would imagine there will be aspects that you could try to appropriate and apply to modern day Jews, but note that the discussion addresses colonization and the USA, Canada, etc., not the Assyrian or Roman empires of ancient times. And the indigenous peoples of those countries were not driven into a diaspora, just segregated, etc.

State of the World's Indigenous Peoples, p.1

For centuries, since the time of their colonization, conquest or occupation, indigenous peoples have documented histories of resistance, interface or cooperation with states, thus demonstrating their conviction and determination to survive with their distinct sovereign identities. Indeed, indigenous peoples were often recognized as sovereign peoples by states, as witnessed by the hundreds of treaties concluded between indigenous peoples and the governments of the United States, Canada, New Zealand and others.

--Ubikwit (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I see nothing that denotes "indigeneity starts here, at this point in time" or "ancient peoples or tribes excluded", either explicitly or implicitly, in any document pertaining to indigeneity, including the one you just linked to.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The following sentence is the definition stated in the lead, and the definition includes the term "national state", which refers to a modern construct, i.e., the nation state. This is not about ancient history, but the current state of affairs between peoples and the polities in which they live. It is not about when it starts, but that it has a start and continuity; most of the people in question are the only people known to have inhabited the lands in which they are recognized as being indigenous. They were primitive peoples that were "discovered", as it were.

Wrong. Nation states have existed since antiquity. Greece, Rome, Egypt, Persia, to name a few. Until you show me a clause that explicitly or implicitly states "ancient peoples need not apply", then there's little reason to take your mental acrobatics seriously. As I have demonstrated earlier (see UN document "Defining Indigenous People", Section 2, which I have quoted above), Jews fit the criteria for indigeneity, as do the Palestinians.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

In the case of the Israelites, that was not the case; in fact, they took over the land of a group of peers with whom they were forbidden to intermarry. Furthermore, with regard to continuity, only 4% of the population of Palestine was Jews in the mid 19th century, for example, even though there was nothing preventing them from living there. They were a diaspora people, not indigenous to anywhere. Contrast that with the Ainu of Japan, for example.

"those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a apart of"

--Ubikwit (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

There is a consensus based on archaeological findings that Jews/Israelites stemmed from a Canaanite source population. There weren't any invading Babylonian hordes that subjugated the native Canaanites and established a kingdom. Those who established the Kingdom of Israel were Canaanites, basically. You keep ignoring that point, and I don't know why. I never said anything about Jews being excluded from living in Ottoman Palestine (Roman Palestine is a different story), although they did at one point institute strict policies against letting non-Sephardic Jews live in the area, if I recall correctly.

Regarding your quote, neither Jews or Palestinians fit that criteria as both have nation-states now. The only difference is that one is occupied by the other.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ubikwit Biblical narratives and other religious texts are not RS, for Wikipedia. There is almost unanimous agreement among historians and geneticists that ancient Israelites developed as a people from what we use to call Canaanites, through social and religious revolution and without the well known biblical stories about the exodus from Egypt or the conquest of Canaan.Please familiarize yourself with this issues.--Tritomex (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

'Tritomex,while Wikipedia may not recognise religious texts as reliable sources, because the Torah is a central source of identity of the Yisrael, to deny it means to they identity to the cultural heritage and entire of the entire ethnicity. This is NOT within the providence of an encyclopaedia. It is the culture's own choice what it regards as a 'reliable source' of it's own practice, given the source was from God. You may be an atheist, but denying the use of the text to this culture IMPOSES ATHEISM, which is actually a denial of human rights according to the UN universal charter. Based on this I will seek to take administrative action against you and any other editor that takes the same line of 'argument' in disrupting editing Crock81 (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, I'm familiar with the version of the origin of the Jews from the Canaanaites, or the so-called "friendly infiltration" version, as I believe someone has put it. But that simply leads to the conclusion that the Jews and Palestinians, whom I believe are also said to be derived from the Canaanites and share genetics characteristics, both arose from the same population base and are separated now on the basis of religion and history. That history encompasses the Jews going into diaspora while the Palestinians remained in Palestine continuously during the approximately 1800 years or more after the destruction by the Romans to the return of significant numbers of so-called Zionist Jews starting from the mid 19th century.

"So-called"? What are you trying to suggest here? That the Jews who made aliyah from the 19th century on were fake? Correct me if I'm wrong.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Jews accomplished that with the help of the British empire, which had adopted the notion of British Israelism, as it had proved a doctrine useful in the colonial enterprise involving Christina missionaries, etc. It is by and large a historical fact that the British helped the Israelis colonize Palestine, and then relinquished their mandate, effectively abandoning the Palestinians before an international consensus could be reached as to what was to become of the territory in terms of it administration and existence as a polity. According to that interpretation, Zionists were colonists, basically, backed by an empire that was sympathetic to their religion and hostile to the religion of the Palestinians.

You really need to check your facts. Britain was not sympathetic to the Jewish people. Rather, they were at war with the Ottoman Empire and believed the "international Jewry" would be a great asset to them.

"Thus the view from Whitehall early in 1916: If defeat was not imminent, neither was victory; and the outcome of the war of attrition on the Western Front could not be predicted. The colossal forces in a death-grip across Europe and in Eurasia appeared to have canceled each other out. Only the addition of significant new forces on one side or the other seemed likely to tip the scale. Britain's willingness, beginning early in 1916, to explore seriously some kind of arrangement with "world Jewry" or "Great Jewry" must be understood in this context." http://books.google.com/books?id=y0tJgT37PIQC&lpg=PP1&dq=the%20balfour%20declaration&hl=sv&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

You also neglect to mention that the British back-pedaled on their promise to the Jews, a result of Arab uprisings, and for years blocked Jewish immigration into British Mandate of Palestine, arguably when Jews needed it most (see: White Paper of 1939). I could go on, but I'll stop there for the time being.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

At any rate, the continuous inhabitants of Palestine were marginalized on their own land, and all of the core factors of the definitions of indigenous apply to the Palestinians, while only a couple apply to the Jews, whereas a number of the defining traits of an oppressor of an indigenous people apply to the modern state of Israel.

Show me. It's time for you to put up or shut up. Because all of the criteria I've seen, and posted in various places on this talk page, show that Jews are an indigenous people.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

In terms of genetics, it would seem to be obvious that admixture among Jews returning from diaspora would make them less ethnically homogeneous than the Palestinians. The Jews returning from the diaspora did so from diverse locations and cultures. I believe that someone cited genetics data stating that only 40% of Jewish women have the corresponding DNA markers. Genetics does not seem to be of primary importance in this debate.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Palestinians are definitely not homogenous. They have substantial ancestry from Arab, European, and Sub-Saharan African sources. And yes, genetics are of significant importance according to the UN document on defining indigenous peoples.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ubikwit Wikipedia can not be used as political battle ground and for taking sides in certain political conflicts in this way. If you belive that "Israelis colonize Palestine in the colonial enterprise involving Christina missionaries" you should avoid editing Wikipedia because this kind of unbalanced ideological POVs,personal political attitudes are not allowed in Wikipedia. To claim that "Zionists were colonists," and similar unbalanced POVs which are insults against an entire nations, is something that you can do in political organizations (if you live in democracy) bit not in unbalanced objective sites like Wikipedia is. Btw I would say the same if someone would deny the right of Palestinians to exist, or call them as a nation -colonizers.--Tritomex (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Israelis and Palestinian

Note copied from Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#

There is currently an edit-war here about the inclusion of Israelis and to a lesser extent Palestinian people. There have been a few references provided (see below) - however some editors believe they do not qualify as proper references under the current inclusion criteria for the page as defined in the lead AND/OR that the conclusions inferred by the genetic and biblical references are original research. Looking for outside input on the situation that has lead to an ongoing edit war.Moxy (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Stephen C. Russell (2009). Images of Egypt in Early Biblical Literature: Cisjordan-Israelite, Transjordan-Israelite, and Judahite Portrayals. Walter de Gruyter. p. 197.
• Jackson J. Spielvogel. Western Civilization: A Brief History. Cengage Learning. p. 27.
• http://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6769.full.pdf+html
• http://bhusers.upf.edu/dcomas/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Behar2010.pdf
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072/
• http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/43026_Doron.pdf
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18733/

Moxy, at no time did I edit anything to do with the Palestinian people, so that would be no extent.

Biblical references were NOT provided, and I said so again in talk, yet this was ignored.

NO references dealing with genetic research were provided, so 'some editors' invented this...a sort of edit-OR.

Its a rather one sided edit war because I had not been reverting anyone's editing, given no one had actually edited anything other than myself!

So exactly what would you call your comment? <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Please be aware that there are other people involved and the comments above we not specifically directed towards you. As seen in the conversations above we are talking about genetics and some biblical references have been introduced during this topic of conversation.Moxy (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No Moxy, until I edited (added content) to the relevant section it had been frozen through pointless discussion. The 'biblical references' you speak of were used by myself, but not as refrences but rather pointers to source of the cultural practice in the relevant text of the Torah, the core texts of the Isralites. No other 'people' were involved until I was summarily reverted with little explanation or summary, so I had to put all that in for a certain single user. Please kindly stop "flaming the fire" where there wasn't even a 'smoke' <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear that the assertion of Israelis or even Israelites as indigenous people is anachronistic and incorrect.

The Israelites either emerged from within the population of the Cannanites according to one theory, or took the land of Canaan by force from the Cannanites according to another theory. In either case, they do not fit the definition of indigenous.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, have been subjugated in their own land since the unilateral recognition by Harry Truman of a "Jewish state of Israel", subverting the UN process to set up an inclusive modern pluralistic polity in the former UK-administered territory, which had come into existence in Roman times, as I seem to recall.

Waiting for some input on the question of the Palestinians, and any counters on the Israelites/Israelis.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I have just reverted your edit (it's been 24 hours, I believe), because your justification for it is nonsensical. Your post provides nothing in the way of evidence that Israelites are less indigenous than say, Arabians, which you did not delete. Furthermore, Palestinians have a state, as do the Jews/Israelites. I don't even know what to make of the rest of your reasoning. Somehow, a group that predates any Arab presence in the region is less indigenous than the Arabs? Correct me if I'm wrong here.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

@ Ubikwit - Yes, how dare a people retain their identity for over 3,000 years where other tribes around them disappeared! Making a mockery of the English Wikipedia that uses two different words to describe the same people. The cheek! I say remove all mention of the "Jews" from Wikipedia. That will make life much easier for so many, right <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That does not make them "indigenous" to lands that were lost during ancient times in a region where civilization predates their coming into existence by thousands of years.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

And here-in lies the true reason the editing of this list is so controversial - "The Palestinians, on the other hand, have been subjugated in their own land since the unilateral recognition by Harry Truman of a "Jewish state of Israel"". All indigenous people have one single denominator, the claim to land rights. You say that the Palestinians have such a claim and the "Jews" do not. Yet the Torah describes both the Israelite coming to, purchase and settlement of the land, its eventual reconquest and resettlement, and the creation of a tribal federation, a united kingdom and two Israelite states before any presence of Arabs in the area.

Where does the Palestinian land claim originate from? They are undoubtedly Arab ethnically. Is there a Banu Filistin in the Arabic, Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Greek or Latin sources? Is there such a people even in the Islamic texts? Is there a defined land claim that can be identified through land marks in the way the Israelite texts describe theirs? Has there been a continuity in the Banu Filistin land claim against conquering Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Caliphate, Ottoman and British empires? I look forward to references 220.238.42.127 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)<Crock8>

This is not a place for religious references. The Torah is irrelevant, as are all other religious sources. The term Palestine dates to the 5th century BC according to the Wikipedia article Palestinian people. Harry Truman was a Christian biblical literalist who also happened to be a Freemason and close acquaintance of Zionist activist Chaim Weizman, which many associate with the Knight Templar, who rose to prominence through the Crusades to the so-called Holy Land. The Crusaders thought that they had a claim to "land rights", based on religion--Christianity. Your assertions are all either misdirected and irrelevant, or simply incorrect. The questions relating to Jews seem to be primarily about religion, and staking claims based on an anachronistic religious basis, encompassing the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation by "settlers" of the current and actual holders of the rights to lands in question.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I just saw this now. If it isn't already completely over the line, it sounds dangerously close to an antisemitic conspiracy theory. This sort of thing has no place on Wikipedia. Take this Orientalist horseshit back to Stormfront, where it belongs.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The above is the first instance of a bigoted assertion on your part. Keep your amateurish anti-Semite hunting obsession and bigotry out of this discussion. If you can't discuss history like an adult, you don't belong on this page.--Ubikwit (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

My comments are not bigoted. I am beginning to think you don't even know what that word means. If you cannot see the antisemitic tropes present in your own argument, that is not my problem.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You raise a number of points and ask some convoluted questions, but I'll try to address the briefly.

First, The Wikipedia page on Arabians is under construction and has almost no background information, and I don't have any expertise in that area. You may be correct that the modern kingdoms/sheikdoms of Arabia are also recently established polities (mostly after WWI?), but the Arabs, in particular, the Bedouins and the Palestinian Arabs in Israel are mentioned in a United Nations document on Indigenous people's issues, so they are not anachronistic: see first two references on p.151 <Ubikwit>

I don't have time right now. I'll take a look later.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: Found the references, although it's also worth mentioning that denial of "Jewish" indigenous origins did result in charging Chandra Roy-Henriksen, Chief Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, with violating provisions of Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People and Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and other UN and United States anti-discrimination laws. Israeli representatives continue to attend Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. So it seems that Jews are indigenous under international law as well.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not seem that "the Jews are indigenous under international law", you are arriving at that conclusion through POV analysis which is, as far as I can see, erroneous and based on false conjecture. It would appear that the Israeli participants were trying to hijack the forum in order to bolster their assertion of a claim to "indigenousness".

