Jump to content

Talk:List of Palestinians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconPalestine List‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Question

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

Kiran Banerjee

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

Samaritan

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

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

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

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


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

When were the first Palestinians?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLASPHEMY

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have seen this one from PASSIA:

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

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

problem

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

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

Journalist = Literature?

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

Scope of the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genetic studies

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

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

Was Jesus a Palestinian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I find most disconcerting in editorial comments over the years is that, for reasons that boil down to sheer distaste (the religion he is said to have founded had a long history of antisemitism (which wasn't his fault), or allowing a revered religious founder any lien of association with Palestinians is intolerable to those whose erudition consists in thinking that Palestine means Arafat and co.
I can't get one historical figure, Jesus into the Jews page (while no one doubts he was one of the most famous Jews in history) nor onto the Palestinian people page (while no one doubts he was born in Palestine, within the particular world of Palestinian Judaism). Wikipedia, on this single figure, cannot get beyond a few allusive cats on his page
Wikimedia Commons has media related to List of Palestinians.

Error! Function find_var can't find the variable text in category "List of Palestinians".***Category series navigation failed to generate navbox***, while admitting:'Modern scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew of first-century Palestine.' And the only reason appears to be that Palestinians (even Christian Palestinians descending from the ancient communities that became followers of Christ) have no right to be proud that the land of their fathers also produced this figure. Palestinians now are mainly Muslims, and Christians, yet they both revere in their traditions a Jew. To state this is not a devious trick of endorsing contemporary Palestinian political claims.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Same goes for Saint George, revered by Muslim and Christian Palestinians as a hero. Here's something from our friends at the BBC. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being revered by Palestinians doesn't make someone a Palestinian. די נעוטראַליזער (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments should not be based on political confusions grounded in enmity.Nishidani (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of "Arabs" in this article - this appears to be a figment of your imagination.
We need to find a way to keep the scope simple, whilst making sure we do not consign a whole group of people to historical limbo (ie such that they don't fit on any lists).
Your suggestion about including Jews who became Israelis has been considered before. We deal with it very clearly in the lead when explaining why they are not in the list. Modern Israeli Jews don't identify as Palestinians, nor are they referred to by scholars as such, so it would probably violate WP:BLP to include them here.
But historical Jews who were lucky enough to live prior to our world of petty bickering about identity are identified as Palestinian by scholars today. Perhaps because there is no other geographical designation available. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove pre-mandate list. Weather the list should be removed for good or moved elsewhere it's another matter.

The reasons to remove the list are the following:

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

UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Something like List of people born in Palestine or List of people from Palestine. If we want to be more specific in title then something like List of people born in Palestine before 20th century or List of people born in pre-Mandate Palestine or List of people born in Palestine before Mandate era or List of people born in Palestine before World War I or List of people from Palestine (before 20th century) are among options. There are plenty of possible ways to word that.--Staberinde (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal for reasons given by others. What matters is what's reflected in reliable sources. Arguments that it's "not logical" to include Jewish people in the list are OR. I don't see why Jesus is at the top of the list, though. It should be sorted by default either chronologically or alphabetically. Formerip (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@FormerIP, as you opposed to the removal you must have good arguments. Please explain me your arguments, because really I do not get them. This is not a list of people born in Palestine, but a list of Palestinians. Now I see in the infobox of the article a map of the State of Palestine. Under such circumstances it is clear that the list of Palestinians cannot include Jewish people born 2,000 years ago. Of course I could understand the inclusion of a Jewish if he/she was born after the mandate, but this is not the case. I could still understand the inclusion of Jesus if we were speaking of list of people born in Palestine, but as it is the article today I don't see how can be Jesus included. Am I wrong? Silvio1973 (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia goes off sources. Sources say Jesus was "Palestinian". Generally speaking, if you want to disagree with sources, you need an exceptionally strong argument. "Because I don't like Yasser Arafat", as is given above as a reason, is not good enough. That the definition of "Palestinian" differs depending on what historical period we are talking about is not problematic. We can easily deal with that, just as we would for other geographic identities that might be variable over time (Indian or French, for example). This is a non-argument in the face of sourcing.
I agree that there are wider issues with the article. It doesn't have a clear idea of what it wants to be, and that should be sorted out one way or the other. It might be modified to create a more cohesive but inclusive article, or it might be split into two or more articles. The answer shouldn't, though, be to delete encylopaedic material. In any case, the current discussion isn't about that. It's something that should be decided by careful consideration of the options, not because a few editors don't like Jesus being in the list. Formerip (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Arabs' usurping 'Jewish history'. Ethnic cleansing in nomenclature, in short. The premise underlying all of the pseudo-objections here is that any attempt to document liens to a past, recent or distant, for the historic Palestinian-Arab population in Palestine are a threat to a perceived Jewish prerogative to have the land bear only Jewish associations in time-depth, and the very fact that this ideological prejudice, for prejudice it is, can be taken seriously on wikipedia is a index of the peculiar atmosphere dominating I/P articles. It would not be tolerated, this treating one ethnic/social group with inflammatory exclusionism, on any other peoples' article (an argument no one here replies to, because it is unanswerable). The old natives are intruders with no history, the modern immigrants are only returning 'home', to their ancestral roots. The onus for showing that the Palestinians are an historic anomaly lies on those who continually interject comments like the above. Set aside the 'Arabs', and think of this in a 'Christian' perspective. The Christian Arab community has proven claims to derive from communities founded in Palestine 2,000 years ago, and editorial hostility to 'Arabs' is, by sleight of hand, denying the demonstrated continuity of this traditional culture's historic depth, simply because animus and prejudice stake an exclusive claim on Palestine as a 'Jewish' patrimony. Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You write complete nonsense. Stop trying to warp history to suit your twisted political agenda. Falsely claiming ancient Jews are the same people as modern Palestinians in order to ethnically cleanse Jews from history is anti-Semitic. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:F241:7A00:819A:D74A:3062:DBE6 (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Palestinians&oldid=611902397"