Ubikwit, these are some fairly outrageous accusations, certainly more fitting of being designated as POV analysis than what I have written. You would never have accused Bedouin from the Negev desert, who were also initially excluded from the conference, of trying to "hijack the forum". Nope, it must be those wily, conniving, manipulative "Jews".Evildoer187 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Chandra Roy-Henriksen was not "charged" by a prosecutor, but charges were leveled against her by the Jewish organization that is filing a civil suit, apparently. The last sentence in the article states: "There is no question that the Jewish People meet the UN Criteria for being considered indigenous." That is obviously not the case, and what unfolds in the civil suit should be relevant regarding the disposition of Jews to claim indigenous status. The modern state of Israel is considered to be illegally occupying Palestinian territory, in case you need to be reminded of that salient fact.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

And what "unfolded", Ubikwit, was that Jewish groups are allowed to attend the forum, and continue to do so to this day. You are correct that Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank and Gaza (or what was officially recognized as Palestine about a week ago), but I'm not seeing how this proves Jews are not indigenous. Two states for two peoples has always been the official policy, but extremists on both sides of the fence want the entire thing.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It is apparent that you have access to references related to the case at issue other than the perhaps poorly presented version in the apparently right-leaning newsmedia article for which you provided a link.--Ubikwit (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Those references would seem to make it somewhat problematic as to how to characterize "Arabs" on the list, but it seems that they belong there. <Ubikwit>

I agree that Arabs belong there, but so do Jews.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Israel, on the other hand, is listed as the opposite of indigenous in the UN document with respect to Palestinian Arabs residing in Israel and attending public schools. That would seem to make the categorization of Israelis as indigenous problematic. You make the contentious claim that the Palestinians have a state, but even if that were the case, they are still considered to be people indigenous to that region, whereas the Israelis are a recent influx, and it would seem that the "Israelites" ceased to exist when the Jews were dispersed into the diaspora, approximately two thousand years ago. I don't think that there is anything errant in characterizing their inclusion anachronistic in that sense, at any rate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikwit (talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Ubikwit, you will note that when the "Jews" began to lobby for the re-creation of Israel with the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th century, and simultaneously with the European powers that the "Jews" be allowed to migrate to the Ottoman-held lands, they did so under the name Israel. There are ample records of various organisations and funds existing in different European states, all using various forms of Israel, that supported the return of "settlers"

I can't find any references to Jews as non-indigenous. Either way, this argument that Jews are a "recent influx" does not follow because Jews have had an uninterrupted and unbroken presence in the area since ancient times, predating any Arab presence (in the Levant, at least). Regarding the diaspora, they are confirmed to be closely related genetically and culturally to the Jews who remained, as well as the Palestinians, which is why I consider both to be indigenous. Maybe a more modern terminology is required, but I don't see how you can consider Jews non-indigenous as they are also one of the original peoples of the area.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The Jews were certainly one of the early peoples of the area, but that is an involved issue, as the region had been inhabited (by Canaanites?) for thousands of years before Judaism came into existence, as attested to by Egyptian and Hittite sources. I was under the impression that very few Jews resided in Palestine, until the 20th century. <Ubikwit>

P.S. Do not break up my edits here in a manner that obscures who write them and when.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

The Canaanites are a people from whom both Jews and Palestinians claim descent. For instance, there has been archaeological evidence that Israelite culture evolved from Canaanite culture, and Jewish presence in the area only declined significantly (but not completely) following the Jewish-Roman wars in the first millennium AD. Given the genetic closeness of diaspora Jews to Palestinians and Samaritans, it seems clear that all three are about equal in terms of descent from the Canaanites.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Israelites do not claim descent from Canaanites. In fact there was a prohibition to intermarry with them due to their religious practices. <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps more relevant to this article are the two sections in the Palestinian people article, "Politicized lineages" and "DNA and genetic studies". --Ubikwit (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I personally believe that, if either Palestinian Arabs or Jews are included, that we must handle it as delicately as possible. And also, we should add references to the various genetic, archaeological, cultural, linguistic, and historical evidence that links both groups together. This way, neither group is unfairly or inaccurately painted as "colonizers" or "aliens" in what both consider to be their historic homeland.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not a matter of "fairness" based on your emotional proclivities, the Jewish state of Israel is recognized by the UN and under international law as illegally occupying Palestinian territory. The Palestinians are the indigenous people according to those current circumstances, and that doesn't even address the Arabs (Bedouin and Palestinians) in Israel.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

It's actually a matter of being objective and not favoring sides, but I can see you're interested in neither of those things. I don't think you recognize how easy it is to turn your own flimsy logic against you. For instance, the Jews in Arab lands who lived there for centuries, long before it ever had any Arab identity. This would apply to the Mizrahim, the Samaritans, and yes, to the so called "European settlers" in Israel/Palestine whose culture is widely agreed upon to be an outgrowth of the indigenous Canaanite culture and were themselves colonized by the Romans. As far as I know, nobody contested Bedouin indigeneity. We're saying Jews and Palestinians also meet the criteria.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I should note that denial of "Jewish" indigenous origins did result in charging Chandra Roy-Henriksen, Chief Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, with violating provisions of Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People and Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and other UN and United States antidiscrimination laws. Israeli representatives continue to attend Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Evildoer187 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you repeat this false assertion again? The article makes no statement that she "denied Jewish indigeneity", she simply prohibited two groups from participating in a conference.--Ubikwit (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Because it isn't a false assertion. It happened.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll repeat my response. Chandra Roy-Henriksen was not "charged" by a prosecutor, but charges were leveled against her by the Jews organization that is filing a civil suit, apparently. The last sentence in the article states: "There is no question that the Jewish People meet the UN Criteria for being considered indigenous." That is obviously not the case, and what unfolds in the civil suit should be relevant regarding the disposition of Jews to claim indigenous status. The modern state of Israel is considered to be illegally occupying Palestinian territory, in case you need to be reminded of that salient fact.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

In order to avoid repeating myself, I will just redirect you to my response to these same points above.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what the argument is that requires inclusion of Palestinians in the article IF the "Jews" are included. The entries need to stand on their own referenced 'legs'. No other entry is based on the inclusion of some other peoples as a compromise <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Requests for page protection

I do not see an end to the edit war....thus have requested the page be locked (Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection).Moxy (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. I suggest we revert the page to what Maunus suggested i.e. leaving both Jews and Palestinians out.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Moxy, you INVENTED the "edit war" and so your request for page protection has no basis of fact <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done page locked.Moxy (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A Call to Reason & Neutrality

There is not an edit war about the inclusion of Israelis and Palestinians. When it comes down to it, 'Israeli' much like 'Palestinian' is for the most part a nationalist identity. What this edit war revolves around, is the inclusion of Jews / Hebrews / Israelites (or specific variants thereof) as indigenous to the Middle East. Much like Arabs, they are by and large a Semitic people, who have uncontested origins in the Levant, with an unbroken history of residence in and connection to the greater Middle East. Originally, I opted for the inclusion of Mizrahi Jews specifically, which seems to have developed into the larger argument you are seeing now. Need I remind all of you, the section that we are arguing about here is Western Asia, and it would be just as foolish and incorrect to exclude Jews (or at-least Mizrahi Jews) from this category as it would be to exclude Arabs or Samaritans.

In regard to Palestinians, much like Israelis, they are an extension of the nationalist aspirations of Arabs and Jews, respectively. If we are nitpicking, the list should simply include Palestinian Arabs and Mizrahi Jews. To avoid further edit wars, simply 'Arabs' and 'Jews' could be included (or excluded), as any argument for one and not the other, is clearly POV pushing and coming from a place of bias or political motivation. There are a wealth of academic texts and genetic studies supporting a variety of views on the topic, amongst them are many that conclude both Jews and Palestinians to be indigenous to Israel-Palestine and obviously, the greater Middle East. In conclusion and in the interests of promoting the neutrality that wikipedia strives for, I suggest that both Jews (or Israelites / Hebrews) and Arabs are included on this list. If not, they should both be excluded. Anything else would be a victory for partisanship and bias.

TLDR: This is a discussion about indigenous peoples of Western Asia, NOT Israel-Palestine in specific. Clearly, both Jews and Arabs, two semitic peoples who have uncontested roots and uninterrupted history in Western Asia, should be included on the list (or excluded) and then the page should be protected.HaleakalAri (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well said, and I agree completely.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I do have one problem though. I think adding Mizrahi Jews, Samaritans, and no one else would still give the foaming-at-the-mouth fanatics what they want. Their main target for exclusion has always been the Ashkenazi Jews who pioneered the Zionist movement and who largely continue to be the centerpiece of the anti-Israel propaganda war. If our goal is to remain neutral, then we should just leave it as "ethnic Jews" (with a paragraph clearly stating that Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Italqim, etc all have roots in the Middle East) and "Arabs". Either that, or we exclude both.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Correction - Israeli is not a "nationalist identity" in the 19th century political sense. Israeli and Israelite are two forms of writing Yisrael in English. It is a cultural identity recorded in writing for over 3,000 years. In this it is nationalist as defined in the article, since "Jews" take the patriotism literally as fatherland, i.e. the land of the forefathers commencing with Abraham.
• Only Arabs can claim descent from Abraham, but none had ever claimed land rights north of Arabia, and Islamic conquest of former Byzantine territories do not claim reconquest of previously lost lands. Bani Yisrail were accepted as the indigenous population of the land formerly known as Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Secunda. It says so in SURAH 17: AL-ISRAA (THE NIGHT JOURNEY, OR BANI ISRA'IL, OR THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL), VERSES 001-111. Judaism's own texts acknowledge Arab travellers in their own lands from very ancient times, but never as residents <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Double Correction - Israeli is indeed a "nationalist identity" ("Of or relating to the people or the republic of Israel" -Merriam-Webster). That is how it is used now. That is what it means. It is absolutely not the same as 'Israelite'. Also, the Qur'an and any other religious scriptures have no place in this discussion. Also, Also, in the candyland of Abrahamic-Religions, Jews are indeed the descendants of Abraham, just like Muslims. Thanks for the weird etymology and Islamic scripture lesson though.HaleakalAri (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This page may be protected

An editor has filed a complaint at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement#Evildoer187 about breakage of the WP:1RR restriction on this article. My proposed remedy is to put List of indigenous peoples under full protection for two months. During that period, any changes would have to be made through edit requests after getting consensus here on the talk page. If you have an opinion on that proposal, or other ideas on how to limit the edit warring on this article, you can comment at WP:AE#Comments by others about the request concerning Evildoer187. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fair. However, it is best that we leave the West Asian section as Bedouin, Marsh Dwellers, and Samaritans for now. We should wait until we reach an agreement before going any further than that. I would also counsel against reverting to the older version you recommended, as it contained various inflammatory adjuncts such as "pre-Zionist", and I can not see that ending well. At the very least, we should exclude the Old Yishuv, Mizrahim, Israelites, Jews, Palestinians, and Arabian categories.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. I suggest simply leaving the page in its current state.HaleakalAri (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. This is a suggestion devoid of any basis! The Israelites are indigenous though a continuous land claim to the region over three millennia, yet somehow their inclusion in the list is linked to the 20th century political conflict. Only in Wikipedia! Crock81 (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Modern history, the concept of the "national state", and Palestine

First, since there would seem to be a majority of editors here in favor of including "Jews" or "Israelis" on this list, several basic aspects of the definition of "indigenous people" should be clarified. Generally speaking, the concept is applied to minority groups of people that were inhabiting a territory prior to the incursion into that territory by a culturally more advanced external power in early times (such as the Ainu of Japan), or a modern nation state/empire (e.g., the Australian Aborigines, the Maori of New Zealand, the American Indians of the USA).

And this would apply to Jews.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It is clear from the following discussion of demographics in Palestine that there were very few Jews in the region prior to the Zionist movement, which was backed by the British Empire. That would seem to make it clear that the territory of Palestine has been subjected to colonial or neo-colonial oppression. Furthermore, the majority of the Jews that migrated and settled in the region were from Europe. demographics since late 19th to early 20th century

It is clear that the Palestinians and Arabs belong on the list, as they were the indigenous inhabitants prior to the disruption instigated by the British Empire, partly at the behest of British Zionists.

Had you been referring to the period between the Roman colonization of Israel and the British Mandate of Palestine, then you would be correct. However, you have failed to make that distinction here, so you are rightly being called out on it. Furthermore, if the Jewish people are somehow not indigenous because they wrested the territory from the Canaanites (despite archaeological evidence to the contrary), then by that logic it would appear that Palestinians are not indigenous either, since they are ethnically Arab.

As far as your claim that Zionism was a project of "settlers from Europe", it was more accurately the project of an indigenous group returning from the diaspora. In addition, the majority of today's Israeli citizens (or "settlers", according to you) are actually Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews from Arab and Islamic countries. There are also smaller numbers of Jewish groups from India, Africa, and even China, but genetics does not support a Middle Eastern origin for these groups.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The establishment of the Jewish state of Israel is now a fact and its existence is recognized under international law, and the fact that there are oppressed minorities of indigenous people, i.e., Bedouin and Palestinian Arabs, within Israel is addressed in the UN document cited above.

Palestinians have a nation-state, albeit an occupied one, so they do not apply any more than Jews do. Although various Jewish and Palestinian NGOs attend forums on indigenous rights, as I have shown you before. And once more, you are ignoring the remnant Jewish minority that inhabited the region up until the British mandate. Now they're apparently not indigenous because A) they're no longer a minority and B) they're not being oppressed.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

References to religious documents, such as the Torah, and characterization of Jews as "one of the original peoples of the region" are not only inapplicable in the above-described context, but irrelevant and unsourced POV based on emotional proclivity, not reason.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

They most certainly do not belong on the list any moreso than Jews do. I will respond to the rest of what you have written to me later. I just woke up. Evildoer187 (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have a factual basis for making such an assertion, it might be better to wait until you do.

I think that the sources I've cited make it clear that Jews and Palestinians are separated more by religion and history than genetics, and with respect to history, they represent a group of people that should be characterized as indigenous according to the criteria of this page and the UN, whereas the Jews have a "Jewish state of Israel", and have no claim to being indigenous to anywhere at present--having returned to Palestine from Europe--though they can trace their origins to the same land of Canaan as the Palestinians.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Need I remind you, again, that Jews have maintained a continuous and uninterrupted presence in the area from the age of the Canaanites (from whom the Jews branched off) up to the British Mandate. Further, you make it sound as though indigeneity is something that can just evaporate over time, over circumstances beyond their control. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. If it did, then the Palestinian refugees dispersed all over the world (in a similar fashion to the Jewish diaspora) would have no basis for their claims of "Right to Return". And again, what of the Palestinians who descend largely from invading Arab tribes (whereas Jews mostly don't) during the Islamic conquest?Evildoer187 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ubikwit, you will note that my edit stated the Israelites are an ethno-religious indigenous population, where as the same can not be said for the Arabs who have a pagan pre-Islamic history the evidence of which has largely been destroyed, as are the early Islamic sites. Therefore genetics will not mean much given the Torah explicitly states there were a large number of non-Israelites that accompanied the people from their Egyptian exile, and that provides for accepting converts, including as detailed in later texts, into the royal family. Any statements made by geneticists about the current genetic data of the population therefore will not reflect the historical land claims to the region by all representatives of the population, those that remained in the land, and those in the diasporic communities. In fact I would suggest to you that your suggestion of basing membership in the Israelite nation on genetics may be quite insulting to a large number of its members, most notably Beta Israel. The UN does not have a definition that can in any way be interpreted to deny Israelites an indigenous status. The Filistin can not trace their origins to the same land of Canaan, because they never conducted a Conquest of Canaan after which Canaanite city states ceased to exist.Crock81 (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Kurds

Come to think of it, why hasn't anyone included the Kurds on this list?--Ubikwit (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

The case for including Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis as an indigenous Western Asian group

Given the criteria of the definition of indigenous peoples as defined under international law, particularly "Defining Indigenous People" Section 2 which I will explain in a moment, it would be inaccurate and an exercise in historical revisionism to include Palestinians in the list and not Jews. Here I have produced a word-for-word copy of the criteria, lifted directly from the document, as it is download-only and cannot be linked to on here. However, a quick Google search of "UN working definition of indigenous peoples" should lead you directly to the document itself.

Now without further ado...

"This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors:

a) Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least part of them;

b) Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands;

c) Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.);

d) Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language);

e) Residence on certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world;

f) Other relevant factors."

Reading this, it should be apparent to anyone with extensive knowledge on Jewish history that Jews fit the bill to a tee. All of this is roundly supported by genetic, historical, linguistic, archaeological, and cultural evidence. There is also a consensus based on archaeological and other findings that the Jewish people are an outgrowth of Canaanite culture, and are thus not foreign conquerors from Babylon as has been posited by less than reliable sources. The idea that Palestinians are indigenous, and the Jews are not, is not supported by the facts on the table, especially considering Palestinians are ethnically Arab/Muslim, who are arguably even more recent than the Roman colonization of the Levant. It's also worth mentioning that denial of Jewish indigeneity resulted in charging Chandra Roy-Henriksen, Chief Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, with violating provisions of Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People and Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and other UN and United States anti-discrimination laws. To this day, Israeli and Jewish representatives continue to attend the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, as is shown here: http://firstpeoples.org/wp/tag/american-jewish-world-services/

Another UN definition of indigenous peoples. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf

"Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body. Instead the system has developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following: • Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member. • Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies • Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources • Distinct social, economic or political systems • Distinct language, culture and beliefs • Form non-dominant groups of society • Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities."

With the exception of part 6 (i.e. "Form non-dominant groups of society"), according to which Palestinians (whose culture and ethnic identity is that of the Arab colonists from the 7th century) and Arabs in general would also be excluded, Jews meet virtually all of the criteria listed. I will also add, since I'm sure it will be brought up again, that there is no clause or provision whatsoever in international law that excludes, either explicitly or implicitly, ancient and long displaced peoples like the Jews from recognition as an indigenous people.

One last thing, I would also like to charge Ubitwik of promoting some rather crass antisemitic conspiracy theories on the talk page, as evidenced here:

"Harry Truman was a Christian biblical literalist who also happened to be a Freemason and close acquaintance of Zionist activist Chaim Weizman, which many associate with the Knight Templar, who rose to prominence through the Crusades to the so-called Holy Land. The Crusaders thought that they had a claim to "land rights", based on religion--Christianity. Your assertions are all either misdirected and irrelevant, or simply incorrect. The questions relating to Jews seem to be primarily about religion, and staking claims based on an anachronistic religious basis, encompassing the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation by "settlers" of the current and actual holders of the rights to lands in question.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit"

And here....

"It would appear that the Israeli participants were trying to hijack the forum in order to bolster their assertion of a claim to "indigenousness". Chandra Roy-Henriksen was not "charged" by a prosecutor, but charges were leveled against her by the Jews organization that is filing a civil suit, apparently. The last sentence in the article states: "There is no question that the Jewish People meet the UN Criteria for being considered indigenous." That is obviously not the case, and what unfolds in the civil suit should be relevant regarding the disposition of Jews to claim indigenous status. The modern state of Israel is considered to be illegally occupying Palestinian territory, in case you need to be reminded of that salient fact.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit"

Evildoer187 (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is an even shorter criteria for defining indigenousness

1. a priority in time

2. the voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness

3. an experience of subjugation, marginalisation and dispossession

4. and self-identification

and

"...the objective and observable traits (from clothing to behaviours) that conform to the dominant definitions of what it is to be Indigenous."

In terms of a distinct culture, there are two aspects

• culture provides a stock of knowledge – a cognitive component – that is a basic foundation for social behavior; it includes cultural symbols and language
• culture provides elements necessary for the maintenance of integration and conformity in society – a normative component - ways of specifying the correct ways of thinking and behaving and of defining morality; it includes values, Norms (Folkways/conventions & Mores/laws) and their social sanctions.

It seems the Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis fit this criteria in their own right.

1. There are no regional populations with older claims to the lands as outlines in Judaism's core cultural texts

2. It seems there is a wide range of sources that support Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis history of perpetuating cultural distinctiveness even during attempts to suppress them

3. There are many sources for supporting the Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis experience of subjugation, marginalisation and dispossession several times in the region and in the diaspora

4. With the exception of the Kohen and Levi, there is a continuity in Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis self-identification as such and with the Land of Israel

5. Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis continue to use distinctive clothing found in their foundational texts such as Tzitzit and Tefillin which are distinctive to their culture regardless of the period and circumstance. In terms of behaviour, Tefillah as a ritual and time-specific community behaviour is also unique to the people; a practice attributed for its origin to the fore-fathers. Other objective and observable traits include specific age of 'adulthood', dietary practices, the obligatory writing of sacred texts and observing a work-free day of the week.

6. Distinctive cognitive and normative cultural aspects to the Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis communities and societies exhibit continuity in adherence to their sacred texts written in own language, which are a large body of legal concepts and rituals extended by the oral tradition that had been used as a benchmark by the Christian and Islamic cultures, and extensive use of cultural symbols, including as the emblem on the coat of arms of the state of Israel.Crock81 (talk) 08:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The case for excluding Palestinians as an indigenous Western Asian group

Do Palestinians fit the criteria that defines indigenousness, e.g.

• a priority in time
• the voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness
• an experience of subjugation, marginalisation and dispossession
• and self-identification
  

and
"...the objective and observable traits (from clothing to behaviours) that conform to the dominant definitions of what it is to be Indigenous."
In terms of a distinct culture, there are two aspects

• culture provides a stock of knowledge – a cognitive component – that is a basic foundation for social behavior; it includes cultural symbols and language
• culture provides elements necessary for the maintenance of integration and conformity in society – a normative component - ways of specifying the correct ways of thinking and behaving and of defining morality; it includes values, Norms (Folkways/conventions & Mores/laws) and their social sanctions.
  

1. There is no claim by the Palestinian population to existence prior to the creation of the Roman Syria Palaestina province in 135 CE following the defeat of the Bar Kokhba Revolt

2. The modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab with no perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness, and indeed the celebration intended to showcase this was called the Al-Quds Arab Capital of Culture and not Al-Quds Filistin Capital of Culture

3. There is no record of the Filistin experience of subjugation, marginalisation and dispossession prior to the 1834 Arab revolt in Palestine, also known as the Arab Peasants revolt because until then under the Ottoman Empire, the Southern part of Ottoman Syria's Arab population mostly saw themselves as Ottoman subjects.

4. Earliest national self-identification is suggested by a modern Israeli scholar as coming from Khayr al-Din ibn Ahmad ibn Nur al-Din Ali ibn Zayn al-Din ibn Abd al-Wahab al-Ayubi al-Farooqui c. late 17th century. The city's construction where Khayr al-Din al-Ramli was born dates to the turn of the 8th century, its name derived from the Arabic word for sand, and was began by the descendants of the Caliph with origins in the Arabian region Najd, literally Highland, from the central region of the Arabian Peninsula. Although al-Ramli does mention in his al-Fatawa al-Khayriyah the concepts of Filastin, biladuna (our country), al-Sham (Syria), Misr (Egypt), and diyar (country), in senses that appear to go beyond objective geography, they do not clearly state a claim to land, nor the identity of the claimants, nor the basis for such possible claim, or even the borders of Filistin beyond those imposed by the Ottoman rule.

5. To quote Wikipedia's own article on the Palestinian people Ancestral origins section "Like the Lebanese, Syrians, Egyptians, Maghrebis, and most other people today commonly called Arabs, the Palestinians are an Arab people in linguistic and cultural affiliation. Since the Islamic conquest in the 7th century, the Palestinians, a Hellenised people, came under the influence of the Arabic-speaking Muslims, whose culture they adopted. This confluence was historically formative for modern Palestinian culture as we know it. Genetic research studies suggests that present-day Palestinians have roots that go back to the ancient inhabitants of the area.

George Antonius, founder of modern Arab nationalist history, wrote in his seminal 1938 book The Arab Awakening: " The Arabs' connection with Palestine goes back uninterruptedly to the earliest historic times, for the term 'Arab' [in Palestine] denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from the Arabian Peninsula who occupied the country in the seventh century, but also the older populations who intermarried with their conquerors, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently arabised." Antonius, a descendant of the Greek population in Lebanon and Egypt, neglects to mention that Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis were also among the "older populations" subjected to Hellenization, but who did not become either completely Hellenised, or later Arabised, and while adopting some aspects of both cultures at various times, preserved their own rather than completely assimilate. Subsequently the claim to the "earliest historic times" is an empty one given there are no objective and observable evidence to support the claim.

6. I am unable to establish any distinctly Filistin cognitive or normative traits or behaviours Crock81 ([[User

talk:Crock81|talk]]) 08:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Where did you get this criteria from? Without a source, it's impossible to take any of this seriously.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it's very compelling information, which provides a counterpoint to the people who assert that Jews should be excluded from the list.HaleakalAri

Perhaps. We need a source though, otherwise it's useless.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are asking me where I got the criteri from, than you haven't done even the most basic of research on the subject. I suggest you do that first before continuing your 'arguments' Crock81 (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Protected per a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement

This page has been fully protected two months under WP:ARBPIA per a decision at WP:Arbitration enforcement. The complaint stated there was a dispute about inclusion of either Israelites or Palestinians as indigenous peoples. The best way to resolve this is probably a WP:Request for comment. In your reasoning, please use reputable scientific findings and (if you can) international law. Citations to the holy books of various religions and to religious tradition may not be found credible. You can use {{editrequest}} to ask for changes to be made during the period of full protection, when such changes are either uncontroversial or are supported by consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I always thought the best way to deal with discussions is to produce facts and use logic rather than stop discussion Crock81 (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the discussion at the complaint page has been closed

I will post my response to Ubitwik's response to me on here instead.

Accusations of collaboration and misrepresenting facts aside, which I will address in a moment, I feel that Ubitwik's persistent historical revisionism and twisting of facts is detrimental to the process of resolving this dispute. It is also inherently harmful to Wikipedia's stated goal of creating a high quality, well-rounded, and neutral encyclopedia.

First, Ubitwik's claims that Jewish NGOs attempted to hijack the forum, that the UN forum blocked both the Bedouin and Israeli NGOs for this same reason, and that the Israeli government was using the Bedouin to force themselves on the agenda seem to be little more than conjecture and POV analysis, both of which are forbidden on here. As is indicated by the quotes Ubitwik himself provided, these same organizations had been present at the conference in the years prior to this issue. The official story is, in the following order:

You haven taken my working-level comments out of context and distorted the fact that they were not intended for inclusion in an edit but for improving the editing on this article overall. The two NGOs mentioned in that article were one representing the interests of Bedouins (Negev Coexistence Forum for Civil Equality, an Israeli Bedouin rights organization) and the other appearing to represent the governments position, as per the passage quoted from the article under your no. 6 below. Note that the "other organization" that created the report is not identified, but the report is obviously critical of the Bedouin. So you have two NGOs on opposite sides of the same issue from Israel, and issue that would apparently be of overall low priority to the conference as a whole, yet the OFICL NGO fielding the largest number of representatives at the conference of any country. The inference I make from the context of the article are not unreasonable.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Let's see now...

"In light of the fact that the following reference is cited in the document State of the Indigenous Peoples of the World, p. 151, it would appear that the Israeli organization sent an overwhelming presence to the conference in order to dominate the forum, and that to prevent that from recurring both the Israeli and Bedouin groups were blocked. It can be imagined that the issues at hand regarding the world's multitude of indigenous peoples demanded the attention of the participants, whereas the issue of the plight of the Bedouin had been stonewalled by the Israeli government, and from the description of the report the OFICL presented, they would seem to have been presenting the governments position vis-a-vis the Bedouins as a proxy of the government"

And...

"It would appear that the Israeli participants were trying to hijack the forum in order to bolster their assertion of a claim to "indigenousness". Chandra Roy-Henriksen was not "charged" by a prosecutor, but charges were leveled against her by the Jews organization that is filing a civil suit, apparently. The last sentence in the article states: "There is no question that the Jewish People meet the UN Criteria for being considered indigenous." That is obviously not the case, and what unfolds in the civil suit should be relevant regarding the disposition of Jews to claim indigenous status. The modern state of Israel is considered to be illegally occupying Palestinian territory, in case you need to be reminded of that salient fact.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit"

The quotes from the OFICL representatives clearly indicate that this organization had no trouble attending the conference in years prior to this incident. Also, unless I'm reading it wrong (which I highly doubt) the quote from Kaplan as shown in number 6 implies that the Israeli government was violating the rights of the Bedouin in the Negev, and so the OFICL worked with the Bedouin NGO against the governments violations, not for it.

I would say that you are reading it wrong, but the article could be poorly written. Perhaps you'd care to explain how you interpret the passage, "we were able to forward a report by another organization about the situation containing studies about the serious ecological damage posed by illegal Bedouin construction" as being pro Bedouin? The passages cites a report containing studies about "serious ecological damage posed by illegal Bedouin construction". That sounds like an explicit charge against the Bedouin of engaging in illegal construction that is said to be ecologically harmful. --Ubikwit (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I interpreted it as illegal Israeli construction on Bedouin villages, and in the context of everything else written in the document, I have reason to believe that my interpretation is correct. Even if it wasn't, your accusations of hijacking the forum are still groundless and constitute original research. Reading the quotes from the representatives, it is clear that these organizations were present at Forum conferences prior to this incident, with or without the Bedouin. Jewish NGOs still attend the conferences.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The 'inferences' you are making are not only baseless and a deliberate distortion of the facts presented in the article, but they violate WP:NOR and are completely irrelevant to the question of including Jews as an indigenous West Asian group.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As per the above, I not only disagree, but am compelled to insist that you temper your reactions with reason, responding only after considered consideration of what I post. This is not amateur hour.--Ubikwit (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

It does not matter one bit how "reasonable" your inferences are. Original research by any other name is still original research. I maintain that my responses to you have all been reasonable. However, I will try to respond less abrasively in the future.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Two Jewish NGOs, including the Office of Israeli Constitutional Law (or OFICL) were barred from attending a United Nations Permanent forum on Indigenous Issues (or UNPFII) conference.

2. "OFICL investigated the issue, and subsequently discovered that another organization called the Negev Coexistence Forum for Civil Equality, an Israeli Bedouin rights organization, was also barred from attending the same conference."

3. Said organization believed that something was amiss, and subsequently sent out a number of faxes, letters, and e-mails to the UN. They received no reply.

4. OFICL takes legal action, and charges Chandra Roy-Hendriksen, Chief Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, with violating provisions of Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People and Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and other UN and United States antidiscrimination laws.

5. OFICL chairman Dr. Michael T. Snidecor: “We attended last year’s conference and actually floored 12 Representatives during the Conference, I don’t have access to the actual records, but our Secretary was told that we had the largest number of representatives from outside North America at the conference.” Clearly, these same groups never faced any trouble attending prior conferences, and OFICL stated that it had stayed active with the Forum following that conference.

6. Quote from OFICL director Mark Kaplan: “The Special Rapporteur for the region said that for years the Forum had tried to obtain information from the Israeli Government about complaints regarding issues with Bedouin in the Negev. The government has never responded. So, we were able to forward a report by another organization about the situation containing studies about the serious ecological damage posed by illegal Bedouin construction and proposals on how to work with the Bedouins to solve the issues. Dr. Snidecor also created a simple online system for anonymously filing complaints of indigenous rights violations. So, we have remained an active NGO in the forum.”

7. The organization also explained that the legal action is required since, as Dr. Snidecor explained, “we were not given any reason for rejecting us other than saying we are ineligible under two resolutions—one of which has nothing to do with NGO qualifications. We see nothing that disqualifies us, and no one will take responsibility for the decision to reject our application.”

8. Another quote from Kaplan: “The sad thing is that the indigenous tribes who attend the conference are not guilty, it is the UN employees. Unfortunately, our taking this action may tarnish the reputation of the forum. This is not something we want to do. These are wonderful people, and they are not connected to the anti-Israel governments and policies of the UN. However, had there been a valid reason to exclude us from the conference, the UN powers-that-be should have been able to cite what the disqualifying issue is. If they cannot cite the criteria we do not meet, then it seems rather suspicious that there is something else going on here. There is no question that the Jewish People meet the UN Criteria for being considered indigenous."

That is the official story, and as you can see, I have paraphrased the article in its entirety. Extrapolating any further than what I have laid out is original research at best, and deliberate misinformation at worst. Ubitwik rightly notes that the Bedouin have been included on the agenda for years (see http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/SOWIP_web.pdf p.151). However, he subsequently performs a massive leap in logic and postulates that their exclusion must have been part of an insidious Jewish plot to hijack the forum and promote their agenda, using the Bedouins as a proxy. Not only is this pure conjecture, not supported by facts, but it is an expression which contains clear antisemitic "Jewish plot/conspiracy" undertones. I will refrain from making assumptions about his character, but I would advise that the appropriate administrators keep this in mind in future dealings with him.

That is the second time you have tried to label me an anti-Semitic, I'm very close to seeking whatever administrative redress is available against your bigoted comments.--Ubikwit (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

If you can point out even one thing that I've said that constitutes bigotry, I'd love to see it. There were clear antisemitic tropes present in your conjecture (which in itself has no place on Wikipedia). Address that first.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"The attempt to claim retroactive status of indigeneity after more than a thousand years of no historical continuity with the land in question is anachronistic, and represents an effort to mask the actual status of the Zionist returnees to Palestine, which is that of “settlers”. In a sense, the Zionist settlers can be seen to have served as a proxy for the colonization of Palestine. Meanwhile, the definition of “indigenous peoples” has been put forth mainly with respect to tribal minorities an aboriginal peoples that have been subjugated on their lands by modern nation states. There is a definition that contrasts “setters” to “indigenous” from a relevant reference below."

The fly in the ointment here, as I have explained to him on the talk page, is that there is nothing in international law on the definition of indigenous peoples that explicitly or implicitly excludes ancient peoples who have been displaced from their historic homeland for centuries. It's not there. I repeat: it's not there. Furthermore, in addition to a continuous Jewish presence on the territory from the age of the Canaanites (from whom they branched off sometime in the 2nd millennium BC) to the present day, Jews meet virtually all of the criteria listed in international law in regards to what constitutes an indigenous group. Repatriation =/= colonialism.

There is no "fly in the ointment", as there is no requirement of a positive statement excluding claims from groups claiming to be "ancient peoples who have been displaced from their historic homeland for centuries". There are passages from definitions that do include the terms "at present" to describe the status of groups that are to be included under the category of "indigenous peoples".--Ubikwit (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I beg to differ. If you cannot provide any proof that ancient peoples are excluded from claiming indigenous status under international law, then there is no reason (barring political motivations) to use that as the basis for editing the article. The onus is on you to provide it, and thus far you have failed to do so. The quotation "They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples" contains nothing that would exclude Jews in favor of Palestinians. Rather, it seems to refer to current circumstances regarding demographic balances, which cannot be accurately applied to Palestinians or Jews as they each have their own respective states on that same territory where they comprise the majority. One is just occupied illegally by the other. Evildoer187 (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You are recalcitrant and duplicitous, and put forth nothing in terms of "international law" yourself. You do, however, selectively omit the following, which I posted on your Administrative action page:

Recalcitrant and duplicitous? How so? Not only have I provided sources from international law (see our earlier exchanges), but I am not the one who claimed that ancient peoples are excluded. That was you, so the onus for proving it is on you, not me. The quotes you have provided thus far have given me something to work with, at least. However, they do not suffice.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The following link is the webpage from which the document cited by Evildoer can be downloaded, and includes more information. “OP 4.10-Indigenous Peoples” The World Bank. July 2005

Trask observes that “indigenous peoples are defined in terms of collective aboriginal occupation prior to colonial settlement.” She points one an important difference between indigenous history and that of settler history: settlers can claim a voluntary status-- they chose to relocate to lands where their descendants now claim a legal inheritance. Indigenous peoples have an involuntary status: their physical lives on homeland areas are tied to emergence or other creation stories. Their formal nationalities were imposed upon them by outside governments.

And Jews don't fit this criteria how? I still don't see anything that excludes Jews in favor of Palestinians. The Jewish people are, and remain, a collective aboriginal population that existed on the territory prior to colonial settlement up to the present day. The only difference is, they once again have a majority state, thanks to the UN partition and returnees from diaspora communities around the world. Repatriation to their ancestral lands and establishing a state is not the same thing as colonialism. And seeing as both Jews and Palestinians (especially Jews, whose culture is directly related to Canaanite culture) are a continuation of the aboriginal inhabitants of ancient Israel/Palestine/etc, neither group is a colonial presence. Would you consider an influx of Amerindians, currently resident elsewhere, into US territory to re-establish themselves in their ancestral homeland to be "colonialism"? I would certainly hope not.

Further, Palestinian nationality was not imposed on the Palestinians by the Israeli government. Neither Palestinian or Israeli status is involuntary (with the possible exception of those in Gaza), since there is a Palestinian diaspora living all over the world, just as there is (and has been for centuries) a Jewish diaspora.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional Definitions 2. Jose Martinez Cabo's working definition of “indigenous communities, peoples and nations”:

“Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.

Evildoer187 is correct to draw attention to the portion of the above passage (my emphasis), because it brings to the fore the aspect of contemporaneity that is integral to the issue of indigeneity. He leaves out the remaining portions that indirectly relate to aspects which could be associated with oppression of the minority Palestinians residing in the Jewish state of Israel, and the Palestinians residing in the Palestinian territories.

Insofar as nothing is officially codified in international law except perhaps the declaration of rights, the definition by Cabo carries substantial weight as applied to determining who meets the criteria. Your brazen attempt to assert that Palestine is a state secure in its borders as a majority population is a ludicrous and offensive attempt to deflect attention from the fact that they are being oppressed by the Jewish state of Israel in a manner that many authorities conclude engenders them to the status of an indigenous people.

And since there has been much discussion regarding "contemporaneity on this page, the phrase They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples most certainly excludes Israelis from being categorized as an indigenous people, and lends a good deal of weight to the case for including the Palestinians, even if only until their rights are not being violated by the Jewish state of Israel.--Ubikwit (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I made it abundantly clear that they were an occupied nation, and I never said that the Palestinian state was secure in its borders. I will ask that you not put words in my mouth (or in this case, take words OUT of my mouth). You seem perfectly happy to gloss over, if not outright ignore, historical circumstances (which are relevant, and rightly so) and well-established Jewish connection/roots in the region in order to paint Jews inaccurately and unjustifiably as a foreign (and thus, colonial) presence. And even if that were true, the Palestinians are still a national entity, with a state and internationally defined borders. So in that sense, they are in roughly the same boat as the Jews, give or take.

Let me spell it out for you one last time, in more precise terms.

Oppressed, differentiated minority group in an Arab-dominated Middle East? Check.

Sought to maintain cultural continuity and tradition in the face of Muslim and Christian expansionism, imperialism and oppression? Check.

Subjected to institutionalized prejudice on a grand scale, in their native Middle East and in foreign countries? Check.

The only difference here is that we actually 'did something about it in 1948. Palestinians have not been granted that luxury (yet). In any case, Jews have suffered forced assimilation & forced resettlement in their ancestral lands and in foreign lands (i.e. Europe). They've suffered genocide and all manner of persecution in foreign lands. They've vigorously fought invading forces and dominant groups in order to maintain their unique culture, legal systems and way of life.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"First, here are definitions from the article Indigenous peoples:

The political sense of the term defines these groups as particularly vulnerable to exploitation and oppression by nation states. As a result, a special set of political rights in accordance with international law have been set forth by international organizations such as the United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank.

The status of the indigenous group in this relationship can be characterized in most instances as an effectively marginalized, isolated or minoritised one, in comparison to majority groups or the nation-state as a whole. Their ability to influence and participate in the external policies that may exercise jurisdiction over their traditional lands and practices is very frequently limited. This situation can persist even in the case where the indigenous population outnumbers that of the other inhabitants of the region or state; the defining notion here is one of separation from decision and regulatory processes that have some, at least titular, influence over aspects of their community and land rights."

I cannot find this quote anywhere on the Indigenous peoples article. You are going to have to link to it yourself. In any case, with the exception of the part about nation states and minority status (which isn't of vital importance, according to this quote), I see nothing here that excludes Jews. Furthermore, Palestinians would also be excluded under this criteria, given that they also have a (occupied) nation-state where they make up the majority of its inhabitants.

The first passage is in the lead of the article, and the second paragraph "Definitions" section of the article. Why don't you try using copy-paste to search before making groundless accusations and wasting other people's time? --Ubikwit (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

That's precisely what I did. It's not there.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"The claims to land based on their religious documents, which contain a large proportion of fictitious material, are put forth as superseding the exigencies of historical reality in terms of seeking to retroactively assert an anachronistic claim of indigeneity, on the one hand, while on the other hand, it has been admitted that the tale of Moses leading Israelites out of slavery in Egypt was a fabrication in order to claim direct genealogical connection with the Canaanites, whose kingdoms and cultures the Israelites usurped. It has also been claimed that Israelites were prohibited from intermarrying with Canaanites, further complicating the convoluted assessment by the introduction of unreliable sources in the form of religious documents."

I have not made use of the Torah or any other religious text even once in my defense of Jewish indigeneity. Further, archaeological evidence shows that the Israelites are an outgrowth of the ancient Canaanites. There were no invading Babylonian hordes from the East that subjugated them. Ironically, that in itself is a myth from religious texts, which you claim (and I agree) has no relevance here. So why do you contradict yourself in promoting this POV?

That is not promoting POV, but pointing to a contradiction in the position of various proponents for including Jews/Israelis/Israeliltes on this list. Decent from Canaanites per se is a marginal issue as its facticity cannot be established, as the legal terms used is "first occupancy". Both the Palestinians, and more recently the Jews--based on modern research--claim descent from Canaanites. And though it wasn't you that quoted some religious source on the topic, it should be mentioned that the religious source would seem to exclude the possibility insofar as Jews were prohibited from intermarrying with the Canaanites. So the proponent faction is making contradictory arguments.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Evidently, that part has nothing to do with me, as my arguments for including Jews make no recourse to Biblical or Talmudic texts. There is enough evidence to safely say that the Israelites, from whom Jews and Samaritans descend, are descended from the Canaanites, and not foreign conquerors as has been postulated. But for the sake of argument, let's say that neither Jews or Palestinian Arabs claim descent from the ancient Canaanites. Who do you believe can claim "first occupancy"? Clearly, it isn't the Palestinian Arabs.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"It could be said that those attempting to push these views are attempting to assume the mantle of Canaanites in a manner that monopolizes such an anachronistic claim for the Jews and excludes the Palestinians, who in fact have historical continuity in the land of Canaan, whereas it would appear from a cursory assessment of the history of the region that the Jews were completely absent for centuries on end before the modern era, with a mere 4% of the population of Palestine consisting of Jews in the mid-19th century."

How do you reconcile the idea that the Jews (who, again, are an outgrowth of the Canaanites) have no historical continuity in the land of Canaan, yet somehow a group that ethnically and culturally identifies with the Arab conquerors from the 7th century AD does? This is some of the sloppiest and most broken reasoning I have ever read. If there was even a tiny Jewish presence in the region, then it does not follow that the Jews were "completely absent", as you put it. And I'm not trying to say that the Palestinians have no continuity with the Canaanites (they do), rather I'm trying to point out the contradictions in your arguments.

"In another sense, neither the Jews nor Palestinians would need to be considered as indigenous if not for the intervention of Britain and Zionist colonization, because nether population emerged as the original occupants of the land, and even the myths of the Israelites describe them as migrating from Egypt. However, because the Zionist colonization has resulted in oppression of people that had unbroken historical continuity in inhabiting Palestine, discussion has taken place in UN forums relating to the plight of Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin Arabs in Israel.

"In short, the discussion of religious references and genetics are largely irrelevant to the immediate exigencies of modern history and the plight of the Palestinians, which are simply glossed over by the pro-Israel contributors.

There is a fundamental contradiction between an “indigenous community” and a “diaspora”."

If what you say is true, then why do Jewish rights/pro-Israel groups continue to participate in these same conferences? Genetics are certainly relevant, according to the UN document "Defining Indigenous Peoples". Further, archaeological and historical consensus has described the Israelites/Jewish people as having continuity with the ancient Canaanites. And concerning his last two cited definitions of indigenous, Palestinians would also be excluded given that criteria.

Now regarding the accusation of "collaborating with other individuals with a blatant religious bias", I assume he's referring to Crock8, whom I have criticized for this very reason. Ubitwik's claims that I have a pro-Israel bias are also baseless, as I have repeatedly opted to include Palestinians and Arabs as well in the list.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Include Jews as Indigenous to Western Asia

NOTE: RELIGIOUS/BIBLICAL CITATIONS OF ANY KIND ARE NOT WELCOME HERE. ANY ATTEMPTS TO INCLUDE THEM IN THIS DISCUSSION WILL BE DELETED ON SIGHT. IF YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE NOT DEMONSTRABLE ON THE MATERIAL PLANE, THEY DO NOT COUNT.

Given the criteria of the definition of indigenous peoples as defined under international law, particularly "Defining Indigenous People" Section 2 which I will explain in a moment, it would be inaccurate and an exercise in historical revisionism to include Palestinians in the list and not Jews. Here I have produced a word-for-word copy of the criteria, lifted directly from the document, as it is download-only and cannot be linked to on here. However, a quick Google search of "UN working definition of indigenous peoples" should lead you directly to the document itself. If anyone can provide a set of instructions on how to link to such articles on here, please let me know.

Now without further ado...

"This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors:

a) Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least part of them;

b) Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands;

c) Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.);

d) Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language);

e) Residence on certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world;

f) Other relevant factors."

Reading this, it should be apparent to anyone with extensive knowledge on Jewish history that Jews fit the bill to a tee. All of this is roundly supported by genetic, historical, linguistic, archaeological, and cultural evidence. There is also a consensus based on archaeological and other findings (see historical and archaeological citations above) that the Jewish people are an outgrowth of Canaanite culture, and are thus not foreign conquerors from Babylon as has been posited by less than reliable (and predominantly religious) sources. The idea that Palestinians are indigenous, and the Jews are not, is not supported by the facts on the table, especially considering Palestinians are ethnically Arab/Muslim, who are arguably even more recent than the Roman colonization of the Levant. It's also worth mentioning that denial of Jewish indigeneity resulted in charging Chandra Roy-Henriksen, Chief Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, with violating provisions of Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People and Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and other UN and United States anti-discrimination laws. To this day, Israeli and Jewish representatives continue to attend the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, as is shown here: http://firstpeoples.org/wp/tag/american-jewish-world-services/

Another UN definition of indigenous peoples. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf

"Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body. Instead the system has developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following: • Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member. • Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies • Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources • Distinct social, economic or political systems • Distinct language, culture and beliefs • Form non-dominant groups of society • Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities."

With the exception of part 6 (i.e. "Form non-dominant groups of society"), according to which Palestinians (whose culture and ethnic identity is that of the Arab colonists from the 7th century) and Arabs in general would also be excluded, Jews meet virtually all of the criteria listed. I will also add, since I'm sure it will be brought up again, that there is no clause or provision whatsoever in international law that excludes, either explicitly or implicitly, ancient and long displaced peoples like the Jews (although there has been a continuous and unbroken Jewish presence in Canaan from the age of the Canaanites to the present day) from recognition as an indigenous people.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• RFC unclear What exactly are you looking for comments on? Zad68 20:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on whether or not to include Jews or Palestinians as indigenous groups in Western Asia. To me, they seem equally qualified for inclusion.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

One last thing, for anybody who wants an objective and thorough account of the events pertaining to the Israel/Palestine conflict, the following is a link to what is perhaps the best website available: http://www.mideastweb.org/ Evildoer187 (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an improperly opened RFC. Please see WP:RFC, specifically Wikipedia:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief, of which this RFC statement is neither. nableezy - 01:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't something that can be expressed in brief terms. Also, people need to be reasonably informed before making any comments/decisions. That's one of the perennial problems of the Israel/Palestine conflict; people approach it from ignorance.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You made an excessively lengthy argument in favor of a position, you did not neutrally ask others to comment on the dispute. nableezy - 05:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• OBJECTION I object to any discussion of my editing the Israelites in terms of another ethnic group. Indigenousness of any ethnicity is evaluated based on the assessment of it, and not any other claimant to indigenousness Crock81 (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I support this inclusion wholeheartedly.HaleakalAri (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What are you supporting - please be explicit and think carefully Crock81 (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Judaism is a religion, therefore peoples have converted to the religion, and therefore they are not indigenous to Western Asia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I see you have failed to address any of my points. Jews have historically and presently functioned more as a nationality and distinct ethnic group than a religion. Most, if not all, ethnic Jews trace their origins back to ancient Canaan. Samaritans are the same thing, and branched off from the same people as the Jews, and yet they are included. Evildoer187 (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you Supreme Deliciousness think that "Judaism" is a religion, perhaps you should become more informed. In any case, the Yisra'el are termed by the academia in ethnography and anthropology an ethnoreligious group. Conversion is not unique to "Judaism", or as a practice among the indigenous peoples. Indieed most indigenous peoples are far more accepting of voluntary assimilation than cultures that occupy their lands. Crock81 (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• SUPPORT the inclusion of both Israelites and Arabs as the current definition of Indigenous people, claimed to be accepted by UN is not correct. No UN body have ever accepted such definition. Both historically and genetically the Jewish peole orginated from Middle East

nableezy -This is not rfc. RFC is not made on talk page, but as we all know at special page designed for such purpose.--Tritomex (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What? Really? What do you think you are replying to? A WP:Request for comment, or an RFC. Where it is supposed to be. The talk page of the article. It isnt a valid RFC because the opening statement is neither neutral or brief. But it certainly is an attempt at an RFC. nableezy - 05:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There, I removed the RfC. Can we get back on topic now please?Evildoer187 (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Do not include not our place to guess or take sides about the outcome of a real world debate - all we can do is regurgitate what is out there. Like here there is an ongoing debate in the real world about Jewish people being labeled as indigenous - the debate has not been concluded as stated by the Office for Israeli Constitutional Law - To quote "With more than three thousand years of Jewish history in the land, you would think that the United Nations might recognize the Jews as being indigenous to Israel/Palestine. However, this is not the case. Jews are not recognized as being indigenous to Israel or anywhere else in the world." So if the Office for Israeli Constitutional Law agrees they are not called/labeled as being indigenous by current world standards why would we add them here... there is agreement (even in the Jewish community ) they are not recognized as being indigenous - some are fighting for this recognition - but its not there yet.Moxy (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

First, I would like to make a correction. We are using the definition of indigenous peoples under international law as a blueprint for deciding who to include and where. We are not "regurgitating what is out there", which would be problematic anyway because it took some groups (who are now included) years to gain recognition by UNPFII. Some of the groups listed still aren't recognized. In any case, Jewish NGOs have and continue to attend UNPFII conferences, so it doesn't sound like they are being excluded wholesale.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and from that same page you linked to...

"However, this is changing. The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law has become what is believed to be the first Jewish organization to become a UN recognized Indigenous Peoples Organization (IPO).

OFICL Director Mark Kaplan says, "The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law will be sending a delegation in April to the 9th session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous People’s. We are working with the local regional councils in Israel to have their communities register as these IPOs. It takes eleven IPOs to be able to introduce motions at the conference, and we are planning on introducing motions that will help us secure our rights in the Jewish National Home."

"Our goal, according to OFICL Vice President, Wayne Poswell, "is to have a large Jewish showing at the conference. We want to work together with the other Jewish IPOs to present a unified agenda. Obviously, the more Jewish IPOs involved in the conference, the stronger our voice will be.

Dr. Snidecor concluded, "We would like to see all Jewish groups and organizations join us at the conference. We would be happy to help explain how to register, and have a voice at the UN to reaffirm our indigenous rights that were recognized ninety years ago in the Mandate for Palestine.""

Either read the entire passage, or do not waste my time.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not a single reliable source that supports that.

Moreover, it would seem that a couple of reliable sources, that is to say, books written by scholars and published by academic presses, that establish (and state) that the Palestinians are an indigenous people as per their current socio-historical and political disposition in the Jewish state of Israel and the Palestinian territories with respect to viable (and published in reliable sources) interpretations of international law. The following link is to the results of conducting a search for the term "indigenous" in a book that has been cited a couple of times on this Talk pageArab Minority Nationalism in Israel. Pay particular attention to the instances on pages 47-50 or so, namely, the section entitled, "Indigeneity and the right of self government".

Still further, the source provided by Moxy above also includes the following:

Even more surprising, according to the UNHCR Refworld World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Palestine, there are two types of Jews in "areas of Palestine occupied by Israel in 1967, namely the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip: There are "Jews and Jewish Settlers."

Furthermore, according to Refworld, "Early in the 20th century, Zionist leaders began planning for Jewish settlement in Palestine, and the removal of the indigenous population."

--Ubikwit (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

If you had paid any attention to my points earlier, I never contested the indigeneity of the Palestinians. My sole argument was that they don't have more of a claim to indigenous status than Jews do. As far as what is defined as what under international law is concerned, independent scholarly and academic sources are useless.

By the way, that same website also posted this....

OFICL becomes the United Nations' first Jewish Indigenous Peoples Organization (IPO)

"Office for Israeli Constitutional Law (OFICL) director Mark Kaplan says, "The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law will be sending a delegation in April to the 9th session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous People?s. We are working with the local regional councils in Israel to have their communities register as these IPOs. It takes eleven IPOs to be able to introduce motions at the conference, and we are planning on introducing motions that will help us secure our rights in the Jewish National Home." http://www.justicenow4israel.com/activities.html

And from the bottom of the same page that was cited earlier, this...

"However, this is changing. The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law has become what is believed to be the first Jewish organization to become a UN recognized Indigenous Peoples Organization (IPO).

OFICL Director Mark Kaplan says, "The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law will be sending a delegation in April to the 9th session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous People’s. We are working with the local regional councils in Israel to have their communities register as these IPOs. It takes eleven IPOs to be able to introduce motions at the conference, and we are planning on introducing motions that will help us secure our rights in the Jewish National Home."

"Our goal, according to OFICL Vice President, Wayne Poswell, "is to have a large Jewish showing at the conference. We want to work together with the other Jewish IPOs to present a unified agenda. Obviously, the more Jewish IPOs involved in the conference, the stronger our voice will be.

Dr. Snidecor concluded, "We would like to see all Jewish groups and organizations join us at the conference. We would be happy to help explain how to register, and have a voice at the UN to reaffirm our indigenous rights that were recognized ninety years ago in the Mandate for Palestine.""Evildoer187 (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Good to see you have read the reference (copy and pasted here and above) - so thus your fully aware they are at the "Permanent Forum on Indigenous People’s" because they dont have indigenous rights and are not recognized by any international body as being indigenous. If Jewish organizations agree they are not recognized (thus are fighting for this) why would we Wikipedians do so - we cant because it would be OR?. To quote the Office for Israeli Constitutional Law = " the Israeli legal action organization was surprised to learn that according to RefWorld, the web site for the UN High Commission for Refugees, which lists indigenous and minority populations around the world, Arabs are the only people listed by the United Nations as being indigenous to the Holy Land." . Moxy (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't even attend the conference unless your organization is recognized as an IPO (Indigenous Peoples Organization). And as the article clearly states, they were able to attend the forum as they are recognized by the UN as an IPO. The rule you are referring to states that you cannot pass legal motions there unless you reach the minimum of 11 IPOs in attendance, which is why they lobbied to get more Jewish NGOs to register and attend. Evildoer187 (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You got it!!!!!!!!! - they did not get recognized and is why there application was rejected this year - UN Fighting Indigenous Status for Jews. I agree 100 percent with the quote "the Jewish people meet the UN Criteria for being considered indigenous" - but they have been blocked at every turn thus far. In time this may change - but thus far there not recognized as being "native".Moxy (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not break the WP:SHOUTING rule.

In any case, it seems you missed the part where it says that OFICL has already attended previous conferences, and that the NGO has charged Chandra Roy-Hendrikssen with violating provisions of Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People and Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and other UN and United States antidiscrimination laws. The Negev Bedouin were also excluded, according to the article.

In addition, you ignored my point from earlier. We are not copying everything the UN/Refworld says and replicating that here. Instead, we are simply using the definition of indigenous peoples established by international law as a blueprint for deciding who to include and where. Going by the definition, it's painfully obvious that Jews meet all of the criteria (as you have just acknowledged), and are already recognized as an indigenous people (given their attendance of prior conferences), so I don't see any problem with including them.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Odd your announcing your about to violate the WP:SHOUTING rule with ('bold text) - but ok..... So now your guessing they must be indigenous because they attended a conference - despite the fact they were denied the following year. So what should we do add them because some think there being treated unfair by the international community ? Or should we just make up a definition that no international organizations recognizes? At this point if you dont see the problem about inclusion - I am not sure what to say. Its clear this is a real world debate.Moxy (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I said YOU broke the rule, and I asked you not to. I did not say anywhere that I was about to do so myself. You should probably get your eyes examined if you thought that's what I said.

In any case, the OFICL did in fact attend the conference in the years prior to the incident described in the article. You need to be recognized as an IPO in order to attend, and they were, and so they did. However, the OFICL, in addition to some Bedouin IPOs (nobody here doubts their indigenous status) and an unnamed Jewish IPO, were excluded from the conference the following year, hence the charges brought against the UN of violating their own provisions. Jewish IPOs still regularly attend the conferences.

The definition I am using was pulled directly from UN documents, including "Defining Indigenous Peoples" (see above), in addition to the one we've been using on this page. In fact, you agreed with me just a short while ago that Jews fit the definition.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I broke the rule? - your the one bolding and caping text here. Anyways so i guess we would need an RfC on changing the definition if you think its something that will get approval. Because this RfC is not getting far - no consensus at all thus far with current definition. Moxy (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you broke the rule when you wrote this "You got it!!!!!!!!!". That constitutes WP:SHOUTING. I bolded text, which does not constitute WP:SHOUTING. And no, I am not changing the definition. I am using the same definition we've been using all along, according to which Jews are indigenous. Also, I deleted the RfC notice because it brought nothing but endless complaining about how my opening statement was not 'brief or neutral' enough.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Exclamation marks are to convey excitement - I though you got it there for a sec - WP:shouting mentions both caps and bolding specifically as shouting - It does not mention exclamation marks because there are a normal part of the English language used to demonstrates a specific emotion.Moxy (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Some additional points I'd like to make.

Are Jews an oppressed, differentiated minority group in an Arab-dominated Middle East? Check.

Have Jews sought to maintain cultural continuity and tradition in the face of Muslim and Christian expansionism, imperialism and oppression? Check.

Are Jews subject to institutionalized prejudice on a grand scale, in their native Middle East and in foreign countries? Check.

Have Jews suffered forced assimilation & forced resettlement in their ancestral lands and in foreign lands? Check.

Have Jews vigorously fought invading forces and dominant groups in order to maintain their own culture, legal systems and way of life? Check.

Evildoer187 (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Evildoer187, you have twice attempted to pre-emptively cite passages when your failings had come to light in a manner such as to divert criticism of your transgressions and minimize the impact of those passages to the discussion at hand.

More specifically, the passage in the definition by Cabo: “They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples…”,

which relates directly to the issue of contemporaneity that has been discussed fairly extensively on the Talk page.

And here was my response to this passage...

"This contains nothing that would exclude Jews in favor of Palestinians. Rather, it seems to refer to current circumstances regarding demographic balances, which cannot be accurately applied to Palestinians or Jews as they currently each have their own respective states on that same territory where they comprise the majority. One is just occupied illegally by the other."

According to this website (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/), there remains a Jewish minority in Palestine (roughly 8-17 percent, which excludes the Israeli settlements), just as there is an Arab minority in Israel. So to include Palestinians, we'd have to include Jews as well, for the sake of consistency. This is especially poignant when you consider that Jews are a vastly outnumbered tribal minority in a predominantly Arab (who Palestinians are identified with) region (i.e. Western Asia). I also think you misunderstood my point about ancient peoples. You claimed earlier that Jewish indigeneity to Israel was anachronistic, and I replied that Jews have maintained a continuous presence in Israel and throughout the Greater Middle East up to the present day. However, the definition you have provided does not appear to have anything to do with that.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Your provide a link to a CIA webpage that has no information on the topic for which you cite it as a source, a source for what? I could say something like, 'you might as well cite a source from the Mossad', but since there is no entry on said webpage for the country of Palestine, are you simply lying? If not, please privode the link. Note, however, that even if there were a minority of Jews living in the Palestinian territories, it is not the case that they are being subjected to the type of oppressive conditions that the Palestinians are being subjected to by the nation state of Israel in their continuously inhabited homeland that grants them the status of being recognized by the UN as an "indigenous people".--Ubikwit (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Try this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Palestinian_territories#Ethnic_groups

The citation links to the CIA website. That is where I got my numbers from.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You have basically lied about the "roughly 8-17%" in your edit. According to the Wikipedia page you cited, there are 8% Jews in the West Bank, and 0% in Gaza. Why did you feel the need to quote different figures than what are cited on that page?--Ubikwit (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Sigh*

From the Wikipedia page. "Ethnic groups

Including Israeli settlements and East Jerusalem: Palestinian Arab 83%, Jewish 17%.

Religions

Muslim 75% (predominantly Sunni), Jewish 8%, Christian and other 17%[18]"

Apparently, I missed the part where it said that Israeli settlements and East Jerusalem were included. A mistake I hopefully won't make again. Either way, there is still a Jewish minority present in Palestine comprising about 8 percent of the population, so my point still stands. Oppression Olympics aside, there is no "if you're not oppressed then you're not indigenous" clause in anything that you've shown me up until now. I'd also like to add that even if that were true, Jews are still vulnerable to oppression in their native Middle East and throughout the world. Evildoer187 (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And the passage you quoted today from the OFICL webpage OFICL webpage1:

"Our goal, according to OFICL Vice President, Wayne Poswell, "is to have a large Jewish showing at the conference. We want to work together with the other Jewish IPOs to present a unified agenda. Obviously, the more Jewish IPOs involved in the conference, the stronger our voice will be.

Your allegations of hijacking the forum were in response to this. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/144202#.UMOYOHeVqq8

What is the relevance of that? The inference I made was based on the citation of Bedouins found in the references section of the above-sourced pdf file of the UN document "State of the World's Indigenous Peoples" (p. 151) and explicit statements contained in the article that you misinterpreted in a duplicitously pro-Israel manner.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

First, I'd like to point out your glaring hypocrisy in doing the same thing you criticized me for doing (i.e. put new text under old text).

Second, you know what the relevance of that is. Your accusations of hijacking the forum were in direct response to my posting of that article. Allow me to refresh your memory....

I wrote this.

"Update: Found the references, although it's also worth mentioning that denial of "Jewish" indigenous origins did result in charging Chandra Roy-Henriksen, Chief Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, with violating provisions of Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People and Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and other UN and United States anti-discrimination laws. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/144202#.UMOYOHeVqq8 Israeli representatives continue to attend Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. So it seems that Jews are indigenous under international law as well.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)"

You responded with this.

"No, it does not seem that "the Jews are indigenous under international law", you are arriving at that conclusion through POV analysis which is, as far as I can see, erroneous and based on false conjecture. It would appear that the Israeli participants were trying to hijack the forum in order to bolster their assertion of a claim to "indigenousness". Chandra Roy-Henriksen was not "charged" by a prosecutor, but charges were leveled against her by the Jewish organization that is filing a civil suit, apparently. The last sentence in the article states: "There is no question that the Jewish People meet the UN Criteria for being considered indigenous." That is obviously not the case, and what unfolds in the civil suit should be relevant regarding the disposition of Jews to claim indigenous status. The modern state of Israel is considered to be illegally occupying Palestinian territory, in case you need to be reminded of that salient fact.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit"

I have misrepresented nothing in the article. Not only did you make no mention of the UN document in the above paragraph (which wouldn't really have helped anyway, in this case), but you immediately engaged in tinfoil hat conspiracy theorizing.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, the quote from Wayne Poswell is entirely absent from the news article above. On the other hand, this link (http://www.justicenow4israel.com/indigenouspeoples.html) did not even come up until yesterday when Moxy posted it. Had you presented this link when you accused the OFICL of attempting to take over the forum using the Bedouins as a proxy, you might have had a case, even though it would have still constituted original research.

That is exactly the way I see it, in the same manner that you have been trying to tack over this Talk page.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I don't even know what you're saying here. Try to be a little clearer.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you attempting to divert attention from the fact that the organization in question is not an organization arguing the cause of the Bedouins, as you falsely asserted previously, but is perhaps some sort of Zionist organization? I hate to have to continually repeat myself here but your actions make that necessary. To refresh your selective memory:

Extrapolating any further than what I have laid out is original research at best, and deliberate misinformation at worst. Ubitwik rightly notes that the Bedouin have been included on the agenda for years. However, he subsequently performs a massive leap in logic and postulates that their exclusion must have been part of an insidious Jewish plot to hijack the forum and promote their agenda, using the Bedouins as a proxy. Not only is this pure conjecture, not supported by facts, but it is an expression which contains clear antisemitic "Jewish plot/conspiracy" undertones.

I was arguing based off of what was presented in the news article, not the OFICLs webpage. I had done no prior research into the OFICL until yesterday, when Moxy posted a link to their website on here. All I knew was that they were an IPO representing the Jewish people that regularly attended UPFII conferences. If you had presented that website as evidence, I might have taken you more seriously. However, you didn't, and so all I saw were baseless accusations and conjecture, as well as some "Jewish plot" undertones that I found rather alarming.

Let's not forget this either.

"This is not a place for religious references. The Torah is irrelevant, as are all other religious sources. The term Palestine dates to the 5th century BC according to the Wikipedia article Palestinian people. Harry Truman was a Christian biblical literalist who also happened to be a Freemason and close acquaintance of Zionist activist Chaim Weizman, which many associate with the Knight Templar, who rose to prominence through the Crusades to the so-called Holy Land. The Crusaders thought that they had a claim to "land rights", based on religion--Christianity. Your assertions are all either misdirected and irrelevant, or simply incorrect. The questions relating to Jews seem to be primarily about religion, and staking claims based on an anachronistic religious basis, encompassing the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation by "settlers" of the current and actual holders of the rights to lands in question."Evildoer187 (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Tell me, what does that sound like to you?Evildoer187 (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You continue with your biased and somewhat bigoted accusations, and I've already stated that I'm not going to tolerate that. You mentioned something about "tropes" before, but I am not interested in your obsession with Antisemitism. Chaim Weizmann was Jewish, Harry Truman was not, but he was a Freemason.

You are obviously not a historian, let alone one that specializes in the Middle East. First, you should check the Ten Lost Tribes article for quotes from Tudor Parfitt on the use of that myth in the course of colonialism. Second, there are reliable references published by academic presses that are cited as sources numerous times on this Talk page which discuss the Zionist colonization of Palestine, whether you agree with that characterization or not.

If you look on the British Israelism article page and talk page you will see further references to writings by Ernestine van der Wall that address influential English Puritans as well as a Dutch Rabbi Menasseh Ben Israel with respect to early calls by such figures for a return of the Jews to the Holy Land (or maybe they said Promised Land). Some of those individuals were connected to the Hartlib Circle, such as John Dury and John Sadler (town clerk), and also to the invisible college, the Royal society and Freemasons, such as Robert Moray (see publications of Robert Lomas. So there is a connection between Puritan Protestants, Freemasons, and the doctrine of returning the Jews to the Holy Land that was first put forth in the 17th century. Relevant references are available on the respective Wikipedia pages.

You can call that synthesis, if you like, but it is not some "Jewish conspiracy theory" or whatever you called it, though there are a couple of influential Jews that were involved. You could say that it was a part of the doctrine of some subset of Judeo-Christian religious groups with connections to secret societies, and since secret societies are involved, maybe it could be called a conspiracy theory, but not necessarily characterized as Jewish. Furthermore, if you don't agree that there is a connection between the Freemasons and the groups from the Christian Crusades against the Muslims in the Holy, the Knights Templar (Freemasonry), I suggest you check the Wikipedia page.

At any rate, Truman subverted the UN process on determining the course of development of the polity (or polities) that would take form in Palestine; furthermore, the UN is the host of the preeminent world organization for indigenous peoples rights.

For the record, here are three relevant references to Harry Truman, Chaim Weizmann and the Balfour declaration:

• A Peace to End All Peace, 20th Anniversary Edition: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin
• Counsel to the President by Richard Holbrooke
• Friends in High Places: The Rise and Fall of Clark Clifford by Douglas Frantz and Daivd McKean

The last two books on the list are about Clark Clifford, Trumans counsel. The wikipeedia page on him contains the following quote:

In his role as presidential advisor, perhaps his most significant contribution was his successful advocacy, along with David Niles, of prompt 1948 recognition of the new state of Israel, over the strong objections of Secretary of State, General George Marshall.

It should say "Jewish state" of Israel, because that was what was controversial about the move, and the point with respect to which Truman was purportedly influenced by Chaim Weizmann; at any rate, I will edit that page now. --Ubikwit (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I fail to see the bigotry in my statement. Against what group am I bigoted? I'm not touching the rest of your post with a 10 foot pole, because frankly I don't even know where to begin. All you're doing here is completely ignoring everything I've said while continuing to engage in conspiracy theories and WP:OR. You've already wasted more than enough of my time with this nonsense, so as far as I'm concerned, this conversation is over.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

First, Ubitwik's claims that Jewish NGOs attempted to hijack the forum, that the UN forum blocked both the Bedouin and Israeli NGOs for this same reason, and that the Israeli government was using the Bedouin to force themselves on the agenda seem to be little more than conjecture and POV analysis, both of which are forbidden on here. <Evildoer187>

I still maintain this is conjecture. Unless you can prove that it isn't.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

POV analysis is prohibited from being included in the article, not I believe, on the Talk page in the course of discussion toward achieving consensus with respect to editing the article.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

That's not the point. If you're trying to edit an article, or remove someone else's proposed edits, unsourced conjecture is expressly forbidden.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What does it matter if it is conjecture or not if it contributes to increasing the understanding of the topic under discussion. It would appear that Moxy saw this relevant posts here and looked into the organization at issue, then provided the link to the webpage that would seem to support my inference, which you prefer to refer to as conjucture. You have a problem admitting that you were wrong?--Ubikwit (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I would argue that your "hijacking the forum" theory contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion. Furthermore, you know that the quote in question was written days before Moxy posted a link to that site on here. I am getting a little exasperated with you constantly twisting my arguments. Either debate honestly, or stop wasting my time.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

OFICL webpage2

F Mark B. Kaplan, Director, Director of Finances and Public Relations - Mark Kaplan... was the marketing director, news editor, producer, news writer, and anchor for Israel National News TV

…unless I'm reading it wrong (which I highly doubt) the quote from Kaplan as shown in number 6 implies that the Israeli government was violating the rights of the Bedouin in the Negev, and so the OFICL worked with the Bedouin NGO against the governments violations, not forit. <Evildoer187>

…Perhaps you'd care to explain how you interpret the passage, "we were able to forward a report by another organization about the situation containing studies about the serious ecological damage posed by illegal Bedouin construction" as being pro Bedouin? The passages cites a report containing studies about "serious ecological damage posed by illegal Bedouin construction". That sounds like an explicit charge against the Bedouin of engaging in illegal construction that is said to be ecologically harmful. --Ubikwit (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I interpreted it as illegal Israeli construction on Bedouin villages, and in the context of everything else written in the document, I have reason to believe that my interpretation is correct. Even if it wasn't, your accusations of hijacking the forum are still groundless and constitute original research...Evildoer187 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You were wrong, as the OFICL would appear to be some sort of Zionist organization with ties to the news media, which helps them publicize their agenda, and with respect to which you provided the link to the article in question from the news organization by which OFICL director Mr. Kaplan was employed Israel National News article.

If I am wrong, then I am wrong. However, you have provided no sources either way that prove the NGO in question was using the Bedouin to gain entrance to the forum in order to hijack it, that the UN blocked both for this reason, and that the OFICL has ties to the news media. According to that same article, the OFICL had been present at prior conferences. As for your allegation that Mr. Kaplan was once an employee at Arutz Sheva, could you provide some evidence for that please?

Furthermore, in the above discussion with Moxy you seem to be implying that because they have been recognized as an IPO for the purposes of participating in conferences that the conferral of such status is tantamount to granting official recognition to the group as representing some indigenous group that otherwise doesn't officially exist. That is another ludicrous assertion. We don’t even know the criteria for being recognized as an IPO, but is would certainly appear to be unrelated to the criteria for being officially recognized as an indigenous people, and belonging to a categorically different register.

The fact that the goal post has been moved from "meeting the criteria of the definition of indigenous peoples" to "being officially recognized as indigenous peoples" aside, the criteria for recognition as an IPO is right here (http://esango.un.org/event/ngo.html?page=profileForm&form=ipo&language=english). It seems as though you just send in an application and they determine whether or not the people you are representing are considered an indigenous group, and they admit/decline your application based on that.

"When you click on Add Organization. We will process the information about your organization that you provided us. This information will enable us to determine whether your organization is within the categories (Indigenous Peoples' Organizations or Academic) that can attend the UNPFII session. This process may take up to two weeks.

If your organization is within the categories that can attend the UNPFII session, you will receive a login name and password which will enable you to add the names of your representatives."Evildoer187 (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have flooded this Talk page with POV that is unrelated to improving the editing of the article, yet you continually harp on others about POV and OR.

Moreover, you repeatedly include no sources to support your assertions, and consistently fail to recognize sources that contradict such assertions, selectively referring to passages out of context and neglecting other passages in the same text that would contradict your assertions.

Finally, you have made a number of uncivil remarks and offensively false accusations, and generally would appear to be acting in a manner such as to obstruct rather than foster the creation of consensus.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Do you know what they say about those in glass houses?Evildoer187 (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we get you to go back and fix your most recent additions - because your inserting replies in the middle of peoples post - thus we as readers have no clue who said what. pls reply after a post not throughout the post.Moxy (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This is how I am used to writing my responses. With that said, I would rather just move on from this argument, because it's more than clear to me at this point that we're never going to reach an agreement on this. I am tired of arguing, and I have neither the time or the patience to continue. If Ubikwit chooses to post another reply to my arguments, then so be it. I refuse to participate any further.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

At the top of the page it states that editors are to:

"Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic."

I have asked you to follow that rule before, receiving no response, and now you declare that you simply refuse to comply.

Moreover, by not participating in the ongoing discussion, you are not participating in building concensus, and the discussion is far from over, and therefore, the new section you've created represents an attempt to divert attention from this discussion and push your POV.

You have until now been focusing on Jewish ethnicity, basically, as the qualifying criteria for including Jews on the list; however, though ethnicity is a component of indigeneity, it is only one factor, and Jews/Israelis do not meet other core criteria. Furthermore, your last coupld of mosts mention Jews with respect to the entire region of the Middle East, but that is irrelevant. Inigeneity relates to the present socio-political disposition of peoples vis-a-vis the nation state, not regions.--Ubikwit (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Technically speaking, I was putting old text under new text. However, if you insist...

My argument has always been that if Palestinians are to be included, Jews should be included as well, and vice versa. They both meet all of the same criteria, as I have already demonstrated. You, on the other hand, are clearly determined to get Palestinians included and Jews excluded. That is why we will never agree with each other, and also why I think this exchange between us is a waste of time. You can continue to discuss this with yourself if you'd like, but I'm not playing ball.

Accuse me of POV pushing all you want. All I am trying to do now is put an end to this dispute by making proposals that I know have a chance of gaining consensus. This is why I am attempting to get the administrators involved in the thread below. That's certainly time better spent than sitting here, day after day, going in circles with you, watching you mangle and contort my arguments into a barely recognizable mess. You know that your proposed edits are controversial and would only result in further arguing, that it would create more problems than it would solve, but this evidently does not phase you.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Either include both Jews and Palestinians, or neither

It's time we made a final decision regarding this matter. The quest for obtaining consensus for including one group and not the other has only resulted in endless arguing and controversy. We can't even agree on which definition we should use and whether or not these groups fit the definition. I suggest, for the sake of maintaining peace and neutrality on this page, that we either include both of these groups or neither of them. According to the definition at the top of the page, both are equally eligible for inclusion. However, consensus had been reached earlier that we should exclude both, and now I'm beginning to think that it was probably for the best.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As per usual, I lend my support to including both or excluding both.HaleakalAri (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As per all the other RfC on the matter since 2006- both out until recognized by an official indigenous body - so no change from the norm.Moxy (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been going on since 2006? Yikes.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an absolutely unprecedented proposal within ethnography or anthropology. Please show evidence where one group's indigenousness is evaluated based on inclusion of another group. Crock81 (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree

There is no evidence to support the claim to include Jews, whereas there is substantial evidence to support the inclusion of Palestinians, much--but not all of which--has been produced since 2006. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the inclusion of one group based on the exclusion of another; there is no grounds for making such an anomalous assertion.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

You keep asserting this, but thus far you have shown nothing that excludes Jews and favors Palestinians.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Palestinians be included on the list on the basis of tacit UN recognition since at least 2009?

Should Palestinians be placed on the list in accordance with tacit UN recognition as per official publication by Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues publication “State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples”?--Ubikwit (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

In "CHAPTER IV: CONTEMPORARY EDUCATION”, the UN document State of the World's Indigenous Peoples contains the following references to Palestinian as well as Bedouin Arabs living in Israel, State of the World's Indigenous Peoples, p.151:

Abu-Saad, Ismael. 2003. “Bedouin Arabs in Israel. Between the Hammer and the Anvil: Education as a Foundation for Survival and Development” in The Future of Indigenous Peoples: Strategies for Survival and Development, ed. Duane Champagne and Ismael Abu-Saad. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA American Indian Studies Center.

Abu-Saad, Ismael. 2006. “Identity Formation among Indigenous Youth in Majority-Controlled Schools: Palestinian Arabs in Israel” in Indigenous Education and Empowerment: International Perspectives, ed. Ismael Abu-Saad and Duane Champagne. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

The following description, which directly corresponds to the content of the above-described reference to the Palestinians, is found under the section heading of “Thematic Issues” on the website of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues: UNPFII - Education

Loss of identity, caught in no man’s land. When indigenous school children are introduced only to the national discourse at the expense of their native discourse, they are in danger of losing part of their identity, their connection with their parents and predecessors and, ultimately, of being caught in a no man’s land whereby they lose an important aspect of their identity while not fully becoming a part of the dominant national society.

--Ubikwit (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Do Not Support Jews have roughly the same level of UN recognition and meet all of the same criteria. To include Palestinians and not Jews would be POV pushing.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single UN source demonstrating that Jews have any form of UN recognition as an indigenous people whatsoever.

You have made a controversial assertion with no sources to support, whereas I have issued an RfC with respect to two official UN sources, and you call that "POV pushing".

Call this RfC, which is based on two official UN sources, "POV pushing" is nothing but a duplicitous response aimed at obstructing the exercise in consensus building.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Having Jewish organizations recognized as Indigenous Peoples Organizations and attending UNPFII conferences isn't tacit recognition of status as an indigenous people? I have provided sources for it as well, and all I got in return were conspiracy theories about hijacking the forum and using the Bedouins as proxies to bolster Israeli claims of indigeneity.

Regarding the sources you posted here, one of them is about Bedouin Arabs, a group we already recognize as belonging on this list. Nevertheless, recognition of the Bedouin as indigenous has virtually nothing to do with whether or not the Palestinians are eligible. The second reference, although valid, is not sufficient for the inclusion of Palestinians in the list. I am also opposed to including them on the grounds that they are on equal footing with Jews in terms of meeting the criteria for recognition as indigenous. Both are national entities with their own respective states (even though one is occupied by the other), and neither are fully recognized by an official indigenous body. Moreover, you know full well that your proposed edits are controversial, and your arguments for them thus far have essentially amounted to little more than partisanship, conjecture, and aggressive POV pushing. Consensus had been reached earlier that both should be excluded, and I now believe that would be the right thing to do.

From what I can gather, you seem far more invested in furthering your political cause than actually improving the article.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No it is not, there is no equivalence between being recognized as an organization that seeks to participate in conferences and being recognized as an indigenous people. The OFICL is not an organization that represents Jews as an indigenous people, though they are trying to argue for such recognition, as Moxy has emphasized above. Again, your assertions are duplicitous, requiring repeated rebuttal of already addressed matters. The OFICL appears to have been representing the interests of the Israeli government over and against the Bedouin. The fact that they are permitted to participate in the conference has no bearing on the status of the recognition of Jews as an indigenous people.

Secondly, the reference to Bedouins appears in the same reference as the reference to Palestinian Arabs in Israel; in other words, they are from a single reference, with the second reference being the UNPFII on Education. The gist of the references to Bedouin Arabs and Palestinian Arabs in those references is that they are being addressed as indigenous peoples whose rights may be being transgressed by the nation state of Israel, a relatively recent creation.

You assertion that Jews are on "equal footing" is unsubstantiated and false. Palestinians and Bedouin Arabs are officially recognized in the above-references official UN sources from the UNPFII. Your assertions represent a non-neutral POV that is not supported by sources.

According to Moxy's comment of yesterday, recognition by an official indigenous peoples organization was the agreed upon prerequisite for inclusion of either the Palestinians or Jews since 2006. That recognition is present at hand for the Palestinians, and that is not the case for Jews.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Ok I wrote the UN the other day to explain our problem (have a few friends that work there). Got back many positions and told its very complicated (as if we dont know this) - however was given a link World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Palestine. Do we have them listed anywhere on an indigenous list?.Moxy (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but I don't see in that source (RFC starter) an explicit description of Palestinians as indigenous people. Using a definition to come up with a new statement is excluded in WP:OR: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources". I did a quick search and found this document which does say Palestinians are indigenous, but the page explicitly states this isn't a UNHCR publication, so this can't be used as an indication of a UN view. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ubikwit, he (Moxy) also acknowledged that an NGO would not have been able to attend the conference if they were not recognized as an IPO. However, they were recognized as an IPO. That implies equal footing, at least relative to the minimal recognition Palestinians have, between Jews and Palestinians. Thus, the recognition is not there for Palestinians any moreso than it is for Jews. Your claims that I am being duplicitous are baseless conjecture (again). In any case, I am tired of discussing this over and over again with you. I am bowing out of this conversation.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I never said this - We seem to have a problem with people making assumptions and synthesis of material. At this point if multiple refs cant be-found for either position then there should be no inclusion - If "good and reliable" published sources do not include information that is available through one source, then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include. No more guess work. Done here till we get real refs involved.Moxy (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You said this "You got it!!!!!!!!! - they did not get recognized and is why there application was rejected this year - UN Fighting Indigenous Status for Jews. I agree 100 percent with the quote "the Jewish people meet the UN Criteria for being considered indigenous" - but they have been blocked at every turn thus far. In time this may change - but thus far there not recognized as being "native"."

This is despite the fact that they were recognized as an IPO.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

At no point did I imply or say they were there because they were now indigenous.Moxy (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No, but you did say that being recognized as an IPO requires meeting the criteria for recognition as an indigenous group. Clearly, they were recognized as an IPO, so......Evildoer187 (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

'Implies' is original research - you can suggest it here but we can't use it as a basis for any edits to the article. Ditto 'tacit' which to me means there's no reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, I was not trying to say we should include Jews based on that one reference. I was just trying to say that Jews have about equal "recognition" of indigenous status under international law. Personally, I am just about done with this debate. I can no longer accommodate the headaches and stress this topics brings.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Moxy and Dailycare, there is useful information in those sources, even if not official UN publications. Perhaps the group that has the copyright on those documents, Minority Rights Group International should be checked out.

I don't know if associating the two correlated sources I offered for consideration in this RfC constitutes synthesis under WP:OR, but it might. I took their correlation to be tantamount to representing official recognition of the status because the The following are the six mandated areas of the UNPFII:

• Economic and social development
• Culture
• Environment
• Education
• Health
• Human rights

correspond to the Chapters I-VI of the SOWIP report. Furthermore, the source on the List of References in the chapter on education corresponds to the descriptive paragraph quoted at the start of the RfC. At any rate, it is not a direct description, so tacit seems to fit as a characterization.

As to the aside issue, that is to say, with regard to the Office of Israeli Constitutional Law (OFICL), there is a "Search" field on the page that enables you to search the database of registered Indigenous Peoples' Organizations (IPOs). I have just entered that name of OFICL and received a negative result. The organization does not appear to be registered as an IPO on the basis of that search. Maybe someone else could try the search operation to confirm that result.

Though it is not clear from the IPO application page what the precise criteria are for becoming an IPO, the application page includes the following three fields:

Areas of expertise of your organization in the broad spectrum of issues relating to the situation of indigenous people:

Indicate which indigenous peoples (including names of specific indigenous peoples and their communities, territories and sub-groups) are represented in your organization (provide relevant information on their situation, geographical location and demographic data)/ Affiliation with other organizations / Publications / Purpose of the organization:

Please provide a brief description of your work in connection with indigenous issues / Mission statement / Organizational structure:

The news media article here simply describes them as a "Jewish NGO" and "an Israeli legal action organization", not an IPO.

The OFICL website page here, however, states

The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law has become what is believed to be the first Jewish organization to become a UN recognized Indigenous Peoples Organization (IPO)..."The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law will be sending a delegation in April to the 9th session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous People’s. We are working with the local regional councils in Israel to have their communities register as these IPOs. It takes eleven IPOs to be able to introduce motions at the conference, and we are planning on introducing motions that will help us secure our rights in the Jewish National Home."

Meanwhile, they also have a mission statement page for PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIGENOUS JEWISH PEOPLE, which lists one goal of

The development of educational programs to assist others in understanding the unique indigenous culture within the Jewish People of the Holy Land.

--Ubikwit (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Jews have been indigenous to Middle East for more than 2500 years. [14] Contrary to Palestinian people whose national identity separate from the rest of Arab populations was formed in 20 century, Gelvin, 2005, p. 92–93. Jewish identity as separate ethnoreligious community existed through ages.[15] The common national ethnic origin of Jews is essential part of Jewish heritage and believe, while the common genetic origin of Jews was confirmed by over 20 genetic studies which I stated above. The persecution of Middle Eastern Jews which led to the exodus of Jews from Arab countries in 20th century,[16] and exists still. Although Jewish people consider itself a single nation, Middle Eastern Jews today represent over 50% of Israeli Jews.

Therefore it is clear POV pushing to try to exclude Jews from indigenous people of Middle East and to include only Palestinians. Also, the current definition of indigenous was contrary to what has been written in lead, never accepted by any UN body and there is no consensus about this issue.--Tritomex (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree - no consensus about this issue in the real world at all - thus neither should be included here. Very rare to see others with a higher degree here - would love to talk to you about other topics besides this when you have time.Moxy (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Seconded, although I would like to add that Jews have been indigenous to the Middle East for well over 4000 years when one takes their Canaanite source population into account. Consensus is that the Israelites separated from the Canaanites around 3,500 years ago. However, I agree that political partisanship has no place on Wikipedia.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point for both Moxy and Evildoer187 For further reading.- [17]--Tritomex (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Amen. The Israel/Palestine conflict is rife with fanaticism, which has evidently spilled over onto this article and its corresponding talk page. This, among other reasons, is why I believe that both Jews and Palestinians should ultimately be excluded.Evildoer187 (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This RFC is about whether the Palestinians should be added, not whether Jews are indigenous. Concerning the Palestinians, they're described as indigenous at least here: Bedouin Palestinians and this document (THE INTERNATIONAL STATUS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE) seems to repeatedly refer to the Palestinians as a whole as the indigenous population of Palestine. Based on these sources, I'd say that the UN does consider the Palestinians indigenous, which seems to be even a slightly obvious point. --Dailycare (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,MRGI,,YEM,,49749c7dc,0.html[User talk:Dailycare|talk]]) 15:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Jews are also described by UN paper as indigenous people of Middle east, although this refer in this specific issue only to one Middle Eastern country, [18] Considering the papers above, it clearly refer to Bedouins, not to all Palestinians. There are other sources which do consider Jews as indigenous people of Middle east. However, it is clear that the exclusion/inclusion of one of two people currently engaged in political conflict based on historic rights would have unbalanced the neutrality of this article. Therefore and as there are currently two RFC, this two issues can not be wived objectively and separately.--Tritomex (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's good work Dailycare, and those are very strong sources, being official UN publications.

Tritomex, it would appear that you are misconstruing the issue of article neutrality, because this article is not even about that political conflict per se, though it's content might be affected as a result of circumstances owing to that conflict. Moreover, I don't see how that would bear on the status afforded by official publications of the UN.

But I understand your concern, which in and of itself seems to represent a non-neutral POV, being biased against the Palestinians without reason. In addition, the reference that you provide regarding Jews is not an official UN publication.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

From when United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees publications are not official UN publications?--Tritomex (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you must lead a busy life--like most of us--but it would be helpful if you could try to follow discussion and check the sources cited by others participating in the discussion here.

Yesterday there were two sources from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees cited in this RfC, but it was noted by one of the contributors that there is a disclaimer accompanying those documents, because they are not publications of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, just references provided on the site that are copyrighted material belonging to Minority Rights Group International. The disclaimer reads as follows

This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.

--Ubikwit (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

It appears that the UNISPAL document relating to Palestinian indigeneity is an official UN document, whereas the other one clearly pertains to Bedouin Arabs. However, I am still wary of including them without also including Jews, as they too meet all of the same criteria for the definition of indigenous peoples (see below) and face very real threats regarding preservation of their culture, identity, and way of life in their historic homeland (which is Israel/Palestine, as consensus would have it), even if the UN doesn't currently recognize it officially for reasons we cannot ascertain for ourselves. The ramifications of implementing these edits runs the risk of implying that Jews are purely a foreign, colonial presence with no real roots in the region, which is demonstrably false and flies directly in the face of neutrality and facts, and is something that we on Wikipedia are compelled to avoid. This is especially relevant when one considers that there has been, and still is, a Jewish minority in what is now recognized as the Palestinian state before the initial wave of Jewish returnees to Palestine, as the UN document in question has recognized. Moreover, from what I can gather based on what is written at the top of the page, we are only using the definition of indigenous peoples posited by the UN as a blueprint for deciding for ourselves who to include. In that respect, the goalpost has clearly shifted from "meeting the international definition of indigenous" to "being officially recognized by the UN as indigenous", which is problematic in its own right. From the intro paragraph to the article...

"Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group of peoples who are considered to fall under one of the internationally recognized definitions of Indigenous peoples, such as United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank, i.e. "those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a apart of"."

This is the definition we are using for this article, agreed upon by way of consensus back in March 2012. And as you can see, there is some criteria that they, along with Jews, do not meet (not being a national entity, for one). I feel that if the sole determining factor for deciding who to include on this list is "recognition as such by an official UN body" (which is obviously not what it says at the top of the page, nor have we used it as a basis when including any other group), that we should make that clear in the intro paragraph to the article and adjust the rest of the page accordingly. At least this way, we can help to curtail further controversy and biased interpretations.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, it would also appear that the UNISPAL document in question is outdated. It is from 1981, more than a decade before the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues was established.

Not that it matters either way, since UN recognition is not a prerequisite for inclusion, as per the agreed upon definition.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If the Bedouin Arabs are Palestinians, as described in the document, on what grounds do you challenge their political status?

Please do not include any more WP:OR POV on the status of Jews/Israelis under this RfC. You have not, to my recollection, provided a single reliable source to support any of your assertions, and this RfC does not addressed that issue. I believe it has been established that none of the organizations you list has officially recognized Jews as indigenous peoples. That is the criteria that Moxy has indicated was agreed upon in relation to the controversy surrounding the inclusion of either Palestinians or Jews.

The dating of the document would appear to be irrelevant. Granting that the sources are reliable, there would appear at present to be not a single criteria for excluding the Palestinians from the List, provided that the sources are official UN publications. In fact, the inclusion of the Palestinians would appear to be long overdue.

Moreover, these two sources established that the UN officially recognizes the Palestinian populations in both the nation state of Israel and the Palestinian territories as indigenous peoples.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

And you accuse me of duplicity?

First of all, you're latching onto the comments of one Bedouin resident of the West Bank and applying it to all 40,000 of them. How do you know they all think the same way? I could just as easily point to Ismail Khaldi and claim that because he considers himself a proud Israeli, that all Negev Bedouin must have the same attitude (they don't). Moreover, it says "“We are part of Palestinian society, and if our economic situation is affected, so is that of all Palestinians.” You really don't think he could be saying this because he lives in the West Bank (which is now Palestine), and so considers himself a Palestinian citizen? This is unsound, fallacious, and unreasonable thinking which constitutes WP:ORIGINALSYN and is expressly forbidden.

Second, it would appear that you didn't even read my post. As much as I hate repeating myself, you have made it necessary.

"In that respect, the goalpost has clearly shifted from "meeting the international definition of indigenous" to "being officially recognized by the UN as indigenous", which is problematic in its own right. From the intro paragraph to the article...

"Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group of peoples who are considered to fall under one of the internationally recognized definitions of Indigenous peoples, such as United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank, i.e. "those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a apart of"."

This is the definition we are using for this article, agreed upon by way of consensus back in March 2012."

Now then, as for the criteria...

• "Indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state."

Jews meet this criteria. Not only is there a wealth of genetic and other evidence which re-affirms Jewish origins in the Levant , but also historical, linguistic, and archaeological evidence that the Jewish people are an outgrowth of the indigenous Canaanites. Since then, there has been a continuous, unbroken Jewish presence in the region up to the present day. There remains a Jewish minority in Palestine.

"Politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a apart of."

Considering both Jews and Palestinians are national entities (one is occupied by the other), both are out. Yet just as there is a Palestinian minority in Israel, there is also a Jewish minority in Palestine, not including those in settlements.

I see nothing here that says "must be recognized as an indigenous group by an outdated UN document from over a decade before the founding of UNPFII" or even "must be recognized by a UN body as indigenous". If you want to revise the definition we use to include that, you must file another RfC and gain consensus for it. Until then, stop moving the goalposts and learn to debate like a rational human being and not a crazed fanatic.Evildoer187 (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"Duplicitous" is the word.

At least you have been compelled to make a defacto admission that there is no recognition of "Israelis/Israelites" as indigenous by the UN. In fact, let's just put that into focus in view of the forgoing discussions. The OFICL organization you have introduced was founded after the issuance of the SOWIP report of 2009 in which the Bedouin related issue was referenced, and claim to be providing information to the UNPFII in relation to Bedouin issues because the Israeli government had refused to provide any information for many years.

This raises two points. The first is that, as far as the UN is concerned, the state of Israel is a nation state that is discriminating against indigenous groups of its population. The second, which is still slightly unclear, is that the OFICL appears to have been acting in a manner such as to represent the interests of the Israeli government over and against the indigenous Bedouin population of Israel.

With respect to "Jews", which are not addressed by this RfC but have been brought up repeatedly, since Tritomex has introduced a reference that facilitates examination of one aspect relating to the prevailing criteria for indigeneity, the Jews living in Yemen about whom that document was about have historical continuity with the land of Yemen, and therefore would not likely have a problem in garnering official recognition from the UN if there were grounds for the UN to address their rights in an international forum over and against those of the government of the state of Yemen. That has not, however, been the case, whereas it has been the case with respect to the Palestinians. That is to say, the UN is the authoritative international body that facilitates the redress of the actions of individual national states in an international forum. --Ubikwit (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

To begin with there is no official definition of indigenous people by any UN body, therefore although Jews are native people to the Middle East, this nativity, in the same way as in the case of Palestinians, can not come from the body which do not have any official definition for this subject (so there is no inclusion or exclusion per UN).--Tritomex (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The question does not relate to an official "definition", but to official recognition by the UN.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Then file an RfC and request that the criteria for inclusion be revised. Either do that, or stop wasting our time.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The only one here being duplicitous is you, Ubikwit.

My comments were that since OFICL had been recognized as an IPO (Indigenous Peoples Organization) and subsequently attended UNPFII conferences, that this would constitute tacit recognition of Jews as indigenous. However, there is no official recognition, nor have I claimed that there was. On the same token, Palestinians have no official recognition as an indigenous group that is both legitimate and more recent than the founding of UNPFII in 1993. Furthermore, as per the definition at the top of the page, which I have now quoted twice in this same thread, recognition as indigenous by the UN is not a prerequisite for inclusion on this list. It is obvious that you disagree with this definition, so I would suggest filing another RfC instead of repeatedly trying to manipulate this one to your liking.

Otherwise, as I have demonstrated, Jews meet all of the same criteria that Palestinians do. Palestinian is a national identity, just like Israeli, and both have nation-states of their own, even if one is being occupied and threatened by the other. As per the definition, this makes Palestinians an occupied nation, not an indigenous group.

Your post is laden with conjecture, WP:SYNTH and original research. I will not ask you again to stop.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You obviously have too much time on your hands. Why don't you look for a job, instead of trying to impede progress of the universal consciousness raising exercise in which we're engaged here?

There is no established relevance for the date of establishment of the UNPFII in 1993, for starters.

Moving right along, the Israeli NGO you have introduced into this conversation would appear to be a nationalistic organization recognized by the nation state of Israel and so far removed from having any semblance of a status that would granting tacit recognition to "Israelis" as indigenous that it doesn't merit the electrons expended to display this text.

Furthermore, you have not demonstrated a relevant connection between the OFICL and "Jews" with respect to the question of (the recognition of) indigeneity, so you are again engaged in an act of duplicitous disimulation; the Mossad would be proud, maybe you should apply, seeing as you need a job. Hey, if you are going to act as a proxy for the Israeli government, you might as well get paid for it, just like those NGO directors, right?!

The administrators can determine during arbitration what relevance the definition you have littered this RfC with has or has not.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit