Talk:Palestinians

The Roman rule and the name

It is worth to mention that after the Roman expel the Jews they changed the name from Judea to Palestine. 87.69.77.82 18:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in the Palestine article. It's off topic here. <<-armon->> 10:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RS

On the current edit skirmish on the intro - a magazine article by a non-expert cannot be considered an RS for such a claim. We need another source - an academic source, that is, by an expert in the field (political science, I guess). I'm sure it won't be hard to find - it's not a very contentious claim. okedem 21:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue about "Nation", as I explained before, is that it's disputed that the Palestinians are a "real" nation, rather than one "made up" for tactical reasons. Ironically, the Salon cite admits this. However, even if someone wants to dispute that the Palestinians are a nation, what's indisputable is that Palestinian nationalism has come about. So rather than taking a side, the intro should just state the facts -the NPOV way is to show not tell. <<-armon->> 12:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, just like the issue about "Jews" is whether they're "real" descendants of the Tribes of Israel, or whether their ancestry was "made up" for tactical reasons - maybe Britons or Mormons or Aleuts are the real Israelites. Come on, Armon! We're not obligated to defer to disreputable and often outright racist sources here; not in a lead section. Just as holocaust denial belongs in a subsidiary section far inside the article Holocaust, denial of Palestinian nationhood does not belong in this article's lead. When Ariel Sharon has made (admittedly duplicitous) reference to his desire for a "Palestinian nation state" alongside Israel, and Shimon Peres has expressed (ibid) sympathy for the "terrible problem of the Palestinian nation", and Israel's largest-circulation newspaper notes that "The Arab minority, in its tragic situation is torn between its desire to be an inseparable part of the state of Israel and its desire to be an inseparable part of the Palestinian nation", you can pack up your soapbox and move on to the next WikiWar, thank you very much. <eleland/talkedits> 13:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You're comparing apples to oranges. Jews are an ethno-religious nation that has been around for a very long time. Palestinian nationalism, on the other hand, is very recent, and can easily be viewed as reaction to Zionism. The improperly cited stuff you removed here is evidence for that. Per NPOV, let's just present the facts and let the reader decide. <<-armon->> 20:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not the author's claim, it's the claim in the book he is reviewing by Rashid Khalidi, who is extensively quoted in this article and is a reocgnized authority on the subject. Stoip deleting it. Tiamut 20:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If we're talking about the Samaritans, the situation with them is complex and they shouldn't be included as "Palestinian". A quote from the cite:

"In the West Bank, they are caught between the Israeli army and the Palestinian population. They must remain neutral in the face of Palestinian and Israeli politics, differentiating from the two sides, and also their neighbors, Jewish settlers." link

Looks like a real stretch to include them under the "Palestinian" label. The cite also says that there are Samaritan members of the PA, but that the community is also proud to serve in the IDF. <<-armon->> (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem including Samaritans if we could show that a significant portion have citizenship, since this is an issue of national identification. We shouldn't be using various rhetoric as a substitute though, something which is even clearer in the case of Druze and Jews. As far as I know, there are no Druze settlements in the West Bank, while those in Israel make a point of serving in the military. The Golan Heights have nothing to do with Palestinians, and those Druze identify with Syria. I recall that all this was discussed months ago though... Tewfik^Talk 18:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

They do hold Palestinian citizenship. I though one of the cites I provided already said that. But self-identification is sufficient here. See this and note that "A small Samaritan community still exists, especially around Nablus, and they both speak Arabic and identify with the Palestinians." Tiamut 20:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not even close to being an RS. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh? How so? Please elaborate.Tiamut 18:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a religious advocacy group. It's not "Human Rights" but "Islamic Human Rights" and "duties revealed for human beings." <<-armon->> (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to look at this paper which refers to "Palestinian Samaritans". He also explains how in Nablus, "Much of the local Palestinian population is believed to be descended from Samaritans who converted to Islam. Certain Nabulsi family names are associated with Samaritan ancestry - Muslimani, Yaish, and Shakshir among others." This source also attests to the fact that half of the Samaritan population holds Palestinian citizenship. As Palestinian citizens, certainly they deserve representation in a sentence discussing minority religious groups. No? Tiamut 18:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean about "Samaritan ancestry" -a Samaritan who coverts to Islam is a Muslim. As for "half of the Samaritan population holds Palestinian citizenship" -how many people are we talking about and do they identify as "Palestinian"? <<-armon->> 12:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the source. He explains what is meant by that by "Samaritan ancestry". As to your second point, there are 700 Samaritans worldwide: 350 of which live in Holon as Israeli citizens and 350 of which live in Nablus as Palestinian citizens. Considering that half the Samaritan population worldwide are Palestinian citizens, I consider them worthy of inclusion in this article. Tiamut 12:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the source you gave doesn't show that they identify as "Palestinian". They aren't "Palestinian citizens" because a country called "Palestine" doesn't exist yet. Can you explain why you're so insistent that 350 people out of 9 million plus be highlighted like this? I don't get it. <<-armon->> 20:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't get why you're so adamant to delete this well-sourced information and why you keep shifting the goalposts. Tewfik said he would accept their inclusion if a source could be found that said they were Palestinian citizens. I provided that source above. That same source calls the Samaritan community in Nablus "Palestinian Samaritans". Other sources I have provided have also explained that Samaritans identify as Palestinians. Your repeated deletion of this information is unwarranted. The sentence is discussing minority religious groups among Palestinians. Samaritans are one of them. Why can't you accept that? Tiamut 21:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please just answer my question -why are you so insistent that 350 people out of 9 million plus be highlighted like this? <<-armon->> (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not highlighting them to mention in a sentence in the introduction that besides Sunni Muslims and a significant Palestinian Christian population, there are also smaller Druze, Jewish and Samaritan minorities. If you spent less time deleting the sources in the body that attest to these facts and more time reading them, you would not be asking such questions. Additionally, there are only 700 Samaritans in the world and 50% of them are Palestinian. Do their small overall numbers preclude us having an article about them? No. Does it preclude us mentioning them in a sentence with other religious minorities? No. For the last time, stop deleting sourced information and don't pretend you have consensus for your edits. If you noticed, I'm not the only one reverting your deletions. Tiamut 22:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Most common term"

Armon, can you give me the source for the claim that "Palestinians" is the "most common term" for the subject of this article? Thanks, --G-Dett (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a source which states it explicitly but there is this (5,310) vs. this (17,400). I'd have to appeal to a bit of common sense on part of the editors here. <<-armon->> (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Only a fraction of those 17,400 hits in your Google Scholar search use the phrase "the Palestinians" in a sense synonymous/interchangeable with the subject of this article: Arabic-speaking people with family origins in Palestine. Many (perhaps most) use it as in reference to a much smaller subset of that collective entity. Looking at the first page of search results (ten hits), for example: #1 and #8 refer only to "the Palestinians" living in Israel (i.e. Arab-Israelis); and #2, #3, #5, and #7 refer to "the Palestinians" living in the occupied territories (and/or their political leadership). Only four out of ten (#4, #6, #9, #10) refer collectively to the subject of this article.--G-Dett (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK well even 40% of 17,400 is still more than 5,310. Also, if we're slightly less strict with the sources, and search Google News, we get 2,004 vs. 11,618. <<-armon->> (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway you cut it, in most instances the phrase "the Palestinians" does not refer to the subject of this article, but rather to the occupied territories as a political entity; in other words, to what we'd call "Palestine" if Palestine were a state. Hence it's usually paired with "Israel":

– Only 16 percent said their sympathies lay with the Palestinians, compared to 45 percent for Israel...
– A stalemate in negotiations may lead Israel and the Palestinians to write up separate statements detailing their political agendas ahead of the U.S.-led peace conference...
– The fate of some 3.5 million Palestinian refugees across the Arab world is one of the toughest issues in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. ...

Those are all examples from the first page of results from your Google News search. Another helpful indication that this or that instance of "the Palestinians" refers to the political entity rather than the diasporic people is when substituting one for the other yields nonsense or something at least very odd-sounding. To take another example from the first page of your Google News search: "The Palestinians have named a road after Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa to signify his steadfast commitment to their cause over the past 30 years." Note how bizarre the substitution would sound. These just aren't synonyms.--G-Dett (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if we accept your assertion that in most instances the phrase "the Palestinians" does not refer to the subject of this article (which is I think is dubious, but for the sake of argument...) it's still by far, the most common name. <<-armon->> (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, "John Smith" is the most common name, but it's not a name for the subject of this article. "The Palestinians" sometimes is and sometimes isn't, and is in that respect ambiguous in a way "Palestinian people" isn't. If there's evidence that the former is a more common name than the latter for the subject of this article, you haven't shared it with us.--G-Dett (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please spare us the proof by assertion -it's a waste of time. <<-armon->> (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, if there's evidence that "the Palestinians" is a more common name than "Palestinian people" for the subject of this article, you haven't shared it with us. I don't think you understand what proof by assertion is, but when you wrote "it's still by far, the most common name" in response to a request for evidence of same, that was a pretty good example.--G-Dett (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence. Even if you can argue the toss about the use of the term 60% of the time, the remaining 40% of 17,400 is still more than for the "Palestinian people" phrase -and that's without arguing the toss regarding those results. There is also Google News, where we get 2,004 vs. 11,618. <<-armon->> (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

'The extremists are seeking to impose a dark vision on the Palestinian people, a vision that feeds on hopelessness and despair to sow chaos in the holy land.' George W Bush address at Annapolis.http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iBAo1yCOOLr02NJfYtgrYmyZQKxAD8T66H682

Indeed they are ... by dragging us into this useless debate again. Is there a solid, policy-based rationale for this proposed name change? How long can a dead horse be beaten? Tiamut 18:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm relieved indeed that you too noticed the natural ambiguity in GWB's use of extremists, and that you can see the appropriateness of the term to describe certain POV-pushers in here. A barnstar, if only I knew how to send one!Nishidani 21:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Try to stay on topic guys. Thanks. <<-armon->> 11:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Smearing Golda Meir as a racist unjustly

I have re-added the section on ARAB leaders who state that the so-called "Palestinian People" do not exist. This is necessary because the attempt to only quote Golda Meir is a transparent attempt to paint Golda Meir and the State of Israel as racist and thus violates the NPOV standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricalReality (talk • contribs) 14:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Many of your quotes simply don't say what you think they do. Stating the uncontroversial fact that historic Syria encompassed a wide area including modern Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and the West Bank has nothing to do with the existence/non-existence of a Palestinian people. Nor do Palestinian ambitions to unite with Jordan (where Palestinians are the majority) have any bearing on the issue.

Furthermore, there's a long tradition on Wikipedia of drive-by dumping fabricated "quotes" from the Israeli ultra-nationalist Right onto Palestinian pages. Given that many of your supposed quotes (did you read the Dutch newspaper, which by the way, websites date at 1977, not 1997?) come up with Arutz Sheva when Googled, I really hope this isn't another one of those drive-by smearings. <eleland/talkedits> 01:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fictitious histories,Countries and the creation of fictitious Peoples in an effort to smear the Jewish People

This addition to the "Palestinian People" article is an attempt to discuss and determine the extent to which there is , was or will ever be any peoples known as the palestinians.

• There is a group of people who refer to themselves as Palestinians, and other people refer to them as such. So well, they exist. Funkynusayri (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

How many Shias?

How many Shia Muslim Palestinians are there if any (not counting Druze)? Funkynusayri 00:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A handful I think. I haven't seen any official figures, though I do know of one family in Nazareth of Metawali origin who came as refugees from one of the seven villages with a predominantly Shia population. (See also: Qadas, al-Malkiyya). If I find a source with something more concrete and verifiable, I will let you know. Tiamut 01:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Awright, because I think it might be good to have it in the article... Funkynusayri 01:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

recent revving

per this rev - [1].

1. with all due respect to rashid khalidi's statement in salon. he's not quite an objective figure on whether or not "palestinians" represent a nation. i'd expect better sources on this one.
2. let's fix the Jewish palestinian, palestinian Samaritan and palestinian Druze properly on talk rather than revert them in and out based on gut feelings. please start proper subsections and lets work things in based on highly reputable sources rather than single articles of non expert sources.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

1. What makes him less than objective? The fact that you disagree with his conclusions? He's a titled professor of Arab Studies at Colombia, the head of its Mideast Departmant, and editor of the Journal of Palestine Studies. He's a top-tier reliable source, and the fact that you'd "ask for better sources" raises questions about whether you understand WP:V at all.
2. It's a little rich to revert to your preferred version, then argue that we should all stop reverting to our preferred versions. Unverifiable or inappropriate material may be challenged or removed at any time, but if the removal is at all questionable, it should be discussed. Until the people who want to remove it at least try to offer a consistent, logical rationale, I don't see anything at all wrong with ignoring them. <eleland/talkedits> 14:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

1. what makes him less objective is that he has an agenda and is a representative of the arab perspective. if this is so clear, then there should be no problem in finding other high profile sources.
2. this subsection [2] had some talk on the issue and it seems that there was no agreement on the insertion of that material.

(offtopic comment:) please avoid the personally oriented discussion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree fully with Eleland here. I might also add that Rashid Khalidi is used throughout the article, and no one had a problem with his credentials until he was used to support that idea that Palestinians are a nation. That some people don't like that conclusion is not a reason to remove the material.

Further, regarding the Samaritans, Druze and Jewish religious minorities; the material in the body of the article on these communities was in this article for months. No one sought to remove it, until a sentence was added to the introduction mentioning that these and small religious minorities amongst the Palestinian population. All of sudden, this material was deemed objectionable and it (and the offending sentence) began to be removed by Armon and Tewfik (though Tewfik has since desisted).

So Jaakobou, if you have a strong, policy-based rationale for why this material is not relevant or suitable to this article, please put it forward. In the meantime, I suggest you follow your own advice.Tiamut 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

1. But he's not a representative of the Arab perspective. He's a representative of the mainstream academic Middle Eastern Studies perspective in the United States. Sharon, Olmert, and Peres all talk about the future "Palestinian nation-state". Even the Israeli extremists who want to annex the West Bank and Gaza do so on the basis that Jordan is the "Palestinian nation-state", ([3]) and there is thus no need for an additional one. (Elon Plan) It isn't a matter of who is "high profile" at all.
2. I do not understand the relevance of your link to that archive. In fact, even if the archive showed conclusive rejection of an idea, that would not preclude bringing it up again, particularly since many editors here were not involved in that discussion, and at least one has not been editing Wikipedia for some five months now.

On the question of Samaritans, Druze, and modern Palestinian Jews in the lede I can understand where both sides are coming from. Would it be acceptable to say, "Palestinians are predominantly Sunni Muslims, though there is a significant Christian minority, as well as smaller religious communities"?

On the question of those groups in the body I see nothing but frivolous blanking. The sources are there, the arguments against have been handwaving at best. <eleland/talkedits> 21:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That there are maybe 300 people or less who happen to live in the west bank out of the 9,000,000+ in the world who identify as "Palestinian" is utterly insignificant. What Taimut (who seems to be only person pushing for this) needs to do is find proper, RS, cites which show that a) these religious communities actually identify as Palestinian (and no, a token example doesn't count) and b) that the Samaritans and Druze are actually significant to the topic. She has given no rationale at all for this.

Per the "nation" thing. I will continue to remove it because it violates policy. We all know there is a significant difference of opinion on the the issue of Palestinian nationhood. You can point to Khalidi, you could also point to Martin Kramer who a little more skeptical. It is therefore POV to attempt to have WP "settle" the issue according to your opinion -end of story. <<-armon->> (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First, what do you think of my proposed changes to the lede? Second, what specifically is wrong with the sources which she has already provided? And what makes them "token examples"?

The given source appears to be a critique of pan-Arab nationalism generally, and I have not found any discussion of the nation-hood or non-nation-hood of Palestinians. I hope you aren't consciously wasting our time here. <eleland/talkedits> 00:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that the article states that they are 97% Muslim and 3% Christian, it's the Christians who are the small religious minority and they've already been mentioned. I'm still waiting on a rationale to mention them, period. As for the cite, if you seriously don't think that the "Palestinians are just Arabs" POV is citable, I'll get you a better one, but we both know it is. <<-armon->> (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But "Palestinians are just Arabs" is not the same as "Palestinians are not a nation", that's original synthesis. Please provide more specific reference to the source so we can evaluate it properly. The rationale for mentioning Druze, Samaritans, and Jews is that they are verifiably members of these religious groups which identify as Palestinian, and the section is about the religious identification of Palestinians. If a hundred Black Hebrew Israelites decided they were Palestinians, moved to Ramallah, and were accepted by the PA as citizens they'd be worthy of mention here. It's not a matter of them being an "extreme minority" per WP:UNDUE as you have claimed in edit summaries. WP:UNDUE refers to undue weight on sources of opinion and has little bearing here except by strained analogy. <eleland/talkedits> 01:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't wikilawyer. If they're "just Arabs", they're not a distinct nation, just the Arabs who happened to be in Palestine at the time. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make implied accusations of wikilawyering with no specific reference, evidence, or argument to support them. A politician who believes that Austrians are just Germans got 27% of the Austrian vote; therefore Wikipedia should expunge all direct reference to an Austrian nation. No, I think not. Also I'd like some discussion on the minorities issue, when you feel up to it. Just don't reference WP:UNDUE in a completely misleading and invalid way; I know how much you hate Wikilawyering. <eleland/talkedits> 02:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't imply anything, I'm respectfully asking you to stop. The argument (simple logic really) that you missed is in the next sentence. As for your Austrian example, I see nothing in that article making any sort of equivalent claims about Austrian nationhood, in the lead, or anywhere else. As for that Austrian politician, he's certainly not the first to take that position. <<-armon->> (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm respectfully continuing. Austria refers casually to the "nation", "national" this or that, several times throughout, and your wikilink to Hitler is gratuitous and confusing. (Don't take that as an opportunity to lecture about Austrian politics and the far-right; I mean that it's confusing in the context of a discussion of Palestinian nation-hood and Palestinian minorities.) Now, Since I've missed the argument, why don't you repeat it. You could even rephrase it for me in terms I might better understand. I don't even know which sentence you're referring to or even which posting.

The article has a top-tier reliable source calling the Palestinians a nation, and I've demonstrated that even within Israel there is broad political consensus for the necessity of a Palestinian nation-state. The only source you've provided thus far does not seem to have anything to say about Palestinian nationhood. If you wish the article to include the POV, historically significant but now discredited, that the Palestinians made up their nation-hood as a conspiracy against the Jews, you're free to do so. But that POV doesn't have veto power over impeccably sourced factual information in this article.

Do you intend to offer your opinion on my proposed change to the lede? <eleland/talkedits> 04:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The "top-tier" cite from Salon.com you refer to acknowledges that their "nationhood" is disputed and there certainly isn't a Palestinian nation state -see WP:CRYSTAL. See also: "There is as yet no Palestinian state, nor was there ever, strictly speaking, a Palestinian nation, over and above the collection of historic creed communities that coexisted in the Holy Land under a succession of imperial rules — most recently Ottoman and British." [4]

I'm not really going to argue about the "nation" soapboxing anymore because it's so clearly a disputed "fact" and therefore a vio of NPOV.

As for you suggestion on the lead, like I said, I'm still waiting on a rationale to mention a few hundred Samaritans and Druze who don't even identify as "Palestinian". <<-armon->> (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's a salon.com citation is not very relevant considering that the author is Rashid Khalidi, a titled professor of Arab Studies at Colombia, the head of its Mideast Departmant, and editor of the Journal of Palestine Studies. It would be perfectly acceptable even if he was writing on his own web page. He acknowledges that their nationhood is disputed "in certain disreputable quarters". Your reference to WP:CRYSTAL has nothing to do with anything as I'm sure you know. And your is your link to an article by a British philosopher, which doesn't even really deny Palestinian nationhood, rather denying "strictly speaking" nationhood "over and above" being a collection of historic communities.

The rationale for mentioning Samaritans who are Palestinian citizens, Druze who identify as "an inalienable part of the Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian nation at large", and Jews who identify as Palestinian and serve on the Palestinian National Council is that the information is verifiably true and prima facie relevant, and that the only arguments against it have been — to be charitable — hand-wavingly vague. <eleland/talkedits> 22:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

suggestion - i suggest we break this subsection to two and regroup the arguments succinctly so that we could maybe raise compromises or ask for a 3rd opinion (from uninvolved users) on the issues. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the lede, I've already offered a compromise. What do you think of replacing "smaller Samaritan, Druze, and Jewish communities" with "smaller religious communities"? <eleland/talkedits> 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think your formulation Eleland, is a very respectable compromise.

About "nation", Rashid Khalidi, as I mentioned before is used throughout the article. He is as you put it, a top-tier reliable source on this issue. The information in the lead should therefore stay. Tiamut 11:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

it's clearly a good faith offer, but i tend to believe that "smaller" is just as neutral as "insignificant" (i.e. not neutral).. i'd suggest (again) we divide the topics and list down the sources we have on this issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Smaller" is purely, undeniably, 100% factual, wheras "insignificant" makes a subjective judgment about what is or is not significant. I would be OK with "much smaller" though; that does not seem to be a stretch given that we're talking about a few hundred or thousand people out of a population of millions. A little more subjective, but in this case I think the numbers are disproportionate enough to justify it.

As a semi-related question: are we presuming that "Sunni Muslim", "Christian", etc are ethno-cultural designations (just like I'm a "Protestant" atheist) rather than actual expressions of belief? Given the relevance of Marxism to the Palestinian struggle I would think that a significant fraction of atheists or at least non-religious people would exist among the Palestinians. <eleland/talkedits> 05:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

to use "smaller" when comparing between the number 1 and 25,000 is clearly (to paraphrase:) "purely, undeniably, 100% factual"; however, it's just as accurate to use "insignificant". now, for the third time, i suggest we divide the section into two so that we can register what the sources say and come to a final consensus that does not include WP:OR. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is neither a personal attack, nor incivil, but a reasoned conclusion based on your own statements, especially what you've said above:

You simply do not understand the English language well enough to contribute to a nuanced, semantic discussion on the English Wikipedia. The differences between the words "small/large" and "significant/insignificant" are profound, and by definition "X is insignificant" is not a factual claim. <eleland/talkedits> 21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

nothing wrong with the point i raised, that the word "small" is not-neutral/inaccurate for use here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Could just say "few hundred". <<-armon->> (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

support the "few hundred" suggestion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

On the "nation" question, I confess to being a bit baffled. Aside from highly debatable assertions that Khalidi is a "top-tier" source, using only one source to insist that a controversial claim be presented as fact in the lead just is not on. I appeal to the smarter editors of this page to see the reason there. Also, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, isn't it Jonathan Shainin making the claim, at least in the footnote? And further, I quote from the top of the article: "Palestinian-American historian Rashid Khalidi explains why Palestinians have failed to create a nation and discusses the grave situation in the Middle East." "Failed to create a nation." So, great: I'm sure there's room below the ToC to hash all this out. But in the lead, as fact? Come on. IronDuke 01:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

IronDuke, your words are right on target. The problem here is that, what to you and other smart/fair editors is simple; others, also smart but unfair editors, think that they have a right to present in the lead as fact, something that to every clear thinking person is a controversial and disputed issue. Maybe you can knock some sense into this article. Itzse (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the article again. Note that headlines aren't usually written by the authors of the article and the use of nation there is meant to read nation-state (quite obvious when your read the discussion below it. This is false controversy. Also if you read the article here Palestinian people you will see many other sources attesting that Palestinians do indeed form a nation. (The development of a sense of "national identity", a process described for the first third of the article, usually requires a "nation".) Tiamut 03:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The "headline written by someone else" is OR speculation. The author of the Salon article is Jonathan Shahin not Khalidi. Rashid Khalidi as a "Palestinian" is about as proper a source to "settle" the issue as a "Zionist" would be. Per NPOV "show not tell". I've removed this clear vio yet again. <<-armon->> (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is without basis. Should we remove all Jewish authors as sources from the article because of the potential for a conflict of interest? Stop deleting this accurate and reliably sourced information. It's getting very tiresome. Tiamut 11:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that it has finally become tiresome. I got sick and tired of it a few months ago. I think it's time to go for arbitration. I'm turning it back to neutral until then. Itzse (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to arbitration over this, and certainly not with you Itzse. There is no solid policy-based rationale for the removal of this information, which restates in a direct form what is already in teh article body; i.e. that Palestinians are nation, without a nation-state. Heck, even Bush said so at Annapolis. Please get with the program. It's 2007, not 1907. Stop reverting reliably sourced, accurate and verifiable information. It is, when done repeatedly, against the admonitions of many other editors (not just myself) considered vandalism. Tiamut 21:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to you, to go or not to go for arbitration; you don't own this place. Your disagreement is not with me (imagine that I don't exist); it is with the other editors who you choose to ignore. The crux of the matter is: is it for Wikipedia to decide such a controversial issue and especially in the lead? If you don't recognize another side to the story, or that it is at all controversial; that is your problem. "Nation", "Nation-state", "1907" or "2007", "accurate", "reliably sourced", "fringe", "vandalism"; is what you're going to bring to the table; I'll just bring one fact, which is that the whole subject is "disputed".

Until then please don't revert again to your point of view. Is that too much to ask of you? Itzse (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary break

The word nation, (throughout the article), and the source say explicitly:

"Though one still hears, from certain disreputable quarters, the claim that the Palestinians are merely Arabs, and therefore should content themselves with residence in one of 'the other 22 Arab states,' most of the world now acknowledges that the Palestinians are a nation, entitled to self-determination, presumably within a state of their own."

Please provide evidence that states that "Palestinians are a nation" is "disputed". In other words, please provide sources for your assertion that this well-sourced piece of information is incorrect or in dispute. Until then, the information stays. Indeed, it is required per WP:LEAD Tiamut 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, are you saying that "nation" is not in dispute? Itzse (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that the extreme minority viewpoint that holds that Palestinians are not a nation is not sufficient reason to delete this information from the lead of the article, particularly when the national identity process, its emergence and formation, form the first third of the article. I am also saying that in the absence of anything in the way of reliable sources attesting to the fact that there is a dispute over this issue that is significant enough to deserve mention somewhere in the article, this information, reliably sourced throughout the article, should not be removed. Capisce? Tiamut 22:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Bring evidence that the view that "it is not a nation" is an "extreme minority viewpoint".

You haven't answered the question: are you saying that "nation" is not in dispute? Itzse (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you not reading the sources provided? Shall I bold the relevant passages?

"Though one still hears, from certain disreputable quarters, the claim that the Palestinians are merely Arabs, and therefore should content themselves with residence in one of 'the other 22 Arab states,' most of the world now acknowledges that the Palestinians are a nation, entitled to self-determination, presumably within a state of their own."

This quote firmly establishes that those who deny that Palestinians constitute a nation are a fringe minority. Tiamut 13:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry, i think i missed the actual source for this. could you please let me know where to find this? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

as i've stated before, far better sources are required. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

a million and one have already been provided. but i'm always happy to pull in a spare. Here's another, in Dan Rabinowitz and Khawla Abu Baker's book, Coffins on Our Shoulders, on page 12, they write: "Baruch Kimmerling and Joel Migdal argue that the Palestinian nation emerged in a series of anticolonial struggles..." Tiamut 22:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

with all due respect, are you citing a citation of a citation? what book and version of kimmerling and migdal are you supposedly referring to and is it an original or a translated version? even so, let's assume it is an original for the sake of argument - what is the context of this phrase and does it truely state what you intent it to state. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Note to IronDuke as well, from another review of Khalidi's work:

It is Khalidi's central thesis that Palestinian identity, far from being a product of the 1947-49 nakba was in fact constructed over a long period of time, most importantly during the nineteenth century. While this claim should hardly be surprising to serious students of the evolution of Arab identities, it is one that needs to be reiterated because of the persistent denial of the legitimacy of Palestinian nationalism or even the existence of the Palestinians as a distinct people. On the one hand, this denial is absolute, as in Golda Meir's notorious remark that the Palestinians did not exist, or Joan Peters's more recent tendentious (and largely fraudulent) book claiming that the Palestinian Arabs were predominantly if not exclusively recent immigrants from neighboring regions. Indeed, it is a sad comment on the state of at least popular discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict that Khalidi, writing after the official Israeli acknowledgement of Palestinian national aspirations and recognition of the PLO as their representative in the 1993 Oslo accords, is forced to refute the spurious claims of From Time Immemorial.

As I said before, those contesting the inclusion of this verifiable, accurate and reliably sourced information attesting to Palestinians constituting a nation are asked to provide a source (other than From Time Immemorial) that says that they are not. Tiamut 23:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So we have Khalidi as one side of the dispute; by any chance is Khalidi Muslim? but again are you saying that "nation" is not in dispute, that only extremists take that view? Why do you feel that your POV should trounce others? Bring proof that "nation" is not in dispute; otherwise "nation" doesn't belong in the lead, or both point of views need to be presented in the lead. Itzse (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that espouses the "other" point of view. Tiamut 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

First state, that you believe that there isn't another point of view; otherwise what's the use arguing. Itzse (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue anything Itzse. I've provided you with reliable sources (over and over and over again) that attest to the wide circulation of the view that Palestinians are a nation. I have told you that I have seen no evidence to suggest that anyone in disagreement with that view is anything other than part of an extreme frigne minority. I am asking you to provide a source that states that there is indeed a widespread belief that Palestinians do not constitute a nation. From there, discussion is feasible. For now, it's completely hypothetical and waste of time (mine and yours). We can discuss what to with any new information and how to treat it in the body of the text - and then we can decide what changes need to made to the lead, if any. Tiamut 00:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue with you either. I'm here to get that POV word "nation" out of the lead. At the most you have provided sources for one point of view; if they are reliable is another question. You dismiss the other POV as an "extreme fringe minority"; where do you get that from? The existence and creation of the State of Israel is the other point of view, and the need for an Annapolis conference, is because there is another point of view. If you want to play blind, that's your problem. I'm taking this for arbitration even though I have no time for this. Itzse (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your refusal to provide even one source is noted. Tiamut 00:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your refusal to acknowledge the other side of the Palestinian conflict is duly noted. That's why arbitation is the only answer. Who knows, maybe if they solve it here, they will then be called to solve it there. Itzse (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is insane. I am trying to have a source-based discussion with you, not solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While related to the subject matter at hand in this article, it is not even the subject of this article. The subject of this article is a nation of people who call themselves Palestinian people. I have provided you sources and the article itself attests to the fact that most of the world recognizes them as a nation (not to be confused with nation-state. You have (so far) provided nothing but platitudes. Please focus on the task at hand. Tiamut 01:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that "the other side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" talks about its hope to establish a "Palestinian nation-state", and signed the treaties establishing the Palestinian National Authority. The official, stated position of the last 3 Israeli governments has been that there is a Palestinian nation. Bush talks about the Palestinian nation-state. I've already provided those references above. Yeah, you can find random pundits who still claim that there is no such thing as Palestinians, but who cares? You can find pundits of equal reliability and significance in the Arab world who claim that Israeli Jews are all descended from Khazars, or that the Holocaust killed "only" a few hundred thousand. Wikipedia is not hostage to every extremist claim out there; everyone of importance and notability relative to the issue accepts that the Palestinians form a nation. <eleland/talkedits> 01:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The word nation is hardly POV in this context, except for extreme anti-Palestinians. There should be no dispute over this. Funkynusayri (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, Tiamut, I think your quote from Khalidi more or less makes my point. Nowhere does he say “nation”, but instead talks of “national aspirations.” That can only mean that they are not yet a nation, if I understand the word “aspire” (and I believe I do). But you asked for sources, which is fair enough.

• “You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people.” Hafez Assad to Yasser Arafat. (From A Durable Peace: Israel and Its Place Among the Nations By Benjamin Netanyahu (page 104))

• Zuheir Mohsen: “There is no such thing as Palestinians. There is no difference between us and the Syrians, the Lebanese [the Muslim Lebanese, obviously], the Egyptians, the Jordanians. The idea of the "Palestinian people" is just a new weapon in the struggle against the Zionist enemy.” (From Der Truow, 1977)

• David Ben Gurion: “: “There is no conflict between Jewish and Palestinian [Arab] nationalism because the Jewish nation is not in Palestine and the Palestinians are not a nation.” (From Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians By Noam Chomsky, p 51)

• Golda Meir: "There is no Palestinian people. There are Palestinian refugees." (New York Times)

And I believe there are quite a few more.

I think one difficulty we’re having here is semantic. If we want to say that “Nation” means sovereign government, then “Palestine” fails. If we want to use it in the more lyrical sense of group of persons who consider themselves a people, then I think a powerful argument can be made for its use. The difficulty is, the reader isn’t going to be able to determine what sense we’re using it in if we put it in the lead like that. If someone wants to make up a “Nation” header and discuss these issues under it, that might be a good thing. But we shouldn't put a controversial, confusing statement up front in the lead. IronDuke 01:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "nation means sovereign government" is such a stupid misconception that it's not our problem if somebody might hold it. Nobody would ever insist that Tsuu T'ina Nation or Chapel Island First Nation or Bridge River Indian Band shouldn't say "nation" because some poor soul might believe they're sovereign states. As I keep saying, all parties involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict recognize at least rhetorically the desirability of a Palestinian nation-state in the near future. Even the extremists (Elon Plan) argue that Israel should keep the West Bank & Gaza on the basis that Jordan is the Palestinian nation-state, therefore no "additional" state is needed to fulfill their national aspirations.

You provided a quote from the President-for-Life of Syria, hardly an objective source, and no longer reflective of the Syrian position. Another, unsourced and 30 years old, from somebody whose sole notoriety is being endlessly quoted on random "Masada 2000" "Eretz Yisrael" type websites to prove a fringe minority's point. And two from Israelis that have been dead for decades. Now, their POV ("no such thing as Palestinians") is most certainly notable for historic understanding of the issue, but irrelevant to the current position of all parties. <eleland/talkedits> 02:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, I would not have problems with coming up with some reliable sources of high profile making statements regarding the "nation" claim. i have no problem with the "people" word being used, but they belong to the arabic nation (which rejects them) and many of them subscribe to the islamic nation (which promotes their destruction). i believe they pose a "nationalistic movement" but don't believe the "nation" issue passed the 'neutral media perspective' just yet. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• The "Arabic nation" is analogous to a "European nation", there is no point in redefining the term "nation" just so it doesn't cover Palestinians, look up any definition of nation and it gets pretty obvious that the Palestinian Arabs fulfill the criteria, as much as any other nation. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, I think your phrase “objective source” is useful here: it is, respectfully, looking at the problem the wrong way. There is no objective source here, it is, as I say, a matter of semantics. It isn’t like trying to determine the last digit of pi, where expert mathematicians might be consulted and come to a conclusion. Since the Palestinians lack much of what we think of when we talk about “nationhood”, it isn’t hard to see why some people deny that they are that.

As for your thoughts on what the word Nation is usually taken to mean, I think you’re off base there. From Webster's

1 a (1): nationality 5a (2): a politically organized nationality (3): a non-Jewish nationality <why do the nations conspire — Psalms 2:1 (Revised Standard Version)> b: a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government c: a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status 2 archaic : group, aggregation 3: a tribe or federation of tribes (as of American Indians)

It seems that “Palestine” fails some or all of these. (Note the third definition (not uncommon) that splits off federated tribes as having a separate status.) And some more sources, relatively sympathetic to Palestinians, I believe.

Your point about Jordan speaks, I think, to exactly my point: Palestinians do not regard Jordan as “their” state in the same way that they might, for example, think of Gaza. It is because some Israelis reject the idea that Gaza or the West Bank are part of a Palestinian “Nation” that people kep floating that idea. Now some more quotes:

• Palestine and the Middle East: A Chronicle of Passion and Politics - Page 62 by Jaffer Ali (2003) “Many Israelis still hold to the notion that there are no "Palestinians."

• Our Sisters' Promised Land: Women, Politics, and Israeli-Palestinian Coexistence by Ayala Emmett 2003 Page 44

"(Hanan Ashrawi, Shulamit Aloni, Alice Shalvi, Yael Dayan, and Naomi Chazan) were making a statement regarding Palestinians. Publicly, they broke Israel’s official denial of Palestinian nation-ness: they defied the Likud government’s position that there were no longer any 1967 borders, that the occupied territories (including the city of Ramallah) were part of a Greater Israel, and that there was no Palestinian nation."

I should note, of course, that bolding has been added. IronDuke 03:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"1: national character 2: nationalism 1 3 a: national status; specifically : a legal relationship involving allegiance on the part of an individual and usually protection on the part of the state b: membership in a particular nation 4: political independence or existence as a separate nation 5 a: a people having a common origin, tradition, and language and capable of forming or actually constituting a nation-state b: an ethnic group constituting one element of a larger unit (as a nation)"[5] Funkynusayri (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to argue that Palestinains fulfill some part of what it might mean to call themselves "a nation." It is also possible to argue that they do not, e.g., definition 4, in that Palestinians do not have political independence nor, as in definition 3, do Palestinians enjoy protection on the part of a "state of Palestine" (or if they do, they oughta get their money back). IronDuke 04:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, are for example Basques, Frisians, Kurds and Assyrians not to be labeled nations eiher? Funkynusayri (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we state that Basques, Frisians, Kurds and Assyrians are nations on WP? No. For one thing, those examples are ethnic groups, and where there's a notable ethnic-nationalist movement, such in the case of the Basques, our article maintains NPOV by stating: This article discusses the Basques as an ethnic group or, as some view them, a nation, in contrast to other ethnic groups living in the Basque area. -rather than insisting it be presented as "fact". <<-armon->> (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What is done in other articles is not really relevant here. I don't want to start making comparative evaluations of people's claims to nationhood. I think it's rather deplorable that the baseline for that recognition isn't automatically the peoples' definitions of themselves. Indeed, as many editors have pointed out over and over again, as long as a group self-identifies as a nation, it constitutes a nation.

In the case of the Palestinian people, they have a national representative body in the Palestine Liberation Organization which represents them in the United Nations. That they constitute a nation is not widely disputed, though it is vehemently and persistently disputed by Zionists, or irrelevant to those unfamiliar with scholarship on identity and national belonging.

The lead, by using "nation" first and then "nation-state", while also mentioning the relatively recent crystallization of a Palestinian national consciousness, provides a faithful and descriptive summary of the subject at hand (i.e. the Palestinian people) while leaving space in the body of the article for these issues are discussed in further nuance.

The objections, in short, remain rather superfluous. I also concur with Eleland's analysis of the sources. They are very outdated and do not come from experts in the relevant fields. Tiamut 23:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Outdated"? Well, color me crazy, but 2003 seems like only yesterday to me... But I agree with you, Tiamut, that other articles aren't necessarily relevant here. What about this, since I think most of us agree on the bare-bones facts, but are stuck on terminology. What if we say something like:

"Palestinian people (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني, ash-sha'ab il-filastini), Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيين, al-filastiniyyin), or Palestinian Arabs (Arabic: العربي الفلسطيني, al-'arabi il-filastini) are terms used today to refer to a nation[1] (in the sense of peoplehood) of predominantly Arabic-speaking people with family origins in the region of Palestine."

I'm not married to what I have in parens, but the gist of it is that yes, the Palestinians do call and consider themselves a nation in the sense that we pretty much all agree on. Fair? IronDuke 00:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tiamut and Eleland. Yes, there are some Zionists past and present who assert that Palestinians don't constitute a people or a nation, just as there are various Arab nationalists, pan-nationalists, and extremists who claim Israel isn't a state but an "entity." Big deal. Wikipedia currently deals with that "dispute" by describing Israel as a state in Israel, and having a separate article on the deniers' terminology, "Zionist entity." Something like that could work here too. Perhaps a separate article called No such thing as Palestinians.

At any rate, the section on self-identifying terms in Wikipedia's policy on naming conflicts settles this dispute definitively. The fact that there have been and still are voices who deny Palestinian nationhood can be noted in this article or another, per consensus.--G-Dett (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with G-Dett here "self-identifying entities" and the terms they use for themselves are given precedence over what a minority of people think about them. Some of the denial of Palestinian peoplehood is already expressed in the article, per Golda Meir's (in)famous statement. But it's not a significant enough POV (per what we have so far in terms of reliable sources) to merit inclusion in the lead, beyond perhaps a quick line about how some Zionists persist in denying Palestinian nationhood. I don't think the parentheses is a good idea (it seems somewhat pedantic, given the rather common knowledge that there is no Palestinian nation-state). And by the way, that source of Netanyahu which is what I assume you are saying is from 2003, is quoting Hafez al-Assad who died in 2000 (and I don't know when he said that, perhaps you could check?) Thanks. Tiamut 01:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

G'Day, G-Dett. Clicking on the link you provided I see that you are, once again, very right. To quote from the 1st graf of the body of that page:

Names can sometimes be controversial because of perceived negative political connotations, historical conflicts or territorial disputes. However, Wikipedia does not take sides in a political controversy or determine what is something or someone's true, proper name. What this encyclopedia does, rather, is to describe the controversy. (bolding in original)

I think the above is exactly what I'm suggesting. IronDuke 02:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you read that section en toto, I think what it's saying is that if a group of people identify themselves as X, and another group of people says no way, you're no X, then what Wikipedia does is use the term X, and note the controversy if the controversy's notable. The example offered up by the guideline is remarkably close to our situation:

Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. The Maputans oppose this usage because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term.

Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen. By contrast, the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective. It is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide.

In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. On the other hand, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV.

In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe.

This should not be read to mean that subjective POVs should never be reflected in an article. If the term "Cabindan" is used in an article, the controversy should be mentioned and if necessary explained, with both sides' case being summarised.

The part I've bolded speaks to (indeed seems to be an elaboration of) the part you've cited, Ironduke. Taken all together, I understand this to mean that in these situations, Wikipedia should both use the term and describe any controversy surrounding it.--G-Dett (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wellll, I think the example you provide would speak more to a debate about whether to use the word "Palestinian." There are some who object to the word itself as being essentially a made-up label slapped on a group of random semites who happened to be living in Israel as a way to artificially induce them to hate Israel. Does that mean we put quotes around "Palestinian" wherever we find it? No. Also, if, for example, a convicted murderer (we'll call him IronDuke) is on death row and loudly proclaiming his innocence, would we say in the lead of his article, "IronDuke is a former Wikipedia editor falsely accused of murder"? No, I don't think so, even if I self-identify as such.

And again, what I'm trying to get at here is that the notion of being a "nation" is complicated by the fact that "nation" means several different things. Can we all agree that Palestine is not a nation in the way that, say, France is? No clear boundaries, no capital as such, no army, no embassies, etc? If you scroll up and look at the definitions I provided, it's clear to everyone here "Palestine" doesn't meet a good chunk of what's usually meant by "nation," right? Anyone disagree with that last statement? IronDuke 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, IronDuke but the analogies you've drawn are a rather poor fit and much of what you write comes off as equivocation. I would suggest you re-read the discussion above where the distinction between nation and nation-state is reviewed (use the wikilinks too. they're useful). You might also consider the line in the policy above the section quoted by G-Dett that discuss the deference we show to "self-identifying entities" vs. "inanimate" ones. Palestinians are a nation striving for to self-determination in a nation-state. If we omit this information from the article, we deny the reader an piece of information essential for their comprehension of what this article discussed: i.e. the Palestinian people. If you want to add more on how Zionists don't think Palestinians exist, you are more than welcome to do so. Keep in mind WP:UNDUE however. Tiamut 04:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

IronDuke is absolutely correct. This is a controversy to be discussed in the article, not a simple issue to be "decided" in the intro. (That is why I just reverted the article.) 6SJ7 (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny, its as though there was no RfC on this matter. The opinions of other editors have been solicited and there was strong support for its inclusion. Tiamut 13:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As did I. It's a simple case of a violation of NPOV which is a non-negotiable core policy. <<-armon->> (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are ignoring WP:NPOV and Wikipedia's naming guidelines quoted above. How it is POV to report what most of the world believes to be true per the relaible sources provided above and throughout the article exactly? Tiamut 13:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ironduke is correct about much of what he's saying, and he's clearly approaching this in a reasonable way, but Tiamut is quite right that he continues to blur the distinction between nations and nation-states. His point about "no clear boundaries, no capital as such, no army, no embassies, etc." is the most obvious example. I think the guideline on self-identifying terms clearly applies here; but it should also be noted that even in the academic literature "nation" is established through self-identification (Benedict Anderson's Imaginary Communities is probably the most important and influential text on nation-formation in modernity). If large numbers of Palestinians contested that identification, there would be an NPOV problem. Referring to a Lebanese "nation" would be an NPOV problem for precisely this reason – many Lebanese see themselves as part of a "greater Syria," while others see themselves as "Phoenicians," and look to Europe for their cultural orientation. But Palestinians both Sunni and Christian see themselves as tightly bound by a common history and a collective future, and the skepticism of outsiders is neither here nor there – both with regards to Wikipedia policy and to the anthropological definition of nationhood. That the likes of Hafez al-Assad on the one hand and Benjamin Netanyahu on the other have found reason to contest the existence of a Palestinian nation is interesting and notable, but it has no bearing whatsoever – with respect to NPOV or any other policy – on our use of the term.

This leads us to Armon and 6SJ7's ongoing confusion, which is of a very different order from Ironduke's casual and colloquial conflation of nation and nation-state. There is an important distinction between the notability and reliability of a claim, which Armon and 6SJ7 persist in ignoring. It is notable that certain figures – say, Zionists and pan-Arab nationalists – deny Palestinian nationhood, but their claims aren't reliable for either the definition of "nation" or the existence of a Palestinian nation. In exactly the same way, it is notable that various Arab leaders past and present have refused to recognize Israel as a state and insist instead that it's an "entity" in a temporary sense; but this position is not a reliable one to be factored in to an NPOV presentation of Israel's status.--G-Dett (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

to repeat myself, "with all due respect to rashid khalidi's statement in salon. he's not quite an objective figure on whether or not "palestinians" represent a nation. i'd expect better sources on this one." Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Good of you to repeat yourself for us dullards and half-wits, hanging on, as we are, as always, by a thread.

By the way Jaakobou, though Palin/I is/am right, I've always thought/now think Cleese/you got/get the best lines:[6]

Michael Palin: An argument isn't just contradiction.
John Cleese: It can be.
Michael Palin: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
John Cleese: No it isn't.
Michael Palin: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
John Cleese: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Michael Palin: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
John Cleese: Yes it is!
Michael Palin: No it isn't!
John Cleese: Yes it is!
Michael Palin: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause) John Cleese: No it isn't.

--G-Dett (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

page lock

the page is locked (because editors refused to resolve disputes properly) so we've now degenerated onto a revert war on the talk page? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, the page is locked because instead of engaging in a substantive debate, you and your cohorts have stubbornly persisted in ignoring Wikipedia policy regarding WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD and relevant naming conventions to curry favor for an extreme minority viewpoint, held largely by Zionists, that denies that Palestinians are a nation. Then, when G-Dett wittily pointed out that your objections amount to mere contradictions, rather than substantive argumentation, you decided to try to delete her post here on the talk page. She rightly restored it, and then one of your cohorts came in to revert her restoration.

I have to say that the persistent deletions of reliably sourced and accurate information by you and others like Armon (talk · contribs) and Itzse (talk · contribs), done without engaging in any significant discussion, are extremely disruptive and frankly corrosive to any sense of consensus building. I hope that when the page is unprotected, you will take these views into account. Tiamut 09:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, please avoid personal attacks and POV accusations (imagine one would turn and do the same on the people reverting to your preferred POV while contributing nothing but jokes to the talk page), and focus on the content dispute and finding ways to resolve it within' the wikipedia process. the page is locked because one side of the discussion wants a contested claim inserted into the lead and the other side of the debate is contesting this.

on point, i requested to see valid sources on this 'mainstream' statement to assess how 'mainstream' it really is. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I really urge you to re-read WP:NCON and consider it's application here seriously. As G-Dett pointed out above, we don't call Israel the "Zionist entity" even though there are millions of people who do, and we don't deny Palestinian nationhood even though there are millions who do. We go with what these entities call themselves, per WP:NCON.

Of course, we can review some more sources. Some of these have already been provided in the RfC on this issue in Archive 11:

• This journal discusses how Palestinians in the Diaspora accommodate their "ethno-national" identity with citizenship in other countries.

• Menachem Klein in "Between Right and Realization: The PLO Dialectics of 'The Right of Return'" (1998) in the Journal of Refugee Studies writes: "The right of return, then, became an important factor in the PLO's call for recognition that the Palestinians are a nation to which an injustice has been done"

• In the journal Nature: It should also be noted that the Palestinians are a nation of young adults and children.

Why so resistant to use such an obviously appropriate term to describe the subject of this article?

And why so resistant to this eminently mainstream source, Salon (magazine):Though one still hears, from certain disreputable quarters, the claim that the Palestinians are merely Arabs, and therefore should content themselves with residence in one of "the other 22 Arab states," most of the world now acknowledges that the Palestinians are a nation, entitled to self-determination, presumably within a state of their own.

It clearly indicates the mainstream usage of of nation to refer to Palestinians as distinct from nation-state is widely understood.

It's Orwellian to omit the word nation when the entire Palestinian struggle for self-determination has been a national one, widely acknolwedged throughout the world. Why deny reality? Tiamut 19:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut,

if you go over my past comments, i've stated that they are a national movement.

i'll go over your refs soon and respond. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And now for something completely different (well, maybe not “completely”)

G-Dett, your arguments above are very nicety written; indeed, it is almost worth arguing with you merely for the sake of your lucid prose. Delightful as it is, however, it does not remedy that 1) you’ve sauntered casually past some of my arguments above and 2) you’ve muddled the argument that you did take up. To wit:

You think I’ve blurred the distinction between nation and nation-state? Try looking at what the reverters are reverting to when they insert the word nation back into the text. First line: “A nation is a form of cultural or social community.’ Do the Palestinians fit this? Yeah, sure, I guess—why not? So does Raider Nation. Helpful? Next sentence: “Nationhood is an ethical and philosophical doctrine and is the starting point for the ideology of nationalism.” Um… what? Assuming that sentence had any useful meaning, who is it that asserts the ideas contained in it? Source? Later on we have, “Past events are framed in this context; for example; by referring to "our soldiers" in conflicts which took place hundreds of years ago.” Were there conflicts in, say 1800 that involved the ancestors of people living in the territories today, and did those people call themselves Palestinian and/or think of themselves as a Nation. (I will award special bonus points to anyone who tries to assert that the Philistines were the ancestors of today’s Palestinians). Later we have, “A nation is usually the people of a state…” Well, not in this case. Then we have “In the strict sense, terms such as nation, ethnos, and 'people' (as in 'the Danish people') denominate a group of human beings.”

As I read that sentence, awkward as it is, it makes me realize that folks on this page are arguing that the Palestinians are a nation in that exact sense conveyed by the title of the article, “Palestinian people.” The Palestinians are a people, the article already conveys this, why add a confusing, contentious word with multiple meanings?

Also, I will reintroduce my earlier argument, as no one seems to have dealt with it. The quote in the footnote of the “Nation” version of the article says, “most of the world now acknowledges that the Palestinians are a nation…” And this is from who? Jonathan Shainin? Is he a "top-tier” source on Israel/Palestine? And again, the article begins with, “Rashid Khalidi explains why Palestinians have failed to create a nation.” Is it possible that Shainin does not agree with the header of his own article? Barely, though it’s far more likely that, had he disagreed with it, he would have had it removed. So what we have now, based on Khalidi’s rejection of Palestinian nationhood, and the sources I’ve brought, is a strong argument for specifically disavowing that the Palestinians comprise a nation—and doing so in the lead. I’m not making this argument, of course, but I think it’s fair to say that use of the word “Nation” in the lead is misleading at best, and at worst violates WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SERIOUSLY, WHY IS THIS SUCH A HUGE DEAL?.

And once again: I am not conflating “nation” and “nation state”: the people inserting the word nation into the article are. IronDuke 18:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you keep ignoring my responses to your posts (fallen deeply for G-Dett's whimsy and charm no doubt - who can blame you?) I'm not going to bother engaging you further. I direct you however to my comments posted in response to Jaakobou's post in the section above. Tiamut 19:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that Rashid Khalidi has written an entire book on Palestinian nationhood, and that IronDuke's "say 1800" standard would exclude a large proportion of the world's nations from "nationhood", including my own, given that its national identity was not established until some time after Palestinian national identity was crystallized. <eleland/talkedits> 19:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, apologies for not responding. I in fact missed your reply to Jakobu, as I thought that thread was dealing with the removal of G-Dett’s comments which I was, frankly, not so super-interested in reading. (Also, I respectfully request that you inject a more G-Dett-ian level of whimsy and charm into your comments, or I will report you to the appropriate Wiki-authorities.)

To your point(s): I have dealt with the Salon thing in that a) Shaihan is not, AFAIK, a “top-tier” source and even if he were, at the very top of the article it says quite clearly that Palestinians do not comprise a nation. I could see including the Salon piece later in the article, but not as some kind of justification for defining the Palestinians as a nation and, too, we’d need to take account of the fact that the article also alleges that Palestinians are not a nation. Again: “Rashid Khalidi explains why Palestinians have failed to create a nation.”

The JSTOR article is behind a paywall, so I cannot say for sure what the article purports. Can you provide a link to a copy of the whole thing? In any case, from what I can gather, the article is investigating the very question we are debating here, and is also using the term “ethnonational”, which is clearly not the same thing as “nation.”

The Klein thing appears merely to assert that the PLO wishes for Palestine to be recognized as a nation, which I have no problem believing.

The third source you have is also behind a paywall, so I can’t say what context it appears in, though in this case I don’t think it matters; Nature, AFAIK, is not an authority on the Middle East.

And, finally, even if a good source was dug up asserting that the Palestinians are a nation, the term itself and the article we link to have multiple definitions. It isn’t helping the article to put a vague term like “nation” up front in the lead. We can hash it all out in a later section, but surely all agree here that the Palestinians do not meet some important criteria for nationhood. I’m in fact going to assume that’s the case, unless any editors want to write, “No, IronDuke, the Palestinians meet every reasonable definition of a nation, so they are one.”

Eleland, I am not positing that soldiers must have fought in 1800 in order for a country to claim nationhood, that is one of the many confusing, random definitions in the article folks keep linking to. Also, maybe my information is out of date, but since when is Canada a nation? People don’t call it the 51st state for nothing, do they? IronDuke 20:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

IronDuke, the Palestinians do meet every reasonable definition of a nation. If you review the discussion in Archive 11 on the RfC for this issue, you will see that of the different definitions offered, Palestinians were judged to fit every one. The only definition they fail to qualify for is not nation, but rather nation-state, which you continually seem to be confusing here. A paucity of familiarity on the part of some Wikipedia readers with the scholarship on nationhood, should not prevent us from using a term. It only means that we must bettert explain it. There are many good sources on this subject, many of which are already cited throughout the article. Indeed, it is impossible to speak of Palestinian nationalism without acknowledging that Palestinians are a nation. You can't be nationalistic if you do not share a sense of national identity with others; i.e. constitute a nation. Please review the discussion in Archive 11 under the RfC sub-heading (not the first one of whether or not Palestinians constitute a people, but the second oneon whether the fact that they constitute a nation can be mentioned in the lead.) And about wit, unfortunately, I have the very direst sense of humour, appreicated only by me. Tiamut 21:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the RCF and it looks to me a lot like the discussion here; certainly, no consensus was reached there. "Palestinians were judged to fit every [definition of nation]?" Really? By whom? I don't know how to make my point clearer other than to restate it: "nation" is too vague a term for the lead, and it is too easy to conflate it with "nation-state". Why not, as suggested in the IRC, simply use "people," as that is what the article purports to be about, instead of linking to a crappy, unreferenced article that sheds little light on what the word "nation" might mean in this article. (And on wit, you kinda sorta almost made a joke there at the end. I actually emitted a dry chuckle upon reading it so, cheers.) IronDuke 22:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

While there was no strong consensus to place "nation" in the introduction, there was clear consensus that Palestinians constituted a nation (i.e. Those who did dispute the notion provided nothing in the way of evidence for their assertions.) Also, the scholarly material cited in the RfC responses (which I've parsed and copied below for your convenience in re-review) indicates that there is a well-established difference in meaning between nation and nation-state, though colloquially they are often used as synonyms. However, Wikipedia doesn't write in colloquial language on subjects that require nuance. Further, "people" as a stand alone term is actually a much vaguer term than "nation".

Thankfully, I also found a copy of Rashid Khalidi's 1997 text Palestinian Identity:The Construction of Modern National Consciousness in my library. Since the major objection to the Salon magazine source was that it was not a direct quote from Khalidi, an expert in the field, but a review of his work by a lesser known author. From Khalidi's 1997 work:

"The purpose of this book is to overcome these impediments, in order to explain how a strong sense of Palestinian national identity developed in spite of, and in some cases because of, the obstacles it faced."(6)

and,

"The Palestinians, of course, do have one asset in spite of everything: a powerful sense of national identity, which we have seen they were able to develop and maintain inspite of extradordinary vicissitudes."(205)

"...a Palestininan identity has asserted itself and survived against all odds, and in spite of the many failures we have touched on. Dulles said in the 1950s that the Palestinians would disappear, and Golda Meir spoke in 1969 as if they had disappeared, going so far as to declare that they never existed in the first place. But they have not disappeared, and even their most determined opponents seem to have begun to reconcile themselves to this uncomfortable fact. For these opponents, whether Israel, or some Arab states or the great powers, the nonexistence of the Palestinians would have made things considerably easier at various stages of history. But inconvenient though their identity has often been for others, the Palestinians have remained stubbornly attached to it. This probably must be adjudged a success, although it is a small one.

Rashidi ends the book by stating that it remains to be seen whether the world will "finally allow the achievement of self-determination, statehood, and national independence the modern world has taught us is the 'natural state' of peoples with an independent national identity like the Palestinians." Tiamut 23:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Summary of position from the RfC

Palestinians are a nation

1. Here for the RfC. This is a non-issue. Both in terms of Wikipedia policy (see this) and anthropological theory, nationhood is self-defined. That is, there's no such thing as a group of people that sees themselves as a nation but isn't a nation. It's not he said she said. That said, of course it's good (neutral, encyclopedic, interesting) to historicize this self-identification. With respect, end of story.--G-Dett 03:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC
2. Indeed, the use of the word "nation" in this sense is not controversial at all, e.g., Britannica "People whose common identity creates a psychological bond and a political community" --Ian Pitchford 13:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
3. An outside comment for the RFC. I agree that, absent any specific arguments to the contrary, we should edit on the understanding that nations are self-defined. Resolving this matter should simply be a matter of providing sources that demonstrate that Palenstians are a nation or are not a nation. Is this RFC now satisfied or would people like comments on individual sources? Eiler7 14:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Propose - that this RfC, having been open 3 days, be closed, and that "Palestinian people" be accepted as a nation (assuming we have RSs who say that is what some believe themselves to be). I propose this on the basis that (so we're told) "peoples" are free to self-identify as "nations", and I don't see any contra-indications to this claim. PalestineRemembered 12:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Paul Schiemann, who championed minority rights during the period between WWI and WWII, pioneered the concept of separation of nation (Volksgemeinschaft—national community) and of state (Staatsgemeinschaft—state community). "Nation" is used to denote an "ethnic/cultural nation" which does not require land; what it does (at least from my readings) require is a sense of nation, that is, a demonstrated sense of common cultural heritage, unity, and purpose; of self-identity as a community of people, etc. I should also clarify that neither does "nation" imply "nationalism" in terms of striving for territorial acquisition, political gains, etc. And I should add that "Palestinian people" (people indicating shared origin) is not a substitute for "Palestinian nation." — Pēters J. Vecrumba
6. Nation is indeed uncontroversial, now, with regard to Palestinians, and those editors particularly, Israeli/Zionist, who oppose it with regard to Palestinians do so for ideological reasons, i.e. they wish to deny a 'national' status to the Palestinians in order to prejudice the latters' claims to a state identity on the West Bank and Gaza. This is well known, the quote I added from Hobsbawm, a world authority on the concept of nation, (and indeed impeccably 'Jewish' for that matter) underlines the point. The non-recognition is a political act, which reflects an early prejudice, one notoriously expressed by Begin who once addressed the Knesset with the words: 'My friend, take care. When you recognize the concept of 'Palestine,' you demolish your right to live in Ein Hahoresh. . If this is Palestine, then it belongs to a people who lived here before you came.' The two editors who opposed the use of the word 'nation' did so not out of editorial scruple, but rather from outworn political objections to the definition of a people whose history over the past several decades has formed, pari passu with the formation of an 'Israeli identity' (which also never existed before) their own national identity. As such the editing out of such references is a political act in violation of the rules.Nishidani 10:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC

Palestinians are a nation but not an intro piece of information

1. My take is that a group of people who identify as a nation (with sourcing) should be presented as such. With the controversy over the Ottomans and so on regarding what ifs, that material can come later in the article. Ngchen 15:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
2. From my personal reading of WP policy, 'nation' should work as a self-identifying concept via WP:NCON. But if you hold via WP:V (verifiability) that 'nation' is as good as 'people' for the article intro, it's still fair for folks to ask for your sources. HG | Talk 20:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians are not a nation

1. my take: the clear cut nation is arabs, palestinians are a mishmash of arabs and some ottomans (and very few others), i'm not sure on what really makes them into a nation other than them being held by the arabs as pawns (without citizenship or rights) in the arab-israeli conflict... i've seen the ottoman maps from 1860 and i honestly believe that without israel (now or in the future), there would be no palestinian "self identification" only clandish identification (iraq anyone?) within' the arab national. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Sorry, I feel that Palestinians are a nationality, but not a nation, as they do not have a nation-state which is formally declared by them or recognized by anyone else; this is in accordance with the official view of all parties, including Palestinians themselves, I believe. They do not claim to have a formal nation, since they consider themselves still occupied by Israel. They are like the Kurds, Basques, etc, as being an acknowledged nationality, with some aspirations to formal political status as a fully-recognized nation. --Steve, Sm8900 14:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Well, first, the definition of "nation" is problematic. Secondly, the first sentence loses nothing when the word nation is removed, so I just proceeded with that. Beit Or 18:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Adds "NPOV balance" to what? Armenians are possibly called a "nation" because there is a state of Armenia, so the word "Armenians" applies both to an ethnic group and the citizens of Armenia. The same cannot be said of Palestinians. Beit Or 19:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Nation is an ambiguous term

1. Outside view via RFC - nation is an ambiguous term, and can mean either a people in general, or a country. People is a nonambiguous term. In this instance, the desired meaning of the word nation is exactly the same meaning as the term people. There is no reason not to use the word people; nation appears to have serious WP:WEASEL problems. The Evil Spartan 20:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
2. I've removed "nation" for a few reasons.

A book review of Rashid Khalidi on Salon.com is a poor and partisan source for a consensus claim such as this. See WP:ASF and WP:RS The cite itself notes that there remains some dispute -which we know to be true, like it or not. It's unnecessary to "bang the point home" because the third paragraph addresses the issue perfectly well. See Let the facts speak for themselves

<<-armon->> 11:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ensuing discussion

I agree with Tiamut that the Palestinians meet every criteria of nationhood, as that term is used and defined by scholars and experts of the subject. The trouble is, there are lots of casual connotations of "nation" in its colloquial sense, and these are creating confusion.

In his seminal book Nations and states : an enquiry into the origins of nations and the politics of nationalism, Hugh Seton-Watson offered the following definition of nationhood: "A nation exists when a significant number of people in a community consider themselves to form a nation, or behave as if they formed one." Benedict Anderson drew on Seton-Watson's work for his own definition of a nation as an "imagined political community." "Imagined" here does not mean unreal or anything even close to that; it simply means that most members of a nation "will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion." Anderson's Imagined communities : reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism is probably the single most influential contemporary work on nation-formation and on the history of the concept of nation. Interestingly for our debate here, Anderson notes the confusion created by "the objective modernity of nations to the historian's eye vs. their subjective antiquity in the eyes of nationalists." Both the Palestinian who claims that Palestinian nationhood reaches all the way back to the Canaanites, AND the Israeli who claims that Palestinians can't be a nation because a hundred years ago they were "just Arabs," are equally falling prey to the subjective fallacy Anderson describes.

Now, the Salon.com article. It may be better just to use Khalidi's scholarship itself. Khalidi is an excellent source, in fact probably the best and most reliable source on Palestinian nationhood, having written the definitive books on the subject. The journalist however is something of a lesser source. And the headline writer does not even know what a nation is, period, and therefore misunderstood the article. Both the Salon article and Khalidi's work assert Palestinian nationhood; what they address is "the history of failures and disappointments in the Palestinian quest for statehood"; the headline-writer didn't grasp this elementary distinction, the very distinction upon which the entire article turns, hence the bungled title. Incidentally, Ironduke, I don't understand your reference to "Khalidi's rejection of Palestinian nationalism," any more than I would understand a reference to "Richard Dawkins' rejection of biological evolution."

This brings us to an important question. The headline-writer is presumably not an ignoramus. And Ironduke is quite right that the very fact that the headline was not corrected is telling. What does it tell us? It tells us the word "nation" is sometimes used in ignorance, or as a synonym for "state," and that plenty of educated people don't really notice. This does not however mean that the term is "vague." On the contrary, it's a very crisply defined term, and an incredibly useful one, but one that is, unfortunately, often misused. My own feeling is that we should use precise words precisely, and not patronize the reader by worrying that he might misunderstand them.

If we do choose, however, to avoid the word "nation" because of widespread misconceptions about its meaning, and to use "people" instead, we'll need to make absolutely sure that the latter word does not become part of a pea-and-shell trick. "People" can be a generic plural of "person" or a collective singular noun, "a people." Our article's subject is this collective singular. Our current lead, which introduces its subject as a term "used to refer to Arabic-speaking people with family origins in the region of Palestine," manages (through its weaselly omission of the indefinite article "an") to sneak in the generic plural sense, thereby smuggling in the discredited "just Arabs" meme into the article's first sentence.--G-Dett (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just quickly, I would take issue wit the idea that this split between “nation” and “nation state” is somehow obvious, or at least indisputable. For example, in “Nations and Nationalism” by Ernest Gellner he writes, “Initially there were two especially promising candidates for the construction of a theory of nationality: will and culture. Obviously, each of them is important and relevant; but, just as obviously, neither is remotely adequate.” (Page 54.) Then later on the same page, “If we define nations as groups which will themselves to persist as communities, the definition net we have cast into the sea will bring forth too rich a catch.” Then on page 55, “Any definition of nations in terms of shared culture is another net which brings in too rich a catch.” And in Anthony D. Smith’s National Identity, “Conceptually, the nation has come to blend two sets of dimensions, the one civic and territorial, the other ethnic and genealogical, in varying portions in particular cases.” (page 15) So… it’s not abundantly clear where one needs and the other begins when we use an ambiguous term like nation, I think. And FWIW, I have no desire to see the article reflect that the Palestinians are not a people; that is something they can certainly determine for themselves. IronDuke 05:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ironduke, the cites you've provided are great but they do not indicate any blurred distinction between nations and states. On the contrary, your man Smith, in the passage immediately preceding the one you’ve quoted, draws the distinction very sharply and explicitly:

Such a definition of national identity also sets it clearly apart from any conception of the state. The latter refers exclusively to public institutions, differentiated from, and autonomous of, other social institutions and exercising a monopoloy coercion and extraction within a given territory. The nation, on the other hand, signifies a cultural and political bond, uniting in a single political community all who share an historic culture and homeland.

Smith goes on to point out that “this lack of congruence between the state and the nation is exemplified in the many ‘plural’ states today.”

The fact that these two distinct entities are often found together (“overlapping,” as Smith puts it) does not create any conceptual “blur” between them; any more than the fact that feet and shoes are usually found in intimate embrace creates confusion about whether shoelaces and Adidas stripes constitute part of the human anatomy. Actually a better example of this kind would be the corset, because its use was more historically specific (roughly coinciding, as luck would have it, with the rise of the nation-state), and because it actually permanently altered the bodily contours of the lucky lady who got to wear it. State institutions can and do similarly shape national identity, altering the contours of the nation, as it were. But the two concepts remain distinct – “their content and focus are quite different,” as Smith puts it. Whalebone ribbing never “blurs” into the anatomy of the female torso, not even that of the most wasp-waisted WASP out of Wharton.

As for Gellner, in the passage you've cited, he is mulling over the difficulty of defining "nation" according to either will or culture (implicit is a critique of Ernest Renan's famous description of a "nation" as a community that wills itself to persist as a community). Statehood as such doesn't even enter into the discussion. Gellner decides that a definition purely centered on culture is inadequate because of numerous cultural differences within nations, while one centered purely on will is inadequate because it would admit "clubs, conspiracies, gangs, teams, parties, not to mention the numerous communities and associations of the pre-industrial age which were not recruited and defined according to the nationalist principle and which defy it." The too-rich-a-catch problem for Gellner, in other words, is not that nations-without-states would be included; the problem is that organizations not "defined according to the nationalist principle" would be included. Nowhere does he discuss or even suggest a blur between nations and states, and his solution to the definitional problem does not introduce or even allude to any of the features of statehood. The opening section of his book is indeed devoted to "definitions," with several pages given over to "state and nation":

In fact, nations, like states, are a contingency, and not a universal necessity. Neither nations nor states exist at all times and in all circumstances. Moreover, nations and states are not the same contingency. Nationalism holds that they were destined for each other; that either without the other is incomplete and constitutes a tragedy. But before they could become intended for each other, each of them had to emerge, and their emergence was independent and contingent. (p.6, Gellner's emphasis)

It's worth noting that Gellner, who is writing this book 25 years ago – that is, before either intifada, before Oslo, and before the return of the PLO leadership to the occupied territories – argues that "in the case of the Palestinians today, language, culture, and a shared predicament, but not religion, seem to be producing a similar crystallization" into nationhood. ("Similar" because he's just been talking about how, in the case of the Algerian independence movement, "a new nation is born.")

Can I just ask – not that the whole discussion reduces to this, but I do want to know – who are the scholars or reliable sources on nationhood who deny that the Palestinians constitute a nation?--G-Dett (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is all completely beside the point. We can argue the relative merits of any number of points of view on the "nation" question but it doesn't matter. There are obvious differences in perspective on this question which can be reliably sourced and which we aren't tasked with sorting out. NPOV requires us to not take sides, and not present opinion as fact. Very simple. <<-armon->> (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

...yet at the same time, NPOV requires us to evaluate the proper weight given to an opinion; minority opinions are respected yet not endorsed, while opinions of a very small minority are noted only in those pages about the minority viewpoint. Thus, if the "Palestinians do not exist" or the "Palestinians are a fake nation" viewpoint is currently held to only by a fringe of political extremists, not by any significant reliable academic or journalistic sources, then NPOV, in fact, requires us to "take sides" — in the same way that it requires us to state that Israel is a nation, a country, and a state, rather than a "Zionist entity", even though it is clear that some people do hold to the latter view.

While copious scholarship discusses Palestinian national identity, no scholars currently discuss the "No such thing as Palestine" view as worthy of serious consideration. Hence, it's a fringe POV that doesn't hold "veto power" over the other sources. <eleland/talkedits> 23:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a flat-earther type "difference of opinion". A "nation" is an idea, not a law of physics. Who you are attempting to paint as "political extremists", in many notable cases, aren't, they are simply those who don't share your beliefs. <<-armon->> (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the social sciences are different from the hard sciences, but the difference has no bearing on the way we hierarchize sources according to expertise within any given field, or on the distinction we make between notable and reliable claims. Regarding this last, no the denialist position on Palestinian nationhood isn't akin to flat-earthism, because the deniers aren't necessarily insane or even extremist; they're just ignorant of the meaning of "nation" and the history of nationalism.--G-Dett (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Armon, you write that "there are obvious differences in perspective on this question which can be reliably sourced and which we aren't tasked with sorting out." But in the post of mine you're supposedly responding to, I finished by posing exactly the question you've slalomed around: who are these reliable sources on nationhood that deny that the Palestinians constitute a nation? Please note, I'm not asking about notable denial, of which there's plenty – I'm asking about reliable denial. Well?--G-Dett (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already given a couple, but why don't you take a look yourself? I guarentee you'll find better sources than a book review on Salon.com. <<-armon->> (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, isn't it rather apparent that (a) I have looked, and have found much better sources than the Salon interview, some of whom I've summarized here; and (b) none that I can find deny Palestinian nationhood? Sorry if this means repeating yourself, but what are your sources? You're not talking about the Martin Kramer thing are you? As Eleland pointed out, that one was totally off-point, being a critique of pan-Arab nationalism, an ideology very distinct from – indeed in key respects quite opposed to – Palestinian nationalism.--G-Dett (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also waiting for that 'reliable denial' of the Palestinian people as a 'nation'. Its usage in the lead is absolutely appropriate. Usage of any lesser term would be unencyclopedic. It would be unfounded and unjust, considering their documented 60-year transformation from 'only' a disposessed people in 1948, through the founding of the PLO, their recognition by the UN, their recognition of Israel and by the US, the establishment of the PA, and their negotiations with their adverserial nation-state, Israel. They have fought for, earned, have been recognized and therefore deserve this usage. Anything else would be, well, just a denial of the facts and acceptance of one POV. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

..."notable denial" and "reliable denial" is a false distinction which only begs the question. It's easy to find the difference of opinion on the "nation" question published in reliable sources. Who some WP editors consider to be correct is irrelevant. <<-armon->> (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What is notable is not necessarily reliable. The distinction is not flase, it's nuanced. If it is, as you claim, so easy to find a reliable source that denied that Palestinians are a nation, please produce one. I, like G-Dett, have looked for one, and hav not been able to find anything. Tiamut 11:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

'Who some WP editors consider to be correct' is indeed irrelevant – so why do you keep bringing it up? If it's easy to find reliable denial, why have you failed to do so? All you've produced is (i) a passing comment in an op-ed by a retired philosopher and freelance writer, and (ii) an interesting but totally unrelated article by Martin Kramer, which you misunderstood.--G-Dett (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Because on the one hand, you admit that there are Zionists and Arab nationalists and retired philosophers etc who dispute it, yet you still attempt to argue that they're just ignorant of the meaning of "nation" and the history of nationalism. This is your opinion and it's irrelevant. There's no point bringing up further cites until this fundamental point of WP policy is established. <<-armon->> (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this appears to be the consensus opinion of scholars, experts, and historians of nationalism, nation-formation, and Palestinian history of the 20th century; their opinion – not mine – is relevant per WP policy.

According to H.L. Mencken, a Southern politician lamenting the polyglot culture of the United States said on the floor of the Senate, "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me." Interesting opinion certainly; notable depending on the context; but not reliable – that is, in the article on Jesus Christ, we don't write, "According to some, Jesus lived in Galilee for most of his life and probably spoke Aramaic and Hebrew; according to others, he spoke English."--G-Dett (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Obvious straw man, but it does make clear that given the fact that the debate over "nationhood" exists, the only possible way of getting around the NPOV policy is to attempt to argue that it is a fringe opinion and that UNDUE applies. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Summary of this talk page

Are Palestinian Arabs a nation?

The answer is: There are different opinions on this depending whom you talk to. From those who say that the Palestinians are a nation; there are:

• Those that believe that Palestinians are a nation; and that it is the Arab nation.
• Those that believe that Palestinians are a nation by itself (some include Jews and some exclude them).
• Those that believe that Palestinians are a nation and that it is Jordan.
• Those that believe that Palestinians are a nation and that it is Greater Syria.
• Those that want to believe that Palestinians are a nation.
• Those that pretend to believe that Palestinians are a nation.
• Those that want to pretend that the Palestinians are a nation.
• Those that pretend that the Palestinians are a nation.
• Those that want the Palestinians to be a nation.

• And the last but not least: That Palestine is a nation and that it is the Jewish nation; once called among others the Promised Land, the Holy Land, Land of Israel, before Rome renamed it to Palestine after the ancient Philistines, with the intention of erasing its Jewish character.

All of these positions and some; are reflected in the above discussion by its Wikipedians and sources brought down (thanks to IronDuke). We as Wikipedians can't know for sure who belongs where on this heated issue; so we'll have to give almost everybody here the "benefit of the doubt" that they belong to the second of the list. That isn't to say that it is so; just that we'll pretend that it is so.

Wikipedians don't get to decide if Palestinians are a nation; and even if they do decide, it only becomes their own personal opinion; therefore Wikipedians aren't given the task to decide that, only to report on it. Those that want WP to state in the lead their view that Palestinians are a nation; need to prove that another significant opinion doesn't exist. I guess, first we are going to fight on what "significant" means; then we'll fight what "is" is. Have fun!

Remember regardless what your position is; the question is not if the "Palestinians are a nation", that is not for us to decide; the question is: should this article censure the view held by Arabs and Jews; Muslims and Christians; then and now, that the "Palestinians are not a nation. Itzse (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I gather that this is some sort of WP:POINTy rhetorical exercise. As a "summary of this talk page," it is sheer fabrication. Sentences like "Those that believe that Palestinians are a nation and that it is Jordan" are, like Chomsky's "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously," merely syntactically sound but semantically empty utterances. Neither true nor false, their category mistakes suggest total, wilful, and persistent ignorance of the basic terms of this debate.--G-Dett (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that I believe so; I only said that there are those who believe so. Are you disputing that? Itzse (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What is "sheer fabrication"? Please explain. Itzse (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance; What is the debate? Itzse (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't just a "point"; it is the point. It goes to the heart of the matter. Itzse (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of not being honest (willful ignorance)? Itzse (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it Itzse, is that your emotional involvement in this issue is preventing you from being able to recognize what we are actually discussing. We are not discussing whether or not Palestine belongs to the Palestinians, or even whether or not Palestinian are a nation. We are discussing how the majority of reliable sources reviewed thus far indicate that Palestinians are a nation (something I believe IronDuke has conceded) - that is, a community of people bound together by a shared sense of national identity - and how and where to include this information in the article. IronDuke's objections are based on the idea that the term nation is ambiguous, but the sources he provided actually contradicted this claim. An intensive source-based discussion, your summary is so way off base, I couldn't even respond at first. I suggest that you step back, read the discussion on the talk page again (read the links to the sources provided too) and come back when you understand what it is that we are talking about. Tiamut 00:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How about your emotional involvement? Have you thought of that? Itzse (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The debate is about whether there exists not only notable but reliable denial of Palestinian nationhood. I.e., not whether a spokesman for this or that rival nationalism denies it, or whether the impression of this or that layperson is that it doesn’t exist, but rather whether there are historians of nationalism, nation-formation, the modern Middle East, etc., who deny it. “Nation” and “nationalism,” you see, are actual terms with specific meanings in history, political science, and so on. They’re not atmospheric ideas like love, happiness, evil, beauty, that we can each come at in our own way. And there is a large canon of highly regarded scholarship on the general topic compassed by these terms by people like Renan, Anderson, Gellner, Smith, Hobsbawm and others, as well as a canon of scholarship specifically on Palestinian nationalism by Rosemary Sayigh, Yezid Sayigh, Rachid Khalidi, and others, and so far no one on this page has produced rival reliable sources suggesting that there is anything but a uniform consensus on the fact of Palestinian nationhood. That’s the debate; please do add to it.--G-Dett (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

First off we have to recognize that all these scholars you mention belong to one of those groups on the list which I pointed out; they're human after all. Take Khalidi for example; he talks of "we" and "us"; why doesn't he write objectively as if a third party is writing? Itzse (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states that all significant views need to be presented without bias. G-Dett; can you honestly tell me that everyone here comes without bias including the sources? That is the debate here. We need a lead without bias; reliable sources without bias; and how about Wikipedians without bias? Itzse (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of asking if there exists reliable sources "denying" that the Palestinians are a nation; we should ask: are there reliable sources denying that there is a significant view that the Palestinians; are not a nation, or at least not yet a nation? Any objective takers?Itzse (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

We do recognize these scholars of those groups, which you pointed out, and we also appreciate you noting their humanity, after all. You might assume Khalidi talks of ‘we’ and ‘us’ because he feels that way and found it more natural to write from within and subjectively. What makes someone do that, what is that human feeling/condition that I’m looking for to describe that? Ah, I know. It is family, sewing circle, football club, maybe it’s neighborhood or community, or quite correctly in the case being discussed for the lead paragraph, it is ‘nation’. Most of the world already recognizes the Palestinians as a nation, specifically as a nation without a state. You might have won this discussion 40 years ago, but you seem to have lost track. See my post of 17Dec for some history.

All significant views without bias, yes, but not in the lead. G-Dett may answer for herself. You could write a fine section and it likely should be between Palestinian perceptions and Emergent nationalisms, or maybe within the latter. The concensus favors ‘nation’ your minority views belong below. Leads, sources and Wikipedians w/o bias, that would be, so…. boring.

What do you mean, ‘instead of asking’? You forced us here when RSs were piled against you and you maintained your minority view, now you prove it, if you want something else in the lead. Prove it, or alternatively, add a few more paragraphs to the new section I suggested. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I object to your painting me as questioning their humanity; It’s a shallow trick. I understand that you want to undermine my arguments with it; but what it tells me is that you concede that you cannot win on the merits of your arguments alone.

I didn't read Khalidi nor do I have time for it; the "we" and "us" is in the snippet that Tiamut brought in elsewhere on this page.

You admit that I "might have won this discussion 40 years ago"; so what has changed in the last 40 years? I'll tell you; in the last 40 years the Palestinian Arabs have become smarter. Forty years ago was 1967; since then the PLO was created (actually in 1964) and the Western world especially America has been forcing a solution on Israel. This solution first entailed a confederation of the West Bank (known historically as Judaea and Samaria) with Jordan who had before then occupied it; then after some strategic maneuvers; Jordan all of a sudden distanced itself from the West Bank; and a new strategy of creating a country called Palestine for a "Palestinian people" was implemented. This strategy has worked in many ways; it bought part of the Western world who wanted desperately for their own selfish reasons to see an end to this conflict. It bought lots of simpletons; lots of ignoramuses; and sure, it goes without saying, it bought all the anti-Semites of the world.

Who didn't fall for it; were obviously all knowledgeable honest people; the good Christians of the world who are familiar with their religion and history and all good and decent objective people of the world. The Jewish people didn't buy it either; but in the interest and need to see an end to all this bloodshed; the Jewish people are ready to make painful concessions. Among those concessions is to pretend to recognize that the Palestinian Arabs are a "people" (for those willful ignoramuses I said "a people" not "people"). Mainstream Israel still doesn't believe that there is a "Palestinian people" but even those that do; don't consider it a "nation".

Now to the main point; 100 years ago everybody agrees that there was no such a thing as a "Palestinian people". 40 years ago you admit that I might have won the argument on it. Today in 2007 all those saying that the Palestinian Arabs are a nation; belong in the above 10 or so groups. What I am saying is that only a fringe extreme minority believes that they are a nation; therefore the burden of proof is on them to prove that it is a significant point of view to bring in the lead; but to have only the extreme point of view in the lead is making a mockery out of history and Wikipedia. Doesn't the truth at least have a small place in the lead? Is it asking too much? Doesn't Wikipedia's NPOV guarantee at least that much? Itzse (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Itzse, if "mainstream Israel" doesn't believe that Palestinians are a nation, why have both Labour and Likud (now Kadima) leaders made clear their hope for a "Palestinian nation-state"'s establishment? Were they calling for the creation of a previously non-existent nation, and then a state for the nation? And furthermore, why would "mainstream Israel", meaning about 5 million people, take precedence over the consensus of the entire rest of the world, most of which called for a Palestinian state in 1947, admitted the PLO to the United Nations in 1976, etc? <eleland/talkedits> 17:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I already told you why; because for the sake of peace; I and all non-fanatical Jews are ready to say anything and to give away half of Israel; but only for true peace. "True peace" is worth any price, and semantics is just a small price to pay.

But this is Wikipedia an Encyclopedia of facts and opinions. To censure this opinion here, is wrong, wrong, wrong!!! Itzse (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Itzse, you've said you don't have time for Khalidi, very well. Do you have time for Hobsbawm? Anderson? Do you have any time whatsoever for any of the literature on nations and nation-formation? Because your posts here, passionate and articulate as they are, do not show any fluency or even familiarity with the terms you're arguing about. It's like you're on the Tomato talk page arguing that it's not for Wikipedia to say whether tomatoes are fruits or vegetables, because lots of folks think of them as the latter. There is a difference between lay impressions, casual and vernacular classifications etc. on the one hand, and concrete terms from the disciplines of history, political science, etc. on the other. NPOV with regards to claims of fact is not achieved by throwing the two into a blender and serving up the resulting slop.

If you take away some of the insinuating and patronizing rhetoric ("the Palestinian Arabs have become smarter" etc.), the gist of what you say about "a new strategy of creating a country called Palestine for a 'Palestinian people'" is correct. Where you then go totally off the map is in imagining that identifying the role of such strategies somehow undermines the claim to nationhood. It doesn't. Not in the slightest. This is an extremely common fallacy, one that virtually every historian of nations and nation-formation has underscored: the misconception that nations arise from a deep primordial past, and that if you can point either to the recent-ness of the idea that such-and-such people constitute a nation, or to the role of political or strategic calculation in their formation as such, then you've undermined their claim to nation-ness. Anderson described this fallacy memorably by comparing "the objective modernity of nations to the historian's eye vs. their subjective antiquity in the eyes of nationalists" (excuse me for repeating that quote, but you do not appear to have read the talk page you claim to summarize). And Hobsbawm said "I cannot but add that no serious historian of nations and nationalism can be a committed political nationalist...Nationalism requires too much belief in what is patently not so." Renan said even more memorably that "getting its history wrong is part of being a nation." Hobsbawm expanded on Renan's insight in a book called Invented Traditions, saying that these inventions (which is what you're describing as a "stategy," Itzse) are not only not disqualifying with regards to nation-ness; they are in fact constitutive of it. And in a famous passage he invoked Israel and Palestine as paradigmatic examples of this:

In this connection, one specific interest of “invented traditions” for, at all events, modern and contemporary historians ought to be singled out. They are highly relevant to that comparatively recent historical innovation, the “nation,” with its associated phenomena: nationalism, the nation-state, national symbols, histories and the rest. All these rest on exercises in social engineering which are often deliberate and always innovative, if only because historical novelty implies innovation. Israeli and Palestinian nationalism or nations must be novel, whatever the historic continuities of Jews or Middle Eastern Muslims, since the very concept of territorial states of the currently standard type in their region was barely thought of a century ago, and hardly became a serious prospect before the end of World War I.

What is interesting about this is that Hobsbawm does not introduce Israeli and Palestinian nationalisms as outliers, as stragglers just making it over the qualifying bar to join the family of nations. Quite the contrary, he seizes upon the very recentness, regional contingency, and strategic willfulness that characterized their nation-formation precisely to make a point about the historicity and indeed the inventedness of nations in general. Nations, as Anderson puts it, are "historical artifacts."

Is this coming through, Itzse? Saying that 100 years ago there was no Palestinian nation, or that they’ve just formed a nation as part of a reaction against Israel in the last 50 years, doesn’t even put a dent in their accepted status as a nation today. What would put a dent in that status would be a claim from a source reliable in the relevant field(s) arguing that for reasons X, Y, and Z Palestinians do not constitute a nation as that term is properly used. So far, not a single such claim has been brought forward.--G-Dett (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we are losing sight of what the issue is as it pertains to this article. (We are still discussing the article, right?) The issue is whether the first paragraph of the intro should say that the Palestinian people are a "nation", with no discussion or qualification. I think we all agree that the "nation" issue should be discussed in the article. Some of you say there is no dispute, but G-Dett, when I read your discussion of the sources above, it is obvious that this is not a cut-and-dried issue. What seems to be in dispute is not simply whether one particular people are a nation or not, but how a "nation" is to be defined. Does simply saying that you are a nation make you a nation? Are nationalism and nationhood the same thing? (Notice that the article on Zionism refers to Zionism as a form of "nationalism" but I think the article generally refers to the Jewish people as a "people", not a "nation", although some (including me) may believe that both are accurate.) In this case, there is a legitimate question. If a people clearly were not a "nation" (because they were part of another "nation") less than 100 years ago, a question is raised, how did they become a nation? And when? These questions are not answered by simply calling Palestinians a "nation" in the intro. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think whether Jews constitute a nation is a question to be answered primarily by worldwide Jewry, and secondarily by scholars of nations and nationalism. The answer might be complicated, but Marwan Barghouti's opinions wouldn't be relevant, nor would the conjectures of Edward Said, nor would an op-ed in Harper's.--G-Dett (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

6SJ7, have you read the article at all? I only ask because what you are asking to be done has already been done. There is an entire subsection devoted to the process by which Palestinian nationhood emerged and was defined (See Palestinian people#Emergent Nationalism(s)). Further, the third paragraph of the introduction reads:

The first widespread endonymic use of "Palestinian" to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine began prior to the outbreak of World War I,[2] and the first demand for national independence was issued by the Syrian-Palestinian Congress on 21 September 1921.[3] After the exodus of 1948, and even more so after the exodus of 1967, the term came to signify not only a place of origin, but the sense of a shared past and future in the form of a Palestinian nation-state.[2]

Thus far, no reliable scholarly sources have been provided that establish that Palestinians are not a nation (as the term is used in scholarship). Everytime an editor asks for such a source to be produced, the reply is equivocation, rhetoric, and tangential argumentation. Please produce scholarly sources that you would like to see represented in the article and we can work together on including them. If we find that there is a significant body of scholarship that denies that Palestinians are a nation, we can then reevaluate the appropriateness of placing the simple sentence "Palestinians are a nation of Arabic-speaking people with family origins in the region of Palestine". Until then, this is an honest, WP:NPOV reflection of the scholarship has to stay, indeed its central to the subject of Palestinian identity as established throughout the article, and per [WP:LEAD]] it should be included in the introduction. Tiamut 19:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to bring any scholarly sources that Palestinians are not a nation; just like there is no need to bring any scholarly sources that Palestinians are a nation; the existance of both opinions have been so poignantly brought out by G-Detts and 6SJ7's responses; and IronDuke has already brought numerous sources that the "non-nation" opinion exists and is widespread; in my opinion it is the "nation" concoction that needs the sources. The issue again is not if the Palestinians are a nation; that can go in a special paragraph with all the arguements pro and con for it. The issue is: should Wikipedia give a first impression to the reader and make it a fact? where everybody agrees here that there are different opinions on this. Why should the first impression on this subject, censure this opinion?

G-Dett; Thanks for your compliment; I'm trying to make up my mind if you really believe that the Palestinians are a nation, or you're playing devils advocate. Either way; with you, we at least can reason. Itzse (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. It wouldn't be a first for me to play devil's advocate, but no, here I agree unhesitatingly with the scholarly consensus that the Palestinians constitute a nation. Not only do they qualify, but they're a textbook illustration of modern nation-formation – in which preexisting cultural and linguistic affinities, contemporary historical pressures and contingencies, and conscious political strategies and cultural myth-making (of the kind you've alluded to, albeit in terms different from those I'd use) converge to create a collectivized people with a strong sense of a shared past and future.--G-Dett (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi G-Dett; I just noticed your response; but what you are telling me is that, this is your opinion; and I respect it. How about respecting my opinion? Itzse (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

IronDuke's sources were not about Palestinians, they were about the definition of nation. He brought them assuming they would support his point that nation is an ambiguous term. As G-Dett pointed out above however, they did not say what he thought they did. Indeed, his sources only confirmed what many here have been saying all along - that nation is a term with a specific definition in scholarship and that it is perfectly appropriate to use it in reference to Palestinians. Anything less would be outright censorship actually, based on the sources reviewed thus far. As I said before (a million times) please provide scholarly sources that you would like to see added to the article. Based on what we have so far, per Wiki policies and guidelines, this information belongs in the lead. Re-evaluation of that position is of course, always possible. But only based on reliable sources. Tiamut 20:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, with you I can't reason; because you have already made up your mind and nothing will do. As to IronDuke's sources; look again. He brought numerous sources saying that the Palestinians are not a "people"; mind you a nation!!! Itzse (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Before we start arguing again if they are a nation (which has taken up the bulk of this page); let me say again. The issue is not if the Palestinians are a nation; that can go in a special paragraph with all the arguements pro and con for it. The issue is: should Wikipedia give a first impression to the reader and make it a fact? where everybody agrees here that there are different opinions on this. Why should the first impression on this subject, censure this opinion? Itzse (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that expresses the opinion that Palestinian are not a nation. Tiamut 21:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself; I guess you don't want my question answered. Itzse (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, this would be for example, a scholar on national identity. Not Golda Meir or Hafez al-Assad (two of IronDuke's "reliable sources"). Tiamut 21:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Again you are turning the debate on, if it is a nation; so let me say again. The issue is not if the Palestinians are a nation; that can go in a special paragraph with all the arguements by scholars of national identity; pro and con for it. The only issue here is: should Wikipedia give a first impression to the reader and make it a fact? where everybody agrees here that there are different opinions on this. Why should the first impression on this subject, censure this opinion?

Tiamut, please step aside and let others answer this question. Itzse (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I count as an other, and I find Tiamut to be an eminently reasonable editor, but with that throat-clearing aside I think your question is a good and fair and productive one so I'll put it my 2 cents. I don't care if the word "nation" is in the lead, but I do think the subject of this article is appropriately a people in the collective sense. I am fine with using other words, including "people," to denote that collective subject in the lead, and getting to the nation bit later on. I'm not fine with the current lead, which makes use of a different meaning of the word "people" to slip in the old Arabs-who-just-happen-to-come-from-where-Israel-is-now thingie.--G-Dett (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically, such a suggestion seems rather sound. However in practice: Palestinian people are a people with family origins in Palestine is stylistically poor. Tiamut 23:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, let's look at what the current intro actually says, not at your whimsical exaggerated strawman. It says that the Palestinian people are "Arabic-speaking people with family origins in the region of Palestine." Is that wrong? It seems correct to me. Some people might draw the conclusion, hey, that sounds like what a "nation" is. Others might not. Then they could read what the rest of the article says (as Tiamut mentions) and decide for themselves. Just out of curiosity, I looked at the article French people, which is about a people that I think everyone would agree is a "nation." The first sentence says, "The French are the people of France and speak French." The only other sentence in the intro is about the etymology of the word "France." Nothing about a nation in there, though there is a discussion in the article about what the French "nationality" actually is. So it is possible to do an article about a "people" without calling it a "nation" in the intro, and I suggest we do so here. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so how about "Palestinians or Palestinian Arabs are terms used to refer to an Arabic-speaking people with family origins in the region of Palestine." That's modeled on the lead for French people, and it answers to your request for a lead sentence without "nation" in it, as well as Tiamut's point about not opening with an awkward tautology.--G-Dett (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don’t think so, although you noted it before and eloquently noted why it was not liked. I might have accepted it then, but not now. This page (and I am sure most of the 11 previous archives) attests to the validity of the Palestinians as a ‘nation’, and specifically to a stateless nation. Unfortunately, the pages also document a strenuous, unending argument or very commonly, just plain denial of RSs by those strongly Zionist, as appears in this case. You are strongly Zionist, Itzse, right. If sarcasm toward this stand is met with insults, a total lack of AGF and the first usage of the ‘A-word’ on this page, then for me, it is proof positive of an editor who resides outside the consensus. Possibly one of those, dare I say, ‘denier’ types. I am still looking for that ‘reliable denial’ to possibly not include 'nation' in the lead. And, really, how does the construction of the French people page have to do with Palestinians, they have quite distinct history and national development. The time has come to consider the importance of the ‘Z-word’ in the lead to cover the full alphebetic spectrum.

How about "Palestinians or Palestinian Arabs refer to a specific Arabic-speaking nation with ancient family origins in the region of Palestine, and who have existed without a state, since the Zionist establish of Israel in Palestine in 1948." Although admittedly strident, those are pretty much the terms that define the lead for me now, unless there good reasons not to include those words. I wish it wasn’t so, but you all can thank Itzse for that. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi CasualObserver; I accept the thanks and you are heartily welcome. If you would have casually observed my user page you would have seen that I'm not a Zionist. Let not my arguing mislead you; I could argue both ways if needed. I'm here to see that Wikipedia reflects the NPOV of reality and isn't used to further the Palestinian cause or the Zionist cause. It is wrong for Wikipedia to be used as a tool in this conflict. If you are honest then you will admit that some are here for the sole purpose of furthering their cause; and POV is not an obstacle to them. So I think I deserve a thanks from all honest Wikipedians.

Why does "then" and "now" figure in the equation? If G-Dett is correct with her compromise then it should be correct now as then; if it isn't correct, then it wasn't correct then. Why should Wikipedia be at the mercy of its editors moods? Because now I feel like it; now I don't? Wikipedias editors need to stop thinking that they own this place to do as they "feel"; ans start thinking of it as belonging to all mankind, and start being fair.

Again you are arguing that it is a nation; and again I'll tell you that, this is not the issue. The only issue here is: should Wikipedia take your opinion (that your opinion is a fact) as fact to the exclusion of all other opinions (the 10 or so that I've noted above). This is the only question; and please answer it. Itzse (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

comment - "the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people" =national movement && !=nation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary break

All the reliable sources provided thus far support the idea that Palestinians are a nation. The arguments offered by the minority of editors on this page against the usage of the term are quite frankly uncompelling. I have to agree with CasualObserver48 here: we should be using the term nation, and not people. The title of the article is Palestinian people and the first sentence should read: Palestinian people is a term used to refer to a nation of Arabic-speaking people with family origins in Palestine. This is not controversial, despite the persistent and vocal protests of a minority of editors who have not invoked any sound policy based reasons to ignore reliable sources, WP:NPOV, and WP:LEAD. The essence of Palestinian identity is rooted in the struggle of the national liberation movement. Indeed, it is this quest that is a defining charateristic of this community of people. As Rashid Khalidi explains in his book on Palestinian Identity: The Palestinians, of course, do have one asset in spite of everything: a powerful sense of national identity, which we have seen they were able to develop and maintain inspite of extradordinary vicissitudes."(205)

Are we going to deny the reader the facts because of the obstinate refusal of some editors to concede the use of the most appropriate term to describe the subject of this article? Wikipedia is not censored. If even one of the editors here responded to the request for a reliable scholarly source that refutes that Palestinians are a nation, I could have taken their opposition seriously. Unfortunately, this request has been repeatedly ignored and we have wasted everyone's time by entering into a circuituous debate that elides basic Wiki policies. Enough is enough. Provide a source that indicates that thers is a split in the scholarly community that warrants omitting nation from the lead. Failing that, I am unwilling to ignore facts to placate a fringe minority sensitivity. Tiamut 18:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Let me try to suggest a helpful step. It seems to me that the question here should be resolved by our systematically assessing reliable sources. Tiamut emphasizes sources here and, likewise, IronDuke and others have started to provide some not-a-nation sources. Conversely, the question shouldn't revolve around the personal opinions/arguments expressed by various editors (including me) -- only our arguments about the sources (i.e., reliable arguments/claims). Since the thread is so long here, maybe somebody could set up a subpage to summarize all the sources on this question. Look at what Armon did above (thanks!) for the RfC. Maybe Armon or somebody could do the same in categorizing the nation/not-a-nation views of the reliable sources? Of course, many sources are ambiguous so we can put our various analyses under each source. At a minimum, this would identify the best sources for the article as it addresses this question. Hopefully, it would also shed light on how we might characterize the mainstream view for the lead paragraph. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG your presence is welcome here; but before the debate again turns on the wrong issue in order to obfuscate the real issue; let me state here two things; then take it from there; thanks.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states that all significant views need to be presented without bias. We need a lead without bias and reliable sources without bias;

The issue is not if the Palestinians are a nation; that can go in a special paragraph with all the arguements by scholars of national identity; pro and con for it. The only issue here is: should Wikipedia give a first impression to the reader and make it a fact? where everybody agrees here that there are different opinions on this. Why should the first impression on this subject, censure this opinion?

Now good luck in trying to solve this. Itzse (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I do understand the concerns on both sides here. however, i do feel that the term nationality happens to fit better than nation here. This is not meant as an affront to anyone's identity or sense of culture; this is simply what i feel is most supported by the relevant facts. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Itzse, I'm merely suggesting that somebody compile those pro/con scholarly arguments in one subpage for us to examine. If significant views are are balanced, then lead could show the balance; if one view is more significant and weighty than another, the lead can describe it. Steve, I'm suggesting that instead of telling us what you feel fits better, tell us which reliable sources articulate this fit. (Incidentally, do you all need a separate line of dispute resolution to decide if "Palestinian nation" is covered by WP policy on self-identifying terms?) Thanks. HG | Talk 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. my comment is based on my sense of how Wikipedia articles are generally written. For example, here are some quotes from similar articles.

from Basque people (italics added): This article discusses the Basques as an ethnic group or, as some view them, a nation, in contrast to other ethnic groups living in the Basque area.

from Catalans: The Catalans are an ethnic group or nationality whose homeland is Catalonia, or the Principality of Catalonia (Catalan: Catalunya, or Principat de Catalunya), which is a historical region in southern Europe, embracing a territory situated in the north-east of Spain and an adjoining portion of southern France.

from Kurdish people: The Kurds are an ethnic group who are indigenous to a region often referred to as Kurdistan, an area that includes adjacent parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.

can we adopt some sort of phrasing like these perhaps?--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve, internal WP comparisons are interesting but not sufficient to settle this kind of dispute. At the end of the day, editors need to resolve the Palestinian nation-ness based on sources about Palestinians. So, to further clarify:

Do peer-reviewed scholarly writings refer to Palestinians as a nation or not? When these writings discuss the nation question, how do they answer it? Does the NY Times, WSJ, London Times, etc, refer to Palestinians as a nation or not? (I.e., secondary sources. Not just primary sources like quotes from famous folks. Though it'd be good to know about the major tertiary sources, eg encyclopedias.) Be well. HG | Talk 22:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you question is whether major daily newspapers refer to palestinians as a nation the answer is, of course not. why would they? they have to use the word "nation" in its strictest sense, to inform their readers. So "nation" refers to countries, and nothing else, in newspapers.

Perhaps it might help if I knew which sources do refer to Palestinians as a nation. even the quote above refers to their "national identity," not to them as a nation. could you please let me know some sources which mention them as a nation? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, never mind, I just looked over the sources and comments above. can we instead use the phrase "some sources claim" somewhere in the opening paragraph? Even palestinian sources disagree about use of the word "nation" as shown by moshein and others above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is Moshein? That name does not appear in the talk page, except in your post. Have I misread what you are trying to say? <eleland/talkedits> 22:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry, i meant Zuheir Mohsen. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, dear old Zuheir Mohsen bin Assad, the Syrians' hand-picked choice for titular leader of their puppet "As-Sa'iqa" guerrilla faction. It's true that he had no support among Palestinians, and that the PLO only put up with him because they needed Syria's backing in Lebanon, but no matter! He once — allegedly — explained to a Dutch newspaper his view of pan-Syrian hegemony over the Levant, thus guaranteeing himself an immortal place of honor in ten thousand Eretz Yisrael blogs, Alan Dershowitz novels history books, and Wikipedia mirrors. Come now, this is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel. <eleland/talkedits> 23:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

okey-doke. guess you're right. you sound like a fairly interesting student of historical trends, by the way. we must dicuss this further sometime. are there a lot more characters like that out there? Maybe you should write an article called "Trends in Palestinian nationalism", and put some of your obvious erudition on these topics to work. that's an awful lot of information right there...I wonder where one can store it? perhaps in a collabaorative encyclopedia somewhere? :-) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) As you know, Steve, I prefer to play a facilitating rather than substantive role here. But I did glance at the Nexis newspaper database. Search for for {Palestinian w/1 nation} yields more than 3000 hits. So then these need to be evaluated. For instance, I see Intl Her Trib quoting Peres, Jer Post quoting Elazar Granot, everybody quoting various Arab leaders, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Said op-eds in Wash Post, etc. Lots of chaff to filter out (including using nation in the sovereign state meaning). A few sources that deny the descriptor, too. Anyway, plenty of data to shed light on this dispute in a very grounded and substantive manner. The work awaits. HG | Talk 22:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

really? interesting. good work. just to take an example, what did Peres say. (By the way, i'm logging off soon, so if you don't hear from me for a bit, don't worry.) see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's quote: Shimon Peres, the former prime minister who shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Arafat in 1994, said that the new Palestinian leadership, which is forming, appears "more firmly grounded and also has great determination to bring an end to the terrible problem of the Palestinian nation." from NYT 11-6-04. Usage clearly about people, not nation state. HG | Talk 23:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers do sometimes use "Palestinian nation" directly, not via quotes. For instance, The Globe and Mail (Canada) (12-14-98) or The Irish Times (12-20-03). So doesn't all this data need to be compiled in one place for editors to settle the question? HG | Talk 22:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Oh, now I see more examples, like Sunday Times (London) and Christian Sci Monitor, in obituaries for Arafat. Here the usage is clearly by the newspaper as an editorial decision. HG | Talk 23:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi HG. Can you provide a source from among those you are sifting though, a scholarly one first since polemical statements have already been tabled, that says that Palestinians are not a nation (as in people? It would really help to determine if any such source is available. If you notice, many many editors have asked for one, many many times now and not one has been produced. I think before you get into another prolonged discussion over sources, we should establish if there is any scholarly support for the idea that Palestinians are not a nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 23:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut. I'm not volunteering to sift thru the 1000's of Nexis hits, which are major media not scholarly sources. I did notice some not-a-nation usages. In terms of scholarly sources, you and I debated several in the (now archived) RfC discussion. Weren't a few cited that discussed opposition to the nation notion? I think you argued something to the effect that opposition by Israelis scholars (for instance) could be considered a minority view. It's been awhile, am I remembering this right? Be well, HG | Talk 01:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC) self-edited HG | Talk

Yes you are, but .... A scholarly source like Kelman describing Israeli government refusals to recognize Palestinian nationhood is indeed relevant to this article, but it is not what I am looking for. Kelman himself does not deny that Palestinians are a nation. In other words, Kelman does not conclude that because Israelis do not recognize Palestinian nationhood that they are not a nation. In fact, he argues that Israelis should recognize Palestinian nationhood in order to move the peace process forward. This is significantly different than a scholar determining that Palestinians are not a nation by assessing their characteristics against the definition of nationhood per scholarship. In order to consider this denialist position as anything other than an extreme fringe minority viewpoint, I need to see at least one reliable scholarly source that concludes that Palestinians are not a nation. I'm not interested in making a comparative chart of sources if there is no scholarly basis for this position whatsoever, because fringe minority viewpoints do not get to overrule the space for verifiable facts based on reliable scholarly sources, or guidelines on how to draft the lead.Tiamut 01:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Ok, glancing at scholarship examples. Here's a theoretically-informed piece: "Once upon a time there was a nation: narrative conceptualization analysis. The concept of ‘nation’ in the discourse of Israeli Likud Party leaders" by Shaul Shenhav Discourse & Society, Vol. 15, No. 1, 81-104 (2004). Discussion in Daniel Heradstveit (1979) Arab-Israeli Conflict: Psychological Obstacles to Peace. But perhaps their studies show that the not-a-nation view is what WP calls a significant minority (thus, for the article body not lead). I encourage you all to investigate these types of sources. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. You distinguish betw scholars who assess others' discourse and scholars who make their own judgments about nation. Well, I agree it's quite a difference, but I don't see why only the latter answers the question. Indeed, I was merely looking for the former -- scholars who will give us a reliable report about whether the "nation" attribution is seriously disputed or not. If it's disputed (or not) seriously enough to merit scholarly interpretation of the primary data, then isn't that sufficient to merit Wikipedia reporting? HG | Talk 01:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

sounds fine. I wasn't trying to make usage of nation out to be a major problem, merely trying to work out the best terminology to use (as we frequently discuss around here). So perhaps nation can be used legitmately in the introduction. i do definitely feel however that other parts of the article should definitely reflect some of the current diverse opinions and controversy over usage of these terms. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I am not necessarily yielding on this topic. however at some point, disputing with this many credible, good-faith editors, on a single political point, is unseemly. One can argue that they are motivated by politics, but at some point, a political viewpoint which is common to all members of a specific group is something where other editors should compromise somewhat, and allow consensus to form and move forward to other issues, particularly finding better ways to describe the controversy further on in the article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think "nation" should be in the intro, for the reasons stated earlier by me and others. As for G-Dett's suggestion of adding "an" before "Arabic-speaking people" (in other words, to change it from "people" to "a people"), it may be moot at this point as a result of some of the intervening comments. However, if it is still a live proposal, I think I would accept it as compromise language. However, I want to make it clear that if someone else comes along and says "aha, 'a people' means the same as 'a nation' (which someone actually did say a few comments up), so therefore you have agreed to 'a nation'", I haven't agreed. I'm not sure whether they mean the same thing or not, I am just tentatively agreeing to the insertion of the article a/an if that will cool down this dispute. (It probably won't.) 6SJ7 (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As "a people" is essentially a synonym for the POV they're attempting to push, it's not really acceptable per policy. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Acutally, what is not acceptable is that per policy, we should be using nation, since its use is supported by reliable sources. There is no policy based argument against its use. Most arguments against its use are based on little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Tiamut 11:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

History of the Palestinian people

I've wrote some stuff from Khalidi's The Iron Cage into something I'dd like to add to this article in a new section The Palestinian people during the msndate:

Palestinian Arabs' political rights

The Palestinian Arabs felt ignored by the terms of the Mandate. Though at the beginning of the Mandate they constituted a 90 percent majority of the population, the text only referred to them as "non-Jewish communities" that, though having civil and religious rights, were not given any national or political rights. As far as the League of Nations and the British were concerned the Palestinian Arabs were not a people. In contrast the text included six articles (2, 4, 6, 7, 11 and 22) with obligations for the mandatory power to foster and support a "national home" for the Jewish people. Moreover a representative body of the Jewish people, the Jewish Agency, was recognised.

The Palestinian Arab leadership repeatedly pressed the British to grant them national and political rights like representattive government, reminding the British of president Wilson's Fourteen Points, the Covenant of the League of Nations, British promises during World War I, and their natural rights as a people. The British however made acceptance of the terms of the Mandate a precondition for any change in the constitional position of the Palestinian Arabs. For the Palestinian Arabs this was unacceptable, as they felt that this would be "self murder". During the whole interwar period the British, appealing to the terms of the Mandate, which they had designed themselves, rejected the principle of majority rule or any other measure that would give a Palestinian Arab majority control over the government of Palestine.

There was also a contrast with other Class A Mandates. By 1932 Iraq was independent, and Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan had national parliaments, Arab government officials up to the rank of minister, and substantial power in Arabs hands. In other Arab countries there were also indiginous state structures, except in some countries like Libya and Algeria, which, like Palestine, were subject to settler colonialism.

Not having a recognised body of representatives was a severe handicap for the Palestinain Arabs compared to the Zionists. The Jewish Agency was entitled to diplomatic representation e.g. in Geneva before the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission, while the Palestinian Arabs had to be represented by the British.

Development

Rashid Khalidi made a comparison between the Yishuv, the Jewish community in Palestine, and the Palestinain Arabs on the one hand, and between the Palestinian Arabs and other Arabs on the other hand. Between 1922 and 1947 the annual growth rate of the Jewish sector of the economy was 13.2%, mainly due to immigration and foreign capital, while that of the Arab was 6.5%. Per capita these figures were 4.8% and 3.6% respectively. By 1936 the Jewish sector had eclipsed the Arab one, and Jewish individuals earned 2.6 times as much as Arabs. Compared to other Arab countries the Palestinian Arab individuials earned slightly better. In terms of human capital there was a huge difference. For instance the literacy rates in 1932 were 86% for the Jews against 22% for the Palestinian Arabs, but Arab literacy was steadily increasing. In this respect the Palestinian Arabs compared favorably to Egypt and Turkey, but unfavorably to Lebanon. On the scale of the UN Human Development Index determined for around 1939, of 36 countries, Palestinian Jews were placed 15^th, Palestinian Arabs 30^th, Egypt 33^rd and Turkey 35^th. The Jews in Palestine were mainly urban, 76.2% in 1942, while the Arabs were mainly rural, 68,3% in 1942. Overall Khalidi concludes that the Palestinian Arab society, while being overmatched by the Yishuv, was as advanced as any other Arab society in the region and considerably more as several.

Palestinian leadership

The British granted the Palestinian Arabs a religious leadership, but they always kept it dependent. The office of “Mufti of Jerusalem”, traditionally limited in authority and geopgraphical scope, was refashioned into that of “Grand Mufti of Palestine”. Furthermore a Supreme Muslim Council (SMC) was established and given various duties like the administration of religious endowments and the appointment of religious judges and local muftis. In Ottoman times these duties had been fulfilled by the bureaucracy in Istanbul.

In ruling the Palestinian Arabs the British preferred to deal with elites, rather than with political formations rooted in the middle or lower classes. For instance they ignored the Palestine Arab Congress. The British also tried to create divisions among these elites. For instance they chose Hajj Amin al-Husayni to become Grand Mufti, although he was young and had recieved the fewest votes from Jerusalem’s Islamic leaders.. Hajj Amijn was related to Musa Kazim al-Husainy, the leader of the Palestine Arab Congress. According to Khalidi, by appointing a younger relative, the British hoped to undermine the position of Musa Kazim. Indeed they stayed rivals untill the death of Musa Kazim in 1934. Another of the muftis rivals, Raghib Bey al-Nashashibi, was appointed mayor of Jerusalem. During the entire Mandate period, but especially during the latter half the rivalry between the mufti and al-Nashashibi dominated Palestinian politics.

Many notables were dependent on the British for their income. In return for their support of the notables the British required them to appease the population. According to Khalidi this worked admirably well untill the mid-1930s, when the mufti was pushed into serious opposition by a popular explosion. After that the mufti became the deadly foe of the British and the Zionists.

According to Khalidid before the mid-1930s the notables from both the al-Husayni and the al-Nashashibi factions acted as though by simply continuing to negotiate with the British they could convince them to grant the Palestinians their political rights. The Arab population considered both factions as ineffective in their national struggle, and linked to and dependent on the British administration. Khalidi ascribes the failure of the Palestinian leaders to enroll mass support to their experience during the Ottoman period, when they were part of the ruling elite and were accostumed to command. The idea of mobilising the masses was thoroughly alien to them.

There had already been rioting and attacks on and massacres of Jews in 1921 and 1929. During the 1930s Palestinian Arab popular discontent with Jewish immigration and increasing Arab landlessness grew. Especially the younger generation wanted not only negotiations but also actions like a boycott against the British. Some even took to the hills to fight the British and the Zionists. These young people also formed the backbone of the organisation of the six-month general strike of 1936, which marked the start of the great Palestinian Revolt. According to Khalidi this was a grass-roots uprising, which was eventually adopted by the old Palestinian leadership, whose 'inept leadership helped to doom these movements as well'.

--JaapBoBo (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that parts of this are highly POV, it gives undue weight to one author, and a large majority of this material does not belong in this particular article anyway. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's from a reliable source and it's relevant. If you find it pov you can add other pov's (if they exist in reliable sources). --JaapBoBo (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this article is already quite big I decided to start an article History of the Palestinian people. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi. this talk page is quiet lately. however, no one has actually declared a consensus yet. do we have a coinsensus emerging yet or not? If so, we should request unprotection. if not, we should request mediation. I would prefer to obtain unprotection, and then go back to editing this the customary way; there can be contention, but there are established processes for allowing differeing opinions to gradually find agreed-upon text. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a seasonal lull. However, the dispute over 'nation' is not resolved, despite an RfC and much subsequent discussion. I would think that a resolution process beyond an RfC is needed. HG | Talk 21:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that some Israel-affilaited editors may be somewhat ready to accept the term "nation" to some partial extent, as per my comments and others' comments, one or two sections above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at Beit Or, 6SJ7, Armon, IronDuke and Jaakobou, above. Have they modified their view, or left open some room for compromise, regarding 'nation' in the lead paragraph? (This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm asking you/somebody to review and interpret.) Take care, HG | Talk 23:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood. to answer your question, i thyink 6SJ7 has. I'm not sure about the others, but believe it or not, I actually think that might be enough to try to reach a tentative consesnus on. the reason is that few of the others have posted in a while. i think they might be willing to adhere to 6sJ7, since it would mean we could then get the article back. When an article is lockied for more than two weeks, people usually understand that a positive resolution and compromise is desirable. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know if we've had some kind of meeting of minds that we're actually going to abide by NPOV, but if so, we can WP:ASF, drop the "nation" issue, and finally move on...<<-armon->> (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC; this is a response to Steve's last comment, which mentioned me):

Well, I did agree to a "compromise", but the compromise was not to put the word "nation" in the intro. I agreed (tentatively, as I recall) to G-Dett's suggestion that amounted to changing "people" to "a people". And to address your comment at the beginning of this thread, it seems pretty clear to me that there is no consensus one way or the other as to the use of the word "nation". The last time I checked, the proposal to add an article ("a"/"an") had two in favor and one opposed. I am not sure whether everyone else's failure to comment on it means that there is a consensus or not. My guess is that if everyone else weighed in, there would be no consensus in favor of that one either. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the "compromise" on offer is at all fair, given the numerous reliable sources attesting to the use of "nation" with regard to the Palestinian people. I'm busy with Christmas stuff right now and will be for the next couple of weeks (we are Orthodox Christians and so celebrate into the new year). In any case, perhaps HG is correct in suggesting that we need to pursue dispute resolution. Tiamut 11:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut (and most of the others) are credible, responsible, good-faith editors. If the issue is only one word, let's accept it and move on.The answer is to add text elsewhere which reflect our concerns more fully, not to wrangle endlessly over a single word. Clearly, there is a wide support here for the word "nation," based on many sources. The fact that most of those editors for it are Palestinian does not matter; the fact they are good-faith, responsible, using reliable sources, and seeking only one word, and not any hyperbole, is what does matter. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe let's stick, Steve, to the question you wisely raised for this thread. Who else would agree to move to another dispute resolution mechanism? And: Would the WP:MEDCAB be your next step, or more formal mediation? Thanks. HG | Talk 14:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to mediation. If anyone here would disagree with it, I would support not including them as a party, or else, using MEDCAB, which does not require unanimous acceptance from all parties.

What seems most valuable to me is simply the presence of any third-party, neutral disinterested objective mediator. By the way, if we use MEDCAB, can we please ask them to make sure we get someone who has done other mediations previously? nothing against less-experienced well-intentioned volunteers, but I think an experienced one could bruing much quicker resolution. thnaks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not one of the parties in the mediation, but I would like to have this page unprotected. Is that possible? --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediation rejected; copy of editor comments

Mediation rejated due to non-agreement by Armon. Armon, I'm not sure how that benefits anyone. could you please explain.

I am copying over a discussion by Armon from the mediation talk page. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've rejected this because there's been more than enough discussion and the proponents of using WP voice to settle the matter is a clear violation of NPOV. I don't see the point of this because core WP policy is non-negotiable and the proponents of the violation should know that by now. This is really just wasting everybody's time. <<-armon->> (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So then what exactly do you think will happen to resolve this? How do we resolve this if we do not agree to mediation? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. What I do know is is that we're either going to assert that they're a nation as fact, or we're going to abide by policy and write according to WP:ASF. It really an either/or situation. I also know that arguing about what position is ultimately "TRUE" is a complete waste of time and obscures the key issue of WP's polices which are supposed to allow all sides of the I/P conflict (or anything else which is contentious for that matter) to collaboratively write an article. <<-armon->> (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your justifiable concerns. however, what is the reason that you think a mediator would be incapable of understanding all which you just said? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not that the mediator wouldn't understand the problem, it's that if pro-vio editors haven't understood that they can't impose their POV by now, I don't see what the mediator would be able to do. <<-armon->> (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the mediator would help us reach those other editors by appealing to their sense of rationality. I'm not saying he would have a stunning success, i'm only saying that what's missing here is the input of an objective, neutral outside party. that's what mediation is for. Anyway, it's not a big deal either way; i have put in a request with medcab, which generally operates on a less formal basis. so we'll see what happens. I do appreciate all your replies, and your open discussion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for 3O

As one of the responders for Wikipedia:Third opinion, I have taken this request to respond to. But I will not offer a third opinion. This is for a couple of reasons, not the least of which that there is adequate, sustained debate between more than two people. So this dispute does not warrant a third opinion as I see it applying (if I am wrong please let me know and I will offer my opinion). Another problem I see with rendering a third opinion is that there is sufficient evidence that my opinion, regardless of which side it falls to, would be ignored. Both sides, and plenty of citations, have been presented but no one has tried to seek a middle ground. I don't have much hope that my feeble attempt would inspire what legions have failed to accomplish. And, last but not least, I don't think this is a solvable problem at our level. As has been noted above, this is akin to solving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict itself, which just isn't going to happen here. I must respectfully bow out of this debate. If you wish to repost on 3O feel free. I have had this argument before, both with people that agree with my point of view and with those that don't, and I've never seen anybody change their mind. I honestly can't see this getting resolved other than by WP decree or it actually being settled in reality. My apologies to those of you stuck in it's midst. Padillah (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Padillah, I wonder if you might be urged to reconsider. I have seen a lot of intractable ideological disputes and entrenched edit-wars on I-P pages, and I don't think this is one of them. With the exception of one editor here, all parties have come to terms with the issues and are willing to compromise, and at least one serious compromise proposal has been floated, meeting with a promising reception. A benignly non-partisan presence like yours here could stimulate the consensus-building process.--G-Dett (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case I can only reference other WP articles regarding the identification of "a people". In every article I looked up "A people" was identified as a cultural unit, not owing it's existence to any given sovereignty. A French person is a French person even if they live in England. A Souix is a Souix regardless of that groups sovereignty (or lack thereof). In none of the articles I looked up (French people, German people, British people, Syrian people, and Iraqi people) even mentioned "nation" (except German people in a very tangential manner). All of those articles rested on the definition of "culture" to define their respective groups. I don't see any problem with the current phrasing of the lead paragraph and I believe the mention of "nation" should, at best, be left to the body of the article. The struggle is well documented and we can refer readers to the main articles for more in-depth information if they feel so inclined. If this article is about the Palestinian people then we should stick to information about them rather than the struggle they are in. It's not a case of "they are" or "they are not", it's a case of why mention it other than to stir the controversy. It can be phrased in several different ways, all WP friendly, let's pick one of those. Also, if we state they are a nation we are asserting a fact (which may or may not be true). However, not saying it does not mean we are denying that fact. So, it seams to me that it's cleaner, clearer, less controversial, less edit-prone, more supportable, and more inline with other articles of the same genre. Padillah (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The overall thrust of your post – bring the article in line with parallel articles, bear in mind the distinction between what we need to say in a lead (vs. what we're arguably justified in saying, and devise a solution not prone to future edit-warring – is exactly what we need to resolve this, so thank you.

Your examples of parallel articles merit some comment. British people does identify its subject as a nation in the opening sentence; German people identifies its subject as an "ethnic group"; and all the others (except Demography of Iraq, for obvious reasons) use a definite or indefinite article before "people" to indicate clearly that the subject is a collective noun, as opposed to a mere plural of "person." Doing the same for this article, while relegating discussion of the term "nation" to a different and subsequent section, was precisely the compromise proposal put forward and generally well-received.--G-Dett (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Crap, got German and Briton backwards, thanks for correcting that but yes, your summary is much more conceise anyway. Padillah (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian Arabs are not an ethnic group distinct from other Levantine Arabs so articles which do discuss "ethnic groups" can't be used to justify nationalist POV here. <<-armon->> (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Armon, can you explain to me how it's possible to have something called "nationalist POV" without a nation? Is this like something that isn't a person having a "personal POV"?--G-Dett (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The same way any believer has a believer's POV. Try again. <<-armon->> (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Except that in this case you're claiming that there's no believer, only a "believer's POV." That's the corner you've gotten yourself into. At any rate, if you were literate in the terminology you're arguing about, you'd know it makes no sense to refer to the "nationalist POV" of a non-national entity; the terms 'nation', 'national', and 'nationalist' are all mutually constitutive.--G-Dett (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to put words on other peoples keyboards but I read that to mean the POV would be leaning toward a nationalist outlook (the idea that Palistine is a nation). As opposed to anti-nationalist leanings (the idea that Palistine is not, nor ever will be, a nation). You don't need a nation for people to believe there is a nation. Several people believe themselves to be Santa Clause, that doesn't mean there is one. Padillah (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right that that's what was intended. It hadn't occurred to me, because that's not what "nationalist" actually means, but then semantic sloppiness is exactly what's brought us to this pass.--G-Dett (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, actually it's your wikilawyering which has drawn things out to this extent. This issue remains simple, don't push POV and don't rely on "technicalities" to justify doing it. <<-armon->> (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

discussion of wording

The current 3rd paragraph of the lead already does address the issue perfectly adequately, and neutrally. It states:

The first widespread endonymic use of "Palestinian" to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine began prior to the outbreak of World War I,[2] and the first demand for national independence was issued by the Syrian-Palestinian Congress on 21 September 1921.[3] After the exodus of 1948, and even more so after the exodus of 1967, the term came to signify not only a place of origin, but the sense of a shared past and future in the form of a Palestinian nation-state.[2]

That is an example of showing, not telling. However, the faction demanding the insertion of POV either don't understand, or are not content, to abide by policy. <<-armon->> (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Armon, I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Do you object to something or not? It's confusing that you object to using articles which use "ethnic group" but agree that the article states itself clearly and neutrally. Is there an objection to the current phrasing or not? I thought you didn't want "nation" used? Yet you don't want to accept an argument against it's use? I understand that this has raised considerable ire among the editors here but it looks like we are about done. If you could clarify your stance for me, it would help a lot. Thanks. Padillah (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

if we describe the development of nationalism among Palestinians, we can stick to the facts and maintain neutrality. If, OTOH, we take sides and state outright that they are a nation, despite notable challenges to that idea, then we are no longer remaining agnostic on the subject, and are violating NPOV. When the "nation assertion" was first injected into the article, I pointed out that it was POV (as well as poorly sourced) and that given the 3rd paragraph of the lead, it was unnecessary anyway. However, as you can see from this talk page, there is a group of editors determined to slant the article. <<-armon->> (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what Henry James has to do with any of this, but yes, that passage is reasonably neutral. But it's not particularly well-written, being so oddly tautological. "The term came to signify not only a place of origin, but the sense of a shared past and future in the form of a Palestinian nation-state"? Er, yes, I suppose that's true, but it's chiefly true because "the sense of a shared past and future in the form of a...nation-state" is the very definition of nationhood in the first place.--G-Dett (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I just want to add a small clarification of G-Dett's statement, as I found her statement very worth listening to. Padillah, I think G-Dett has nothing against using the word "nation", as her side favors that term; however, she was offering the word "people" simply as a possible compromise, to reach some form of resolution in this dispute. that is why her proposal does not advocate usage of the word "nation", yet she would still object to any arguments which are against the word "nation." G-Dett, did I get that right? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I was questioning <<-armon->>'s point of view. Padillah (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Boy, has this gotten confusing. I just want to point out a few things:

• Notwithstanding G-Dett's comment regarding the "thrust" of what Padillah said, what Padillah actually said was that "I don't see any problem with the current phrasing of the lead paragraph and I believe the mention of 'nation' should, at best, be left to the body of the article." I agree with Padillah. I think Armon agrees with Padillah as well (and he points out that the discussion of the subject actually begins in the intro, in the third paragraph, which seems reasonable, at the very least.)
• G-Dett proposed a compromise, which she describes above as using a collective noun (e.g. "a people", rather than "people"). She also says that her compromise proposal was "generally well-received". Unless I missed something, I was the only person (other than G-Dett) who said they would accept it, and I said I was accepting it "tentatively." Tiamut said no, it should be "a nation", and Armon said no, "a people" and "a nation" both violate policy. I don't see how that is "well-received", generally or otherwise. As for me, I prefer the current version over the proposed compromise, although I guess that is sort of a characteristic of compromises.
• As for the other "peoples" articles, I had pointed out awhile back that French people does not use the word "nation". An examination of some of the other articles cited by Padillah shows that each one has its own idiosyncratic way of dealing with the issue. Some are clearly the product of a lot of, shall we say, previous activity, such as Britons, which describes the British people in the first sentence as "a nation or inhabitants of Great Britain or citizens of the United Kingdom". I left out the multiple footnotes following each of the "or" options. I can only imagine the amount of edit-warring that went into creating that sentence. I don't think it really helps us much in dealing with this article. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Getting a little lost in the muddle here, but in response to Steve – yes, thanks, that's more or less it. "Nation" is amply supported both by the scholarly and historical literature (both on the concept of nations and nationalism generally and on Palestinian nationalism in particular), and appears to be denied only in a rhetorical and non-technical sense by political figures; as I've indicated in previous phases of this discussion, this denial of Palestinian nationhood – like the denial of Israeli statehood by various Arab figures, which is its mirror-image – appears to be encyclopedically notable but not encyclopedically reliable. But I don't think Padillah is talking at cross-purposes at all. We're both making the distinction between what's arguably justifiable for the lead, vs. what is necessary and wise, and opting for the latter; and we're both suggesting that this article ought to look to parallel articles such as French people, British people, etc. for a model; and we're both saying the lead should indicate its collective subject while deferring the discussion of "nation" as a term til later in the article.--G-Dett (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

the term "people" sounds like a great compromise. I don't see any problem with that. just wanted to note that. thanks for all your replies, above. Padillah, thanks for all your great and helpful input. it is very beneficial to us. please feel free to keep it up. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what the page says now. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The suggested compromise, which I understand Steve to be supporting, consists of adding the indefinite article "an" to the opening sentence, making "people" a collective singular noun as opposed to the vernacular plural of "person."--G-Dett (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

...which is a synonym for nation or ethnic group. So no, it's not actually a compromise, it's simply rewording the POV. Not acceptable. <<-armon->> (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's a compromise, since the whole discussion here centers exactly around which specific word to use. it's a little disingenuous to argue against one word, then reject all alternatives because they're synonyms of each other. Of course they're synonyms to some extent; that's why they can be used in place of the other. your comment here seems to be just a little bit unreasonable. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Armon, Sm8900 has a point. From what I can tell you approve of the phrasing but not the words it's phrased in? This is starting to get out of hand. Unless anyone has new issues to breach I think a vote needs to be drawn and a consensus reached. If anyone then believes that consensus to be in violation of policy they can take the discussion to the relevant policies talk page as the next step. Padillah (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Padillah, I disagree. I think Steve is mistaken in thinking there is some necessity for us to find "some specific word to use" -there isn't. The current version of the lead (which, AFAIK, was fairly stable for a while) doesn't use a "specific term" and manages to impart the same information. If using WP's voice to assert that they are a "nation" is problematic, then using a synonym is just as bad. It's the equivalent of changing the word "robber" to "thief" and makes no difference in terms of the POV. (BTW Happy 2008 everyone!) <<-armon->> (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I support Padillah's beneficial and highly useful efforts to find resolution of this. i find your views and actions to be extremely reasonable and constrcutive, and extremely helpful to this article. thanks for your help and input. I support Padillah's role here as a mediator and as a facilitator. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Armon, to answer your extremely reasonable and valid point, the answer is that there are valid and usable sources on both sides of the argument here. So we are trying to find an outcome which is fair somewhat to both sides, and reasonable for both. the people requesting this change are using verifiable sources, and not trying to engage in hyperbole. so a positive rational outcome here might be useful. i am not trying to address all of the 130 articles which are currently edit-protected, whether on this topic area or others. However, I would like to show some desire to help Wikipedia to work towards resolution of some disputes which may arise in various articles and other places. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

discussion of overall process

at this point, i;m not sure what to support. I have withdrawn the medcab request, as no one seemed inclined to take it, and the discussion occurring here now is the main process which i was hoping to see happen to some extent. I am unclear as to why no one at medcab saw fit to take it. the dispute resolution process here at Wikipedia appears to have some gaps, as well as some serious flaws. (However, G-Dett's comment is correct as to my original intent.) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some dedicated and invaluably intelligent editors involved in dispute resolution, and in general I'm always amazed at the patience and resourcefulness of those involved; but yes it is structurally vulnerable to abuse by editors who, for strategic or ideological reasons, prefer editorial impasse to substantive discussion.--G-Dett (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There has been no lack of substantive discussion here. There has been no agreement, but that's the way things go sometimes. While I am not the person who rejected the MedCom request, and I am not sure why the MedCab request was rejected, I don't see what a mediation would have produced, other than a rehashing of the same discussion, with no agreement. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm with you 6JS7 in that I don't see – from this vantage-point – what mediation would produce, but again, I'm always amazed by the resourcefulness and intelligence of those involved. This issue won't simply go away.--G-Dett (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me just say: I think mediation is always useful, because it always involves, by definition, introducing at least one new person who has a more objective neutral viewpoint. I had my own reasons for withdrawing the mediation request, but anyone here is free to resubmit anytime.

my own reason was simple: my main goal was to bring in some new third-party viewpoint, by whichever means could work. Since the WP:Third opinion request already did that, i felt I didn't need to do it also by other means as well. I wasn't trying to be the person to address everything for this article, but was only trying to help things along a bit. Anyone who wants to pursue resolution further can do so by any means which seem useful, whether medcab, or medcomm, or any mix of those things or others. So that was basically how i saw this. we can all feel free of course to continue this discussion, and to also try any other methods which seem useful. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

by the way, the head of Mecab contacted me extremely helpfully, and said they may have been a bit backlogged due to the holidays. so i didn't mean to cast any aspersions on Medcab. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess we vote and see where consensus stands.

First, I'd like to thank everyone that helped in this discussion. It was a little long and winding but it looks like we have two sides to an issue here so I'll try and sum them up for a vote. Either we accept the initial paragraph as it stands (quirkyness and all, difficult subjects make for difficult reading) or we submit a new lead to this talk page for discussion. I would encourage boldness but this subject is too controversial and this would only open the article up to endless edit wars (again). So, Same or Different and let's see if we can't come to an agreement. Padillah (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Different, by addition of the indefinite article "an," per the precedent of parallel articles, per scholarly consensus, per Wikipedia's guidelines on self-identifying terms, and per common sense resolution over "nation" impasse.--G-Dett (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry, one suggestion, shouldn't we vote on the specific choices which have been suggested so far? i think everyone here wants something different; or alternatively, voting for "same" ignores all the possible compromises on the table. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is why I was trying to avoid calling a vote; I'm not entirely sure if I know what all of the suggestions are. I do think we need to keep the number of choices to three at most. Otherwise you simply end up with each person voting for their suggestion and not getting anywhere. Please, if you can state the pertinent suggestions you have my blessing to reformat my Call To Vote as appropriate (or close it and open another). We need to stay on the look out for the voting process deteriorating into another discussion. Guys, if it looks like we need more discussion please, close the vote and open a new discussion thread. Padillah (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's important to clarify the options, regardless of the number. Rather than vote, it may be more useful maybe to identify the key reasons for/against each option. (i.e., a synthesis of the arguments to date) Or maybe somebody has insight on any pivotal questions that, if resolved via reliable sources etc., might break the impasse? For instance, I'd like to know where folks stand on whether a descriptor like 'people' or 'nation' is covered by the self-identifying guideline (cited above by G-Dett, tx). My 2 cents. HG | Talk 18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG. Could i gently suggest that maybe that has already been covered? i think Padillah might be trying to get a headcount here. maybe people could vote, and mention their reasons briefly, if they wish to add anything. thanks.

One thing it might be useful to state whether any compromise is currently on the table? i think the compromise which has been suggested is using the term "people," as a singular noun. in fact, maybe we could vote for or against that? I'm basically for it, as i feel the term itself is rather open-ended. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes (And comments on voting process)

Enter votes below. (enter any comments on process here in this section, if desired).

• Comment on "voting" procedure: In light of Wikipedia: Polling is not a substitute for discussion, the polling here cannot supersede the previous discussion. While I am not challenging the validity of the poll itself, it is clear that the previous comments of those who do not "vote" this time must also be "counted." It should also be noted that there are many editors on Wikipedia who would challenge the validity of this poll on the grounds of WP:PNSD. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I am by no means trying to circumvent the discussion of this topic. It's insightful and thought-provoking if nothing else. There are two points to consider in this discussion:

1. We have to eventually write the article. Discuss all you need to but in the end this isn't here to salve someone's soul or make a political statement, we have an article to write and we need to accomplish that.
2. A decision has to be made and we have to actually write prose. We must make a conscious decision, not just discuss until the other side goes away then declare a victory.

Understand, I am not suggesting anything of this sort is going on. I am concerned that the discussion not deteriorate to "Yes, it is" / "No, it isn't" and nothing gets moved on. We have to approach every statement as if it's the one that will break the stalemate and allow us to progress. Padillah (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A people

This proposed version of the first sentence (with translations omitted) would state: "Palestinian people, Palestinians, or Palestinian Arabs are terms used to refer to an Arabic-speaking people with family origins in the region of Palestine."

1. A people. as per my comment above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A nation

This proposed version of the first sentence (with translations omitted) would state: "Palestinian people, Palestinians, or Palestinian Arabs are terms used to refer to a nation of Arabic-speaking people with family origins in the region of Palestine."

1. A nation, as borne out over and over again by reliable, scholarly sources which have been presented and re-presented over the last few months. No one rejecting this description and the evidence has presented even one scholarly source that claims that Palestinians are not a nation. Further, we need to identify the subject of the article in the first sentence. They are not a loose aggregegation of individuals, but a nation, as in a national collective.Tiamut 16:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
2. A nation, but where is the ballot? "Different" is my vote. Something along the lines of G-Dett's compromise ‘an’, or better yet, ‘a specific’ but that is not right either, because ‘nation’ has been proven by RSs. As stated on 17Dec; “I am also waiting for that 'reliable denial' of the Palestinian people as a 'nation'. Its usage in the lead is absolutely appropriate. Usage of any lesser term would be unencyclopedic...,considering their documented 60-year transformation from 'only' a disposessed people in 1948, through the founding of the PLO, their recognition by the UN, their recognition of Israel and by the US, the establishment of the PA, and their negotiations with their adverserial nation-state, Israel. They have fought for, earned, have been recognized and therefore deserve this usage. Anything else would be, well, just a denial of the facts and acceptance of one POV.” The next day I stated “Most of the world already recognizes the Palestinians as a nation, specifically as a nation without a state.”

Currently the two sides are again into ‘final status talks’ toward that specific future state. Will the Palestinian People instantly pass, on the pages of Wikipedia, from a ‘people’ to a ‘state’ and never be recognized as a ‘nation’? Look at what are we talking about here. They are a nation, and deserve such in the lead. Wikipedia has, so far, just been unable to overcome the ‘I don’t like it‘ crowd in that same lead. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Current version

The current version of the first sentence (with translations omitted) states: "Palestinian people, Palestinians, or Palestinian Arabs are terms used to refer to Arabic-speaking people with family origins in the region of Palestine."

1. Support current version. It is absolutely NPOV. I don't think anyone could deny the truth of this statement. Making it a "collective noun" ("a" people or "a nation") injects POV into the sentence, and it is totally unnecessary, as the issue of "nationhood" is explored in the article, starting with the last paragraph of the intro and even more so in the body of the article. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I vote we let the Palestinians the editors arguing for a pro-Palestinian perspective have whatever the heck they want (based on verifiable sources), and then add five paragraphs explaining every single point, issue, and concern which you just expressed, further down in this article. geez, who cares. even I don't care this much. i care about writing an encyclopedia, not about wrangling over a single word. All of this is not benefiting the Israeli cause. it is more benficial if we are actually able to put our words, thoughts and concerns into this encyclopedia, ie by agreeing to some sort of compromise which opens this article back up for editing. and again, that would allow us to add whatever concerns which we have to this article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Steve that we should let the Palestinians have whatever they want. For starters let's give them Wikipedia; for us it'll be enough to edit all the non-Jewish articles; (two million isn't enough?) and believe me we'll have so much fun building an encyclopedia; the main thing is that we'll open this article back up for editing; and we'll let all the non-parties to this issue, edit.

It seems to me that Steve is an activist for the OneVoice Movement who advocate a two-state solution through non-violent means; and I admire his untiring work here for them; they couldn't have found a better person for the job. I go even further; I support the Palestinians in their quest for peace, and I think that for the sake of peace we should give (give back?) them all of Israel; because who cares; even I don't care; and if you care? Who the heck are you? Why should six billion people going on seven be held hostage because of a mere 5 million? Five million! isn't even fringe; it's actually dust - nada, zilch, nimnoga/nimnoshka; garnicks. If the Palestinians say that they are a nation, then who are we pipsqueaks to argue. Enough is enough. My opinion is; that it is a fact that the Palestinians are a nation; and it is a fact that the Palestinians believe that it is a fact that they are a nation; and it is also a fact that it is a fact that they are a nation; and that they "self identify" as a nation; so we must here in Wikipedia call them "nation"; we should immediately without further ado rename this article to "Nation", and the lead should say that "Nation" are the Arab people who originate from Palestine.

Steve; I have one small question to you: Why did you exclude me from the Mediation Cabal? Am I not considered a person too? Itzse (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have power to "exclude" anyone; all editors are free to join any action they want. but frankly, my reason for not including you was that you have a bad habit of portraying Wikipedia as if we are really here just to be in an ongoing battle with Palestinians; as, for example, your comment above. even the editors who do think that way don't come right out and say it, like, "gee, i really am out to fight Palestinians; I have absolutely no impartiality whatsoever." that's akin to saying, "feel free to disregard my views on these issues; I'm not going to even try to claim i am impartial or objective." most of us pretend to be objective, even if we're not, just so that we can have more impact in these discussions. that sort of phrasing might hurt our case in any Medcab proceeding. also, btw, you hadn't edited in a few days at that time, so I didn't know where you were anyway.

oh, hi, everybody else. didn't know, were you listeining too? :-). i was being slightly ironic here, just to make a point. hope you got it. thanks. Itsze, your personal comment about me, or my beliefs are not appropriate. please do not make them. i am free to believe whatever I want. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm offended by your words. I am not in a battle with any Palestinians at all. If you read my user page you will see that I'm not a Zionist; none of my ancestors were Zionists, and for the sake of true peace I am willing to give the Arabs much more then you are willing to. With Palestinians who have an agenda I have no problem, most of them don't pretend; it is with Jews like you with whom I have a problem. You think that it is right to use Wikipedia to placate the Arabs and are using it to further your cause (as right as it might be) to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I'm sorry to tell you that the conflict should be solved at the negotiating table; not here. Wikipedia has rules and policy to follow. I must tell you that your way of arguing, pretending, and giving ridiculous compliments; I find sickening.

You're barking up the wrong tree. I have no problem with your beliefs; as a matter of fact I share many of them; so surely I'm not criticizing them. My problem is using Wikipedia to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; that's a no NO. If you feel that Palestinians should get their way here on Wikipedia, then I would suggest that you exclude yourself from this discussion. This discussion is going to be based on Wikipedia's policies, not people’s feelings. I didn't edit for the last few days for exactly that reason; I wanted to leave it to those who argue policy not feelings; and I'll come in later when needed. What interrupted my vacation was your meddling in the process; interjecting your feelings. Who are you to say that "we let the Palestinians have whatever the heck they want"? Itzse (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your comments. i prefer not to continue discussing this. However, if you're honestly trying to simply caution against including any political beliefs here, I will take that into account. I really do not prefer to discus this topic further, in this context. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Who are "the Palestinians" you mean? This isn't about the views of Palestinian editors. If you mean, the self-identifying terms used in mainstream Palestinian discourse, then fine. HG | Talk 23:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

revised my comments, above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Per 6S, though I have to say I don't much like this poll, no need really. I could actually add pretty much everyone who has contributed to this discussion to one side or the other simply based on their comments. Hard to see what light this will shed. IronDuke 23:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Understood. That's the one reason I tried to make it a "Yes/No" decision. I was trying to simplify things. I'll have to try a different way. Padillah (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• support current version. There is nothing wrong with the current title. Yahel Guhan 04:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I need refutation for "Self-Identifying Terms" guideline.

I've been thinking a lot about G-Dett's argument regarding "guidelines on self-identifying terms". It clearly states that "Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name". With that in mind it's hard to refute referring to them as a nation. the guideline brings up a very valid point that not using "nation" because some people object to it is the POV situation. This seems to address the arguments against using "nation" and would free us up to continue editing the article with real content. I need solid refutation.

• Calling it a mere guideline is not good enough. We currently don't even have a guideline to go by so this is better than a single editor's opinion.
• "Because it's not true" is not a valid argument either since we are not arguing that it is or isn't a nation, we are calling it what the people call it.

The Palestinian leaders have referred to themselves as a "Palestinian nation" so we are beholden to respect them and refer to them the same way. Do you think we could expand this attitude to encompass a state-of-being? Padillah (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think "nation" is a sort of ridculous word to use. A nation is a thing with an ambassador at the United Nations, its own stamps, and an actual country. However, we can use the word, and simply address the issue by discussing the entire controversy further on into the article. that is how you address issues here at Wikipedia, and how you find compromsie for all concerned. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is more obvious with "country". There are no stamps for the Souix Nation, it's not recognized by the U.N. but they have every right to call themselves a nation. They do not have a country, but they are a nation. And this is part of the argument for/against Palestine. Without a country can they call themselves a nation? More to the point, without something to unify them can they call themselves a nation. Americans have a country, Souix have a race, Jewish have a genealogy... What unifies the Palestinians? According to the above guideline they can refer to themselves in whatever manner they please. I agree with you that we need to cut to the chase and pick a word. Padillah (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your comment above, and am pleased to say so unequivocally. I like the way you are approaching and handling this whole matter, by the way. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Padillah, as I've noted above, "Nation" is specifically applied to peoples like the Sioux, but not willy-nilly to any group claiming nation status for itself. See, for example, [7], definition 4a. IronDuke 23:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And I understand that end of the argument, that's why I'm not simply stomping my foot and demanding we follow the guideline. But, with that in mind, how do you refute the guideline? It is only a guideline so it doesn't need to be followed but we should have a solid basis for contradicting it. Padillah (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

One problem with applying the guideline is that it sides with one POV among the Palestinians themselves. It may be the dominant position of Fatah, but there are also examples of Arab nationalists in the PLO, and Hamas would be better described as "Islamic nationalists". <<-armon->> (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just checking in to say I'm happy to see some movement here; we're lucky to have two skilled negotiators (HG and Padillah) and so many fair-minded editors (Iron Duke, Tiamut, Steve, 6SJ7, et al) – maybe collaboration here can be a model for other pages in the grip of similar disputes. I want to comment briefly on a couple points of fact and then let the discussion continue. Steve, "Palestine" is indeed recognized by the United Nations and has a representative there. They also have stamps, for what that's worth, and increasingly, "a country" (insofar as "Palestine" in common international parlance today refers to the West Bank and Gaza strip collectively, not only because these are commonly seen as comprising the legitimate future territory of a state, but also because this is where the Palestinians have their seats of local and national government). But – at the risk of repeating myself – when we measure their nation-ness by such criteria as stamps, uniforms, elected officials, territory and sovereignty and so on, we are blurring the conceptual distinction between nations and states, which is a crucial one for every major scholar of the subject.

Our central problem here seems to arise from the fact that "nation" has both a rigorously defined usage within scholarship and a loose and blurry vernacular currency. That the Palestinian people constitutes a "nation" according to the term's strict definition – which is sharply distinguished from that of "state" – is not contested by any reliable source I know of. Indeed, precisely because the birth of "nations" in the eyes of scholars and historians is seen as the product of modern political and historical contingencies, recent national formations such as those of Israelis and Palestinians are not borderline cases for inclusion but rather model paradigms (Hobsbawm makes this point, as noted above). The vernacular sense of "nation" is however much more blurry and protean, as the definitions in "The Free Dictionary" (linked to by Iron Duke) suggest. I think it would not be an overstatement to say that every single instance of an editorial clash about Palestinian "nation"-hood on this talk page involves an editor using the term in its technical sense pitted against an editor using it in its vernacular sense.

A final comment about "self-identifying terms." The WP guideline would seem to apply here; indeed the example provided in the text of that guideline seems almost tailor-made to the terms of our dispute. But it's also important to realize that the term "nation" (I'm referring to its rigorously defined sense) is itself "self-identifying": as Hugh Seton-Watson put it (in a candidly tautological definition built upon by Anderson in his seminal book on nation-formation) , "A nation exists when a significant number of people in a community consider themselves to form a nation, or behave as if they formed one." With all due respect to IronDuke, there's nothing "willy-nilly" about this process of nation-formation; it requires national myths, national narratives, a national discourse and a national image, and it requires institutions (media institutions, most importantly) to disseminate all these. It is in short as measurable and documentable as the process of state-formation, and in the Palestinian case, the process has been copiously measured, documented, and analyzed.--G-Dett (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So in a nutshell you are arguing that the lead should state "nation" because it is a nation. Fine, that can go in a later paragraph where how it got to be considered by some as a nation occurred; with all the arguments from reliable sources for and against. But in the lead to state as fact which some like you consider as fact; ignoring those who you admit oppose such a view; is unacceptable. You agree with me that 40 years ago it wasn't yet a nation; it wasn't even self identified as a nation. As a matter of fact some Arab and Palestinian Arab leaders denied it, laughed at it; some said that it's a good idea to say that, and is a good weapon to use against the valid claim of Israel. All this is documented in our long discussions.

The bottom line is, that you can argue as long as you want that it is a nation. The fact is that thank G-d there is another opinion, and it would be wrong to impose the view of "nation" as fact in the lead; leaving all those reading only the lead paragraph with only one opinion of many. Itzse (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Itzse, I think you've got my 'nutshell' inside out: (a) I've suggested "nation" not go into the lead, remember? – initially by way of compromise, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that these various vernacular meanings of "nation" create a cloud of ambiguity around its technical meaning, and as this is not an article about a scholarly term often popularly misunderstood, but rather an article about the Palestinian people, perhaps "nation" isn't an ideal choice of words for the lede; (b) I don't agree with you that "40 years ago it wasn't yet a nation," but more importantly I don't agree that this would even be remotely significant if true. I agree here with Eric Hobsbawm, one of the two or three most influential historians of nation-formation ever, who says explicitly (and explicitly with regards to Israeli and Palestinian nations) that not only are such contingencies (and such recentness) not disqualifying – they are precisely what makes the Israeli and Palestinian case paradigmatic and illustrative of nation-formation in general. All nations are relatively recent, and all nation-formation is (by definition) politically and historically contingent. What I agreed with, incidentally, is that the Palestinians embarked in the 20th century in a conscious and deliberate project of nation-formation, and that the process has sped up since (and been facilitated by) the 1967 occupation. I agree with the scholarly consensus that the Palestinians have been as fantastically successful in forming a nation as they have been catastrophically unsuccessful in forming a state. Finally, (c) regarding the "opposing views" I've acknowledged, my point all along has been that these opposing views (at least those presented on this talk page) are notable in their denial of Palestinian nationhood (just as denial of the "Zionist entity"'s existence as a state is notable), but they are not reliable, for the simple reason that those voicing them are not scholars of nations, nation-formation and/or nationalism, and they are not using (and do not indeed appear to be even cognizant of) the technical meaning of the term "nation." The popular view that tomatoes are not a fruit (in cookbooks and lay literature and so on) is similarly notable but not reliable.--G-Dett (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If only this were the German Wikipedia, we could have Volksgemeinschaft—national community and Staatsgemeinschaft—state community. Nations are both peoples and states in English and realistically one can only try to insure that edits imply the proper flavor. To that end, you might consider referring to a potential Palestinian country as "Palestinian nation-state" whereas "Palestinian nation" then unambiguously refers to the people. —PētersV (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Padillah that resolution of this issue will be easier if we can decide whether the self-identifying guideline applies. However, I think I disagree with G-Dett that the guideline is "tailor-made" to our dispute. From what I can tell, the guideline applies to the "name" of an entity, such as Japan, and certain self-identifying terms, such as Japanese. But what about other descriptors of the person or entity? For instance, if a deceased person had publicly self-identified as Heterosexual, does our guideline apply despite reliable sources that contest their identity? What about if a person identified as non-white or white, guilty or not guilty, pro-Israel, etc.? If a group denies that it's a "cult," does the guideline respect that self-identification? If a group claims to be a religion or a scientific body, does the guideline apply? Again, from what I can tell, the guideline itself applies only to a name. Perhaps they name themselves the "Sioux Nation" (IDK), but here 'nation' is being advanced as a descriptor, not as a name. (Right?) So, I would want to see a lucid argument (with [[WP:RS|evidence) such as either (1) "nation" is a self-identifying term, for the Palestinians, that like Japanese is a "key statement of an entity's own identity" (Guideline quote) or (2) the guideline shows Wikipedia support for an underlying principle of identity self-determination, which may apply by extension to "nation" for Palestinians. Otherwise, I'm wondering if the principle should not apply in this instance. Hope this is useful. Thanks. HG | Talk 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is useful, and it's a very fair question. I don't know if the term "nation" is "a key statement of [the Palestinians'] own identity." I rather suspect that it is, but perhaps the exact term is not what's "key"; that they constitute a collective entity – whatever term one chooses for it, a people, a nation, a polity, whatever, as opposed to a semi-random assemblage of Arab persons – is however obviously key to their own identity. (This centrality seems self-evident to me, but I'd be happy to supply sources if needed.) Phraseology that registers this self-identification as a political and cultural collective (the word "nation" in the lede is by no means a sine qua non of this) would be consistent with both the spirit and the letter of the guideline on self-identifying terms. Phraseology that coyly denies it by playing on the vernacular sense of "people" as a plural of "person," which is the phrasing we have at present, is not in my view consistent with either the letter or the spirit of the guideline.--G-Dett (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. HG, I think the less helpful part of your post is the part given over to personal examples – whether someone identifies him- or herself as gay or black or guilty etc. The guideline clearly seems to have been designed to cover collective cultural or political or civic entities – "a city, country or people," as it specifies by way of example. I don't think the guideline means we should identify Muhammed Ali as the greatest or Mike Huckabee as the next president of the United States or Howard Stern as the king of all media. Fun as that approach would make things, especially on hip hop pages.

Eric Lynn Wright (September 7, 1963–March 26, 1995), better known by the stage name Eazy-E, was an American rapper, producer, and record executive who came straight outta Compton. Ruthless was his style as a juvenile; he was a brother who would smother your mother, and make your sister think he loved her.

--G-Dett (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We should not forget that the name of the article is Palestinian People, and specifically not Palestine; that said, there should be few valid questions concerning the applicability of "guidelines on self-identifying terms" for these people. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This people ;).--G-Dett (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Cute. But it sort of crystallizes the issue here. Even if Palestinians are "a people", they are still, beyond any doubt, "people." That is why "people" is NPOV and "a people" (or "a nation") is POV. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Palestinians are people, beyond any doubt. They're also human beings, specifically Homo sapiens, and they're mammals and primates and bipedal vertebrates and so on. But each of these designations, accurate as it is, has connotations born of the context. The connotation of the present phrasing is that the subject of the article is a semi-arbitrarily demarcated aggregate of Arab persons, which (a) is false; and (b) runs counter to the letter and spirit of the guideline on self-identifying terms.--G-Dett (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, some day when I have a lot of time on my hands, I am going to comb through your talk page contribs, mining for gems like the Eazy E graf above. That sh*t was funny, bro. If it were not a violation of WP:POINT and many other policies, I would urge you to paste that into the Eazy E article. Clearly, you are representin'.

You have, however, turned my nutshell inside out. (Why does it make me queasy to write that?) When I say we can't go granting nation status "willy-nilly", I mean nation state-ness. Anyone who wants to call themselves a nation in the sense of Hindu Nation, La Raza or Raider Nation may do so, but the word is too blurry, and too loaded, to be used in this article without a bunch of disclaimers surrounding it. If you look at Kurds, who have what is generally regarded as a much stronger claim to "peoplehood" than do Palestinains, the first sentence begins "The Kurds are an ethnic group..." and nowhere is nation mentioned in the lead, and are nowhere directly called a "Nation." But... I'm gathering you agree with at least part of this, and are happy to have "Nation" out of the lead? Or am I misreading what you wrote? Peace out, IronDuke 05:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ironduke: yes, the Kurds are described in the lede as an "ethnic group," but ethnicity is 'stronger' than nationhood – by which I mean that ethnicity is historically (and/or linguistically) deeper and more tentacular, and usually involves some degree of reproductive isolation and hence shared biological/physiognomic traits, etc. It is a stepping stone to race. Perhaps there are RSs who say the Palestinians constitute an ethnicity, but if so they're going a good deal beyond the strong consensus that they're a nation. Nationhood – and again, I'm using the term in its definite technical sense as opposed to its various and shifting vernacular senses – can emerge in a much shorter time frame than either ethnicity or race, and is to a far greater extent a function of political and historical contingencies. Common fallacies include invoking such contingencies as if they undermined the claim to nationhood – e.g., Palestinian nationalism arose merely to imitate and politically compete with Zionism, and has been sustained by the Arab governments' refusal to assimilate refugees, therefore it's not 'real', a hundred years ago these were just Arabs; or on the other hand, Zionism was a modern political response to European antisemitism, subsequently galvanized by the Holocaust, a 150 years ago these were just European and other international Jews with no common language and no 'real' cultural or territorial attachment to Palestine. Another common fallacy consists of using archaelogy or DNA testing or other empirical documentary evidence to disprove national myths – not realizing that, as Ernest Renan put it, "getting its history wrong is part of being a nation." Both of these fallacies are premised on the popular misconception that 'real' nations arise from the primordial deeps, as opposed to being the result of events, dear boy, events; both fallacies have been used in an attempt to undermine the claims of Zionism and Palestinian nationalism; and neither is taken seriously by scholars of nations and nationalism – except insofar as they illuminate popular misconceptions about nationhood.

None of this makes "nation" a flimsy concept, a papier-mâché mask that any doofus or Raider fan can don if he likes. Nations are an empirical, institutional, materialist phenomenon. When Benedict Anderson called them "imagined communities," he did not mean that they were gauzy and unreal, he meant that they were made possible by the forms of collective imagination that are in turn made possible by the rise of print capitalism. Hobsbawm pointed out that their traditions are "invented" for strategic and political reasons; well, yes, and the Brooklyn Bridge was invented for economic (and some like to think, artistic) reasons, but you can walk and drive on it. If a critical mass of Raider Nation members came to see their individual identities, their sense of filial kinship, and their sense of the past and future as forged in the crucible of collective enthusiasm for the Raiders, to the point where that identity eclipsed or obliterated their sense of themselves as Americans, then that would be an empirically measurable phenomenon. And a very strange one, if the Raiders players themselves presumably went on considering themselves as Americans. In the meantime, the designation is meant only to be playful; interestingly, it plays off the actual definition of nationhood (passionate sense of allegiance and collective purpose) rather than the popular misconception (stamps, borders, primordial roots), and is in that respect illuminating. It no more undermines the conceptual contours and limits of actual nationhood than L.P. Hartley undermined our sense of sovereign territorial demarcations when he wrote that "the past is a foreign country." Sorry if that's a labored rejoinder to a light quip, but as you've brought up Raider Nation three times now I have to assume you're not kidding.

Returning to my inverted nutshell – yes, I'm fine with leaving the word "nation" out of the lead, so long as the lead registers the Palestinian people collectively, per the guideline on self-identifying terms, per the scholarly consensus, and per every single other parallel article that has been presented on this talk page or that I can find myself – Kurds, French people, Basque people, Catalan people, and so on.--G-Dett (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

6SJ7, I disagree with your statement: ‘That is why "people" is NPOV and "a people" (or "a nation") is POV.’ These three terms more properly constitute a sliding scale of choices for editors, with ‘people’ as the lowest common denominator. In the Palestinian experience, this might even be considered a step up from being just ‘refugees’ as in 1967 UN 242, after previously attaining the status of ”existing non-Jewish communities” in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. Off this scale and at the other end might be the highest term: state/country, but they aren’t accepted and/or ready and we are not talking about that end of the scale anyway. We are discussing the Palestinians people; this people (thanks G-Dett).

Since 1967, in particular, the international/diplomatic status of Palestinians has grown to where, by most neutral outside (non-self-identified) measures, they are a recognized ‘national’ group. They sit in the UN, they are recognized by most countries and even George W. and Kadima are talking to them. The people are a ‘nation’ and the land on which they reside is specifically a stateless nation. The Kurds and Basques do not possess that ‘national’ recognition as a people; no other group in the world does, except the Palestinians. Given that international recogition, I do not believe that an encyclopedic description of the Palestinian People should use that lowest common denominator ‘people’; they are at a least ‘a people’ and, more rightly, ‘a nation’.

So what is the problem? Why is the discussion page into it’s 12th volume (and the Palestine discussion page in it’s 9th ); why are some editors so adamant? Yes, I understand how complicated it is; I understand it well enough to know why, and will note the specific opposing POV. ‘In his book 'Zionism and the Palestinians' Simha Flapan distinguishes six basic concepts of Zionism's policy toward the Arabs: ….'(3) non-recognition of the existence of a Palestine national entity;’. There it is, right out of the pages of Wikipedia and yes, it was AfD’d in 4 days. But what are we to do; what are you to do? Are the editors going to decide that the documented POV version is included in this description, or that the RS’d, guidelined, neutral version is included. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett says above, "they constitute a collective entity – whatever term one chooses for it, a people, a nation, a polity, whatever, as opposed to a semi-random assemblage of Arab persons". Is there anyone who disagrees with the fact that the Palestinian people are a collective entity, and if so, on what basis are they *not* a collective entity? And if they *are* a collective entity, what is the best reliably sourced term to designate this collective entity if not "nation"? --MPerel 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, I appreciate your thoughtful response, as usual, though I continue to maintain that "nation" is an ill-defined concept in the sense that people are attempting to use with the Palestinians, and not useful enough to justify the warring to insert it. And I'm sorry, but I had to continue to make reference to Raider Nation until someone finally noticed and found it at least mildly amusing, which I'm going to pretend you did. MPerel, pace G-Dett I would be fine with "ethnicity," at least in the sense that our own article gives it; "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry," "presumed" being a possibly operative word here (this line could perhaps be footnoted next to the word itself within the article). IronDuke 05:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of options

Raider Nation was funny. It was a perfectly placed lob, and I did what you're not supposed to do with lobs – whack it so hard you lose the point. Speaking of losing the point, I'd like to concede something you said about three screen-yards back, that "'nation' is too vague a term for the lead, and too easy to conflate it with 'nation-state.'" So keen was I to disgorge myself of a lecture on the precise meaning of 'nation' in scholarship that I didn't notice the soundness of your point for a general encyclopedia article. Oh well, sorry.

I think MPerel's right that we should choose a word and get on with it. I am not super-concerned about what that word is. In my understanding 'ethnicity' is a relatively apolitical demarcation with deeper historical roots and often a biological/physiognomic component, so it doesn't seem the best choice of words for the Palestinians, whose crystallization as a people has taken place inside of a century and is highly political in nature. The concept of ethnicity seems moreover to be employed mostly as a way of designating cultural subgroups within a multicultural modern state; that is, one reads about ethnic populations in Los Angeles or Toronto or Sidney or Tel Aviv, but one doesn't generally hear the Cornish or the Basque or the Catalans described as ethnicities. Probably more of a question of context than criteria, but I don't think it's a great choice here.

I think "people" has a lot to recommend it. It has political connotations, like nation, but it doesn't imply any specific criteria and so is loose enough for our purposes (i.e. it doesn't have technical and vernacular meanings fundamentally at odds with one another as we've seen with nation). Finally, and probably most importantly – and it's astonishing that this is the first time any of us has brought this up – it was the term explicitly used by the Arab League in 1974 (when it first recognized Palestinian national claims independent of pan-Arab nationalism, and recognized the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people"), and by the Israeli government in 1993 when it first recognized the PLO in the same terms. See Israel-Palestine Liberation Organization letters of recognition; here is the text of Prime Minister Rabin's formal letter of recognition to Arafat:

Mr. Chairman,

In response to your letter of September 9, 1993, I wish to confirm to you that, in light of the PLO commitments included in your letter, the Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process.

Yitzhak Rabin.
Prime Minister of Israel.

Emphasis added. Rabin, speaking for the state of Israel, brought himself to add the definite article; can we do likewise and move on?--G-Dett (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

i can agree with the "people" definition (even though the issue of what makes them a people is debatable), can't accept the "nation" definition... even if rabin called them "people" while trying to make peace. sorry. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jaakobou, can you clarify? I.e., are you fine with adding the indefinite article "an" to the lede?--G-Dett (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, would you mind clarifying what the difference is, if any, between using the term "nation" versus using the term "a people"? You've asserted that the same "scholarly consensus" exists to justify both. <<-armon->> (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Nation" has a precise technical meaning within historical and social-science scholarship – covered in considerable detail above – that "people" doesn't have. "People" is more informal, and is used in more or less the same way by scholars as by lay people. Scholars agree that the Palestinians are now internationally recognized as a people – because, well, they are. They were recognized as such, using precisely that term, first by the Arab League, then later by the United Nations, and finally by the United States and the state of Israel. The lone hold-out is Wikipedia.--G-Dett (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the Arab League, the U.N., the U.S. or the State of Israel, Wikipedia is not a political organization or entity, it is an encyclopedia. As such, Wikipedia doesn't "recognize" anything. It reports sourced facts. Unfortunately, it also reports quite a lot of opinions (which, even if they are "sourced", are still just opinions), and that is where we often run into problems. Political organizations and entities "recognize" things for political and diplomatic reasons, considerations which do not apply to Wikipedia. Well, of course they often do, but they are not supposed to. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Good, let's report the sourced fact that the Palestinians are a people and are recognized as such. Kinda like how we recognize that Israel is a state rather than a "Zionist entity."--G-Dett (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with G-Dett's proposal. I encourage others to adopt it. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, your analogy is ridiculous. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

6SJ7, forget the analogy. she wasn't trying to use it as a proof, she was just making conversation. anyway, using the phrase "a people" is a sensible compromise, completely supported by the facts and sources, including the letter from Rabin, above. I suggest we accept it. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Really, 6SJ7, why? I try to be careful with my analogies, and to avoid the facile Chomskian reductio ad absurdum. This analogy seems to me pretty exact, pretty symmetrical, and to track the whole logic of the peace process from Oslo forward – i.e., Palestinian recognition of Israel's existence (and right to exist) in exchange for Israeli recognition that the Palestinians constitute a people with legitimate political aspirations. At any rate, I'm certainly not the first to make it. Here's Julie Burchill, onetime journalist for the Guardian, writing about the "new antisemitism." Burchill resigned from the Guardian in protest at what she saw as pervasive anti-Israel bias crossing over into antisemitism:

Were you outraged when Golda Meir claimed there were no Palestinians? You should be equally outraged at the insinuation that Jews are not a nation. Those who denounce Zionism sometimes explain Israel's policies as a product of its Jewish essence. In their view, not only should Israel act differently, it should cease being a Jewish state. Anti-Zionists are prepared to treat Jews equally and fight anti-semitic prejudice only if Jews give up their distinctiveness as a nation: Jews as a nation deserve no sympathy and no rights, Jews as individuals are worthy of both. Supporters of this view love Jews, but not when Jews assert their national rights.

--G-Dett (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, along with Steve, with G-Dett's proposal to describe the Palestinians as "a people", and reliable sources back this up. --MPerel 04:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

i also support "the people" suggestion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I also support "a people". "Nation" was not being used as a descriptor it was being used as a classification, and as such doesn't fall under that particular guideline. I appreciate the view of "a people" as a step down from "nation". I agree that we should leave the definition of Palestine to the article on Palestine noting the impact the argument has on the people. Padillah (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While I feel very strongly that nation is the appropriate, WP:NPOV term to use here, as exemplified by numerous reliable and scholarly sources, for the sake of achieving consensus, I am willing to accept "a people". I do reserve the right to re-open the issue at a later date, since consensus is not immutable, but it won't be anytime too soon. Tiamut 16:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel roughly the same as Tiamat on this question. <eleland/talkedits> 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How long are you guys planning to wait? <<-armon->> (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not much longer, frankly. Consensus doesn't mean unanimity, and fond as I am of dialectic, I won't play ping-pong with someone who has no paddle and can't return a shot, but stands there calling all points in his favor.--G-Dett (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's not what Armon meant, and I was wondering the same thing. Tiamut, with agreement from Eleland, above, and CasualObserver, below, both say that they agree with the "a people" compromise now, but in various ways suggest that at some future point they will, or might, again push for "nation". So I think Armon and I are wondering how long this so-called "compromise" (which I was the first or second person to agree to, by the way) will last before we go through all this again. In light of that, I'm not sure we have a compromise here anymore, and I'm not sure I can agree with it anymore. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, 6SJ7, I misunderstood Armon and apologize. To you both. Your serve. Armon can borrow my paddle. Please don't back out of the compromise on account of my faux-pas. Or do you mean the compromise is in jeopardy because it now feels only like a temporary armistice? If the latter, please factor in my intentions. I am convinced by IronDuke and others that 'nation' isn't best for the lede because of semantic ambiguities. I think this is not only an acceptable compromise but in fact the best solution. I intend to work to maintain it, and have said as much on the talk page of one of my 'allies'. Here, have a seat, I'll put a kettle on to make you some tea with one hand while playing ping-pong with Armon with the other. And typing suasive notes with my toes to Eleland and Tiamut.--G-Dett (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that all they meant is that they accept this compromise in this situation, but they are not agreeing to never discuss this again in the future. what's the big deal? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Because 5000+K of text dealing with their NPOV vio is clearly disruptive already. Reopening the issue in a month or two with the same failed arguments is essentially a promise never to stop disrupting the article. <<-armon->> (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is your serve? Give me my paddle back, I'm going to go sit with 6SJ7 and have my tea.--G-Dett (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

so we'll deal with it at that time. what's your alternative? to leave the article locked forever? what kind of place would this be, if we always stayed locked in eternal combat for--hey, I think i just started to understand the Mideast a little better. :-) see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I need refutation for "Self-Identifying Terms" guideline. (Arbitrary break)

Well it's not surprising that the editors who were pushing for "nation" like the "compromise" of "a people" because it's pushing the same POV. The problem is, you can't split the difference between POV and neutral and still wind up with neutral. Given the different POVs on the subject, I've yet to see an even halfway compelling reason for us to take sides. <<-armon->> (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Armon, no one here is trying to be neutral. We are trying to find cosnensus with a group of editors who are extremely responsible, judicious, and are basing their proposal on verifiable sources. Wikipedia is not just about holding everyone else to a theoretical standard. it is about finding some consensus and compromise, based on views of others, IF those views are based on legitimate sources, and giving some credence to others' duly-supported views. So in this case, there is reason for consensus after a long discussion.

Exactly what are Palestinians? clearly, the term itself has some definable meaning, since it is an actual word. they constitute a group, a collection of people, under the term Palestinian. You keep speaking of synonyms. Well, clearly "Palestinian" denotes a definable, identifiable political unit, which comprises a group of people which adopt this common term to denote some definable cultural or political identity, based on place of residence and/or geneaology. so the term being discussed is the one which best matches general usage in regard to any cultural identity group, including this one. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to inject that at least one of us "is trying to be neutral." ;-) HG | Talk 23:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Armon, your opinions are welcome here, but given the heavy lifting done by other editors to effect a compromise in line with both the sources and the relevant policies, you owe it to us to formulate your objections in a way that suggests you've read and and understood the discussion. Support for the compromise is wide, not limited to "editors who were pushing for 'nation'," and nowhere has "splitting the difference" been contemplated. The goal has been to find phrasing that registers how the Palestinians are recognized by scholars, statesmen, world bodies and so on, phrasing without the semantic confusions and connotations bedeviling "nation." "People" is perfect because its lay use is consistent with its use by scholars, and more importantly it's the word explicitly used by the Arab League, the United Nations, the United States, and the state of Israel in formal documents recognizing the Palestinians collectively.--G-Dett (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Armon, one compelling reason to take sides is: we have to write something. I suppose we could put the article up for AfD, is that your suggestion? We don't have to write the article, but if we do write the article we have to put words in it. We don't need to agree on those words but it would make editing the article worthwhile since we could make an edit and it would stay. With those objectives in mind the plan is to come up with a consensus (take a side) as to what words to use in the article. As for your argument that "a people" means "nation", that's absurd. There are Black people, they are not a nation and no one, including themselves would think so. There are White People, and no one would think to call all of them collectively a "nation". A more esoteric example is "Fat People", does their existence intimate a Fat Nation? What about Young People? Or Blind People? A group of people that identifies itself as a group does not a Nation make. Padillah (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

errr, sorry Padillah, don't mean to poke my nose in. however, let me just make a slight correction here. the discussion is not whether there are Palestinian people, the discussion is whether there is a Palestinian people. I know that you actaully do get that, so I don't mean to split hairs, but obviously the whole issue here right now is these particular semantics. I do, however, agree basically with your entire comment. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, I was refuting the "a people" means "nation" argument. As you note there are Palestinian people therefore the Palestinians are a people. That does not equate to nation. Padillah (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well you can't refute dispute that the phrase "a people" means "nation" because it does (OK well it can also mean ethnic group, which has also been pushed for, but without any RS support). The sense that "nation" was being used in the article, (see def 3.) is exactly the same sense in which "a people" is proposed to be used instead (see our own article: "The term people can collectively refer to all humans or it can be used to identify the citizens of a nation, or members of a tribe, ethnic, or religious group." as well as #2 on People (disambiguation)). We don't have to insert an "an" before people into the current text. True, using "a people" may be more subtle presentation of the POV than "nation", but that makes it worse. After this much discussion, in theory, we should be arriving at NPOV. <<-armon->> (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

'Refute' is transitive, darling.--G-Dett (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Grammar gotchas are lame. This isn't Usenet and it doesn't address the point. <<-armon->> (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

...which remains unaddressed. My other point, that this conception of "nationhood" is not universal among Palestinians themselves, likewise. <<-armon->> (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Armon, as of this moment, you are alone in your opposition to this proposal, which enjoys broad consensus among editors who did not want to change the current version and those who did want to change it so as to add nation. Further, you have not even bothered to provide a source attesting to your claim that the conception of "nationhood" is not universal among Palestinians, nor have you explained how this point is related to the compromise proposal which centers around adding an indefinitive article before "Arabic-speaking people". I strongly suggest you reconsider your position. WP:CONSENSUS is an official policy at Wikipedia. Tiamut 12:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, well asserting there is consensus still doesn't address my point about "a people" meaning "nation" just above. It's obvious why you'd like to push "a people" through though -it's the same POV you've been insisting on. As for my other point about different POVs amongst Palestinians, it should be also be obvious that an Arab nationalist sees himself as a member of the greater Arab nation, and that an Islamist rejects "western nationalism" completely, and sees himself as part of the Islamic Ummah. We've already been given a cite for the Arab nationalist POV, and I'm happy to find you one for the Islamist POV if that's what you need to reassess your position. <<-armon->> (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have no idea what you're talking about Armon and I'm kind of surprised you didn't bring up whatever point it is you're trying to make in the lengthy discussions previous. What I do know is that Rashid Khalidi, an expert source, is cited in the article as saying that the identities of "Arab", "Palestinian" and so forth have been and are coexistant with one another among many Palestinians.

Further, I can't imagine why you would think that this compromise is one I like. It's not at all what I was advocating for. Based on reliable, scholarly sources, I wanted to see the term nation in the lede. This solution doesn't do that. All it does is add an indefinitive particle, transforming the generic usage of people to a specific collective noun (also based, thanks to G-Dett's rigorous scholarship, on reliable sources).

You are now standing in the way of consensus without offering a compelling policy-based rationale for your non-adherence to this key Wikipedia policy. That's against the very spirit of WP:CONSENSUS (I keep wikilinking because I'm hoping you'll actually read it.) Please, once again, reconsider your position, for the sake of the project. That's what I did. This solution is much, much less than what I think is appropriate, but those proposing it have made strong, policy-based, source-based, and common sense arguments as to why its the best workable solution. Tiamut 13:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to join Tiamut in his request to Armon, and also ask Armon to consider the consequences of his continuing this particular battle. It won't come across well when others see the lack of compromise. I've contacted the original admin that protected the page but I'm concerned what they will think when they return to unprotect and see the discussion still raging. If you don't like the compromise on the table then please feel free to suggest a new one, but don't just object and expect us, after all the work we've already put in, to try and find a solution that will placate you. It's your viewpoint, you need to defend it. We've already addressed the difference between "people" and "a people" so that's out but if you have other suggestions, please let us know. Padillah (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because I'm one of the few people still talking about this, don't make the mistake that it's just about "placating" me. If there really is a consensus against my position, I'll drop it. The problem is that I believe I'm right per NPOV -which is supposed to be non-negotiable. What you are suggesting as a "compromise" is splitting the difference between the overt POV of "nation", vs. simply stating the fact that they are "people", by injecting the less overt phrase "a people" -which carries the same POV "nation" does. It still means we aren't maintaining NPOV. Please answer this question: What is exactly is the problem with how it's phrased now? <<-armon->> (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The point requires no reliable source, and engaging Armon on this is to dignity with seriousness what is patently obstructive wikilawyering.

Could someone kindly explain to the perplexed what the body everyone, from George Bush to Israeli leaders, calls the PNA (Palestinian National Authority) alludes to in identifying itself as National? World diplomacy recognizes this self-defined government body as representative of a people, and does not dispute that the entity is national. Allow the adjective, and the substantive is entrained by logic. Though state recognition will automatically validate the term 'nation', both Israel and the United States (the only historic dissenters) now openly speak of negotiations to establish that state, which will, in English usage, mean retroactively confirming the existence of what is de facto a Palestinian people constituting a nation whose formal recognition only awaits a treaty and ratification.

I am perplexed because, on the eve of American statehood, while the colonized New World was at war with its imperial overlord, England, Burke wrote:-

'If there be one fact in the world perfectly clear it is this:'That the disposition of the people of America is wholly averse to any other than a free government';' E Burke, ' Letter to the Sherriffs of Bristol,' in Speeches on the American War, ed.A.J.George, Boston 1907 p.204

Replace the people of America with ‘the people of Palestine’, and go figure what the problem is. Tom Paine before the Revolution for independence said the ‘cause of America’ would become ‘the cause of all mankind’. Except for the Palestinians, who, denied a state, are denied even the right by some fanatical editors to claim they are a people. Someone furrener has to go guarantor for the fact! In any other forum, posters who suggested as much would be shamed off the board. Hilarious really, were it not symptomatic of the I/P area articles' pathological condition.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

proposal

I think that to use the term 'nation' would be 'undue weight'. The term has a connotation of a people as an organic body, and it is usually used in a nationalistic context. In the opening sentence, which gives a definition of the subject of the article, surely we should apply a NPOV, and avoid this term. I propose:

The Palestinian people is an Arabic-speaking people consisting of people with family origins in the region of Palestine. Currently these people are referred to as Palestinians, but before 1948 they were usually referred to as Palestinian Arabs

This text also distinghuishes between people (singular) and people (plural). --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely the compromise edit that's on the table, with broad consensus.--G-Dett (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I thought it was the basic idea on the table but not the precise edit. Doesn't the sentence begin: "Palestinian people, Palestinians, or Palestinian Arabs are terms used to refer to an Arabic-speaking people..." (w/parentheticals omitted) In other words, the only change is to insert "an" to the current first sentence of the article. Right? (Well, if I'm wrong, feel free to strike or delete this comment!). Thanks. HG | Talk 00:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, HG. (Sorry, JaapBoBo. I've become rather fixated on articles, definite and indefinite.) Both are equally acceptable to me.--G-Dett (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I can accept an Arabic-speaking people, if only to get the page opened again. I do not believe that it is the most proper phrasing, based on RSs, guidelines, diplomatic/international recognition or history, but can see the 'undue weight' considerations for this weighty issue. Funny, I don't remember that phrase being used before amongst those arguing against any change. I too will keep future options open. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Once we reach consensus, someone here should go to the edit-protection noticeboard, and file a request for unprotection. i would do it, but i will defer and let one of the Palestinian-area editors do the honors, (such as perhaps G-Dett). --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely support the proposed compromise and any steps we can take to move forward with this. If the discussion opens up again we will address it then. To hold this article "hostage" on the threat of editing discourse is as unconscionable as raising the debate over and over until consensus falls your way. We've gone to great lengths to define this compromise I hope those involved would go to those same lengths to defend it. When a time comes for this outlook to change we can address that change in context. To think about changing it because "three months have passed and we need to review the position" is not a good reason. That this situation will change (possibly many times) is inevitable, that shouldn't be taken as an endorsement to uproot this article or this argument. Padillah (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I will make the request.--G-Dett (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to actually get a consensus first. <<-armon->> (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus does not mean universal unanimity. Tiamut 12:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. Still need one though. <<-armon->> (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

we have one. i think that's pretty clear. sorry, don't mean to sound contentious, but that does seem to be a fact. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? You got that idea from the "vote" above? <<-armon->> (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

no, but from the fact that your position is unhelpful, and there is almost no support for it. And your position which you keep saying is NPOV runs completely counter to all facts and sources. It appears completely motivated by the desire to say "there is no such thing as the Palestinian people." I feel that even admitting that does not hand some huge political concession to Palestinians. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Two points. 1) It doesn't in fact run completely counter to all sources -there are obviously those who disagree with idea. 2) As a matter of fact, my personal opinion on the matter isn't to say there is no such thing, but that's not the point and it wouldn't matter if it were. <<-armon->> (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

@Armon: To get this straight: are you saying that there are reliable sources with povs that would make calling the Palestinians a people not NPOV?

I've been searching on this talk page, but I can't find any indication of sources by you. It seems you are defending a personal pov here. If you really want to do an effort to convince other editors of your pov (as long as you don't indicate reliable sources it is your pov), I think you should indicate some reliable sources and try to convince others that they are relevant. --JaapBoBo (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

this is getting more and more irrational. Labeling a statement NPOV does not mean that there are no sources at all which disagree with it. it simply means that there are some valid significant sources in favor of the NPOV statement. The fact that it is NPOV does not mean that there are NO sources which disagree with it; if it did, then half the statements in Wikipedia, especially on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, would have to be removed. your position does not seem whooly logical or convincing. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve's right that neutrality doesn't mean no one on planet earth has ever disagreed, and JaapBoBo's right that Armon hasn't really produced anyone from planet earth disagreeing. We decided not to say "nation" because the way that word is used in everyday discourse is different from how scholars use it, and only the scholarly usage applies unambiguously and uncontroversially to Palestinians. But this isn't true of "a people." This designation is not a technical term, and it's regularly used not only in scholarship but in everyday discourse to describe the Palestinians, including three times yesterday morning by President Bush; it is moreover a designation that has been officially recognized for years now by the Israeli government, the United Nations, and the Arab League. So far as we know, no one in the real world is significantly contesting it, only Armon in the world of Wikipedia. Finally, if one needs a sort of firewall addendum to the conclusiveness of the above: our use of "a people" is obviously in line with the guideline on self-identifying terms, notwithstanding Armon's spontaneous and erroneous speculation that Palestinian Islamists don't believe in the existence of a Palestinian people (they do).--G-Dett (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of points here. One, the policy on self-identifying terms says that we refer to the people in question as "Palestinians" because that is what they call themselves. It does not say that we call them a people, a nation, or any other descriptive term in particular. Second, many of the references you have cited refer to "the Palestinian people", which means that they are people and they are Palestinians, not necessarily that they are "a people." It is comments like this that make me really ambivalent about this "compromise." If the issue comes up again, I may not be so agreeable. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, 6SJ7, thanks again for your spirit of compromise. I'm not totally clear on your point about the refs – all are using it in the collective singular, no? As in, "The Palestinian people deserve a state," "legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," etc. (not, say, "The Palestinian people over there on the corner eating tacos look suspicious"). If I included ones that weren't, it was an honest (and embarrassing) mistake. Be well,--G-Dett (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I assume that we're agreed that the refs from a letter by PM Rabin and a statement by Pres. Bush refer to "the Palestinian people," not " all those Palestinian people." so I do feel there is some meaningful support for this within notable sources. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve, that's the whole point, nobody is talking about "all those Palestinian people", or as G-Dett put it previously, something like "people who just happen to live in Palestinian areas." This is just a straw man argument. "The Palestinian people" means "Palestinian people" and it may also mean that the speaker considers them to be "a people" (distinct from other Arabs), but it doesn't necessarily. I can assure you that President Bush does not care about the etymological classification of the people of West Bank and Gaza, he cares that someone who sufficiently represents the population in question is ready and willing to enter into a peace agreement. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello folks. Ok, I am requesting unprotection. I assume that with a perfectly serviceable consensus, we now have enough reason to unprotect it. if anyone chooses to disrupt this consensus, this would be the perfect time to test the system. Since we now have a major ArbCom case under way, this seems like the perfect time to test the ability of Wikipedia's system to uphold a consensus which was fairly arrived at. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For whatever its worth, strictly speaking there was a compromise, not a consensus. As I said before, I still think the version of the first sentence of the intro when it was protected is better than what it is probably about to be changed to. Since I agreed to the compromise, I am not going to change it back. That may not be the case for the two editors who said that while they will agree to the compromise for the moment, they may try to put "nation" back in at some point. I am not trying to impugn the compromise, I am just trying to inject a note of reality here. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Understood, 6SJ7. You have my word that I'm committed to this compromise wording, and I think even those with misgivings have accepted it.--G-Dett (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Understood, 6SJ7. You have my word that I'm committed to this compromise wording, for the forseeable future. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Me three. Tiamut 14:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"a people" is still POV

If there is a consensus, the problem still remains that sometimes a consensus can be for the wrong thing. I'll just leave you guys with cites that show that the phrase is problematic. I shouldn't have to, but I suppose I'd better make the disclaimer that these do not necessarily reflect my personal opinion. I'll add more as I find them. <<-armon->> (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• The appropriation of the term "Palestinian" -- as in "Palestinian people" -- and its deliberate promotion from adjective to noun (as in "the 'Palestinians'") -- was a deliberate and tendentious act of propaganda.
• If the Palestinians are indeed a myth, then the real question becomes "Why"? Why invent a fictitious people?
• "The 'Palestinian people' does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel."

You've quoted two bloggers and a terrorist.--G-Dett (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• A people that never existed in History needs a useful past

'Nother blog, this time Netanyahu's.--G-Dett (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• "The myth that Jews in Palistine unjustly displaced "the Palestinian people" may be widely espoused, but official documents before I947 generally spoke of "Arabs in Palestine," not of a "Palestinian people." <<-armon->> (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A real source! Only he's disputing who was displaced in 1948, not who exists now.--G-Dett (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Mrs. Levinger elaborated on the premise that a Palestinian history book did not exist because the very concept of a Palestinian people did not exist until the Arab nations and their proxy, the PLO, chose to invent the Palestinian national movement in 1964. It was all a propaganda ploy to attack Israel and challenge Jewish claims to the land. <<-armon->> (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Tom Mountain is a resident of Newton and also a columnist for the Newton TAB." Mrs. Levinger is the wife of Rabbi Moshe Levinger, the leader of the Gush Emunim movement (Hebron loonies).--G-Dett (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Conceptually, the authors do not clearly or reasonably explain that this is indeed a distinct people or nation, nor precisely how the notion of a distinct "Palestinian people" developed, nor do they explain what they mean by people or nation in principle.

A review of the thing on Netanyahu's blog (itself a review of Baruch Kimmerling's The Palestinian People: A History), written – get this – by the guy who wrote the thing on Netanyahu's blog in the first place.--G-Dett (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't notice that. Feel free to ignore second cite. <<-armon->> (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Feeling very free here, Armon.--G-Dett (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Who Are the Palestinians? At DePaul, Don't Ask and Don't Tell - You'll get a kick out of this one, G-Dett ;) <<-armon->> (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting a kick out of all of these, Armon. This one's an anonymous CAMERA leaflet.--G-Dett (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• But the Palestinians must have a nation of their own, the international community insists. The fact is, however, the concept of a "Palestinian people" is an invention of Arab propagandists. <<-armon->> (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Op-ed by someone called "Edward Walker," published in something online called BNET ("The go-to place for management"), citing as its source Zahir Muhsein, Armon's preferred terrorist-cum-reliable source.--G-Dett (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• In fact, the first Article of the PLO Charter makes it clear that ‘Palestinian people’ are ordinary Arabs: “Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation”4 (italic by author). Confirmation that the charter adopted by the 4th PNC in 1968 does in fact say this, is here <<-armon->> (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous talking points posted online at ad hoc advocacy website set up to respond to International Court of Justice's ruling on the West Bank barrier. Yes, the Arab states saw Palestine as theirs in 1964. In 1974, they recognized the Palestinians as "a people." The United Nations did so several years later, and the Israelis officially did so in 1993. You're a lone holdout, Armon, along with some bloggers, a resident of Newton, a dead terrorist, and the wife of the Hebron settler movement. ¡Viva WP:RS!--G-Dett (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I know my refs can't compare to Armon's for notability, but here's Shimon Peres (the Palestinians are a proud people"), Ariel Sharon ("together, we can build a vision of a better future for both our peoples...From here, I address the Palestinian people. On behalf of the people of Israel..."), and Condoleeza Rice ("there could be no greater legacy for America than to help to bring into being a Palestinian state for a people who have suffered too long").--G-Dett (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Armon, this is just utterly stupid. A book by a computer engineer and Israel advocate, published by Myths and Facts, Inc.? Opinion pieces in Insight, screeds from CAMERA? Netanyahu's blog? A column from some yahoo in a Boston Jewish-community paper?

Almost a month ago, now, G-Dett pointed out that "The debate is about whether there exists not only notable but reliable denial of Palestinian nationhood. I.e., not whether a spokesman for this or that rival nationalism denies it, or whether the impression of this or that layperson is that it doesn’t exist, but rather whether there are historians of nationalism, nation-formation, the modern Middle East, etc., who deny it."

Now, if you detect some error or unfairness in the parameters which G-Dett laid out, fine, let's hear it. But if you accept her premises, you need to stop spamming us with sources which are notable, but unreliable and highly partisan. It looks an awful lot like deliberate obscurantism at this point. <eleland/talkedits> 01:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(should have registered as an edit conflict - but in any case, this is a response to Armon) Eli Hertz, the author of "Myths and Facts", a self-published work, is not a reliable, scholarly source on Palestinian identity issues. The charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization from which he quotes, provides evidence for why "a people" is an apt designation. "Arab homeland" could be referring to the Arab world or could be referring to Arabs. Regardless those who identify as "Palestinian people" can adopt any other number of ethnic (Armenians, Bosnians, etc.), national (Arab, Israeli, American, etc.) or religious (Muslim, Christian, Samartian, Druze, etc.) affiliations and identities that coexist. I believe we already discussed that when I referred you to Rashid Khalidi's work in the article on "Arabism, local loyalties" etc., being copresent with the identification as Palestinian.

CAMERA is an Israeli advocacy organization, which I don't think constitutes a reliable, scholarly source. The others (besides the blogs above) do not represent the majority view (both in the real world and the Wiki world), as summed up in G-Dett's recent posts and in the discussion centered around sources throughout this page. Tiamut 01:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call his website a "blog" exactly, but Benjamin Netanyahu was the PM of Israel for a while and is leader of the opposition, at the moment. That makes his position, and that of his constituents, a significant one. We should be avoiding one-sided arguments. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Since 1967, the mainstream leadership of the Palestinian movement began emphasizing Palestinians' local priorities in the conflict with Israel, paving the way for a new ideology of Palestinian nationalism rather than Arabism. As a consequence, the practical appeal of pan-Arabism began losing ground to the more localized and militant Palestinianism. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote you've cropped begins: "The 1948 war...resulted in the dispersion of the Palestinian people, the shredding of their society and the reorientation of their politics and identity." Nice try, thanks for the cite.--G-Dett (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• None of these propositions is self evident, and in the nature of things their acceptance by the international community has been slow and uneven; <<-armon->> (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I was the one to give you the timeline of that slow and uneven acceptance. The quote you've cropped goes on to say "Whatever may have been the vicissitudes of history, this people exists...the legal identity of the Palestinian people in relation to international law cannot be denied." This book, written 16 years ago, refers unqualifiedly to "the Palestinian people" scores of times. My office is in a library, remember? Nice try, and thanks for the cite.--G-Dett (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• It is often said that the Palestinians were not a people. Author disagrees with that, but that's not the point. I'm only showing that there is a dispute. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Since the Six-Day War of June 1967, such views have been expressed quite openly by advocates of direct annexation of the occupied territories, eliciting some sharp controversy in the Israeli press. -same again. Showing that there is a dispute. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your author sums up the "dispute" as follows: "It was as if the assertion of a Jewish nation required the rejection of the existence of a Palestinian nation." Neither he nor Neumann (your "it-is-often-said" cite above) quotes any serious or reliable sources arguing this position; rather, they allude to anecdotal statements suggestive of what they explicitly regard as a fogbank of low-lying propaganda. Speaking of which.--G-Dett (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• The term, "the Palestinian problem," is deliberately flexible and lends itself to several simultaneous interpretations. One is humanitarian and focuses on the Palestinian Arabs displaced in 1948, whose plight should be alleviated, if not resolved, by economic means. Another interpretation is quasi-humanitarian, quasi-political. It maintains that there is a Palestinian people, not just refugees in the humanitarian sense, and since they have no home (after all, there is no country called Palestine), justice requires they should be provided a homeland in some portion of the land once called Palestine, alongside of Israel. The third interpretation is rejectionist and politicidal. According to this theory, the right to that land which was once called Palestine belongs exclusively to those who today call themselves Palestinians (by which they mean Palestinian Arabs). <<-armon->> (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We may fairly assume by the 128-word hyperlink that this is Armon's pièce de résistance. It's an op-ed written by Yitzhak Shamir – former leader of the terrorist Stern Gang (don't blame me, "Begin-Shamir terrorism" is Alan Dershowitz's formulation, does that guy have chutzpah or what?), then-foreign-minister of Israel, subsequently prime minister – written 26 years ago, that is, before Oslo and the reentry of the Palestinian leadership to the occupied territories, and before the formal acceptance of the "Palestinian people" by the Israeli government.

Well done, old boy. Y'all finished reading the internet? Thanks for the truckload of BS.--G-Dett (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Nasty. Anyway, the point is, there is a significant difference of opinion on the "nationhood/peoplehood" issue. The fact that they are "partisan" is beside the point. That fact that they be wrong, is also beside the point (well, unless we were talking about physics, but this is politics). <<-armon->> (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You've cast your nets deep and wide but come up with no tuna. Just a lot of debris, some toxic-looking fish carcasses, and a few strangled dolphins (these latter being the scholars you misunderstood and/or misrepresented). The fact that they are partisan is indeed beside the point – which is why I never brought that up, and why you bring it up only as a strawman. The problem is that they do not demonstrate a significant difference of opinion. When you clean out all the non-notable dreck you've included to inflate your case (obscure bloggers, terrorists, Newton residents quoting radical settlers' wives quoting bloggers and terrorists, bloggers writing reviews of their own reviews on other obscure blogs, etc.), what you're left with are some halfway decent quotes addressing the increased momentum of Palestinian nationalism in the last 40-50 years, and the relatively recent recognition of "the Palestinian people" by the U.S., the Arab League, Israel, and the international community – quotes which you've cropped and cherry-picked in order to make it appear that they cast doubt on the status (in international law, in international diplomacy, in scholarship, and in mainstream discourse) of the Palestinian people today. You're wrong; they don't.--G-Dett (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK so define "notable" and I'll see what I can do. The recent recognition of Palestinian nationalism by the international community is really beside the point. It doesn't make any difference either way as to whether it's a fact or opinion. What is a fact, is that it's been recognized. <<-armon->> (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Weeding out some of the incivility etc., it looks like you all are reviewing a series of sources that use (or discuss the use of) people/nation for Palestinians. As I suggested up-page-ward, why not list these sources more methodically and w/comments/context? (Instead of odd links and scattershot. Also, looks at hits in G-scholar, Jstor, Nexis, etc.) The point isn't whether there are multiple views (as Shamir noted), the point is whether we can identify a mainstream view, over and against what WP policy calls "significant minority" or fringe positions. The mainstream view should go in the lead. Based on the conversation above, it looks like quite few editors are confident that the mainstream would include "a people" (if not "a nation"), but a methodical listing would help settle this question and preserve it for posterity (i.e., the next gen of edit warriors). Best regards, HG | Talk 01:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

HG, that's exactly what I was attempting to do. My point has always been very limited, and it has never been about what is, or isn't "true". It has to do with WP policy. Per NPOV, just assert facts, and don't use WP's voice to state your opinions -no matter what the current political consensus is. That's all. <<-armon->> (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. ok. so should we just chuck all established Wikipedia guidelines out the window? such as notable, consensus, etc? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In the new found spirit of brotherhood I would like to chime in. A good job was done in finding some compromise, but I hate to say that unless an open-ended formula can be found; even if we should all agree to the compromise; who is to say, that tomorrow someone won't arrive from Mars and/or Venus and start all over. They say that a sucker is born every day; similarly I would say that a Wikipidian editor is born every ...

I think that all options should be put on the table and let's analyze all of them; maybe just maybe we can come to some sort of an understanding.

First off I think that Armon has done a splendid job of trying to find reliable sources which state the Israeli POV. I think that Golda Meir, Yitzhak Shamir and Benjamin Natanyahu represent fairly the opinion of most Israelis, and it would be unfair to dismiss them as terrorist, blind or stupid. That the Israeli government in the last 10 years called them "Palestinian people" is in no way proof of what they really think; because as I have numerous times mentioned, that the Israeli people desperately want peace, and their government at the very minimum will give lip service and say what the Palestinians want to hear, because semantics is just a small price to pay; it is land which is the more difficult nut to crack. As for President Bush; does anyone really expect him to be more Israeli then Israel itself? Why shouldn't he say so for the same above reasons?

So far G-Dett tried finding fault in every source that Armon brought; but in all honesty, does anyone doubt that this is what the Israelis think? Three Prime Ministers isn't enough? Also he is sitting by a computer and G-Dett is sitting in a library (I'm jealous); so imagine if he or I had the time to sort out all the books on this subject and finally find what everyone must accept as a reliable source; are we then finished? It was admitted on these pages that this is what Israeli's think; but it was dismissed as fringe. So the question which HG has put forth is; what is fringe? There are so many things and factors to be sorted out if we should ever get to the bottom of this, and I think it's worth at least a try. It has been suggested that Armon is a lone holdout; so I would like to remind everybody that I agree with him and there are many others who agree with him too but have taken a back seat for now.

With all this in mind I'm open minded enough, to recognize the perspectives of other people and again in a spirit of harmony, I kindly request that we spell out all opinions and get to the bottom of this; not on what is true but on what is the best and fairest way of writing it which includes all perspectives. Itzse (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

you said:

That the Israeli government in the last 10 years called them "Palestinian people" is in no way proof of what they really think; because as I have numerous times mentioned, that the Israeli people desperately want peace, and their government at the very minimum will give lip service and say what the Palestinians want to hear, because semantics is just a small price to pay; it is land which is the more difficult nut to crack. As for President Bush; does anyone really expect him to be more Israeli then Israel itself? Why shouldn't he say so for the same above reasons?

there is no basis for trying to analyze the motives of duly notable sources (especially government officials). this gets us into WP:OR.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected

I have unprotected the page. If the agreement does not hold, then the page will be protected again. Woody (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Golda Meir

{{editprotected}} How did the explanation of Gevlin get deleted from this article? Look at the history; it used to say:

In an interview conducted by The Sunday Times on June 15, 1969, Golda Meir was party to the following exchange:

Q:Do you think the emergence of the Palestinian fighting forces, the Fedayeen, is an important new factor in the Middle East?

A:Important, no. A new factor, yes. There was no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the first world war and then it wa a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country from them. They did not exist.

The use of the above quote as a proof that there was the belief among Israelis that there were no Palestinians is disputed. Gelvin says that Meir was neither denying indigenous Palestinian people nor the existence of the Palestinian nation. Rather, her remarks are directed at the Fedayeen's causing of the nation to exist. Gelvin states that while Meir's “assertion that a Palestinian nation did not exist until after 1967 war is absurd, the sketch she provides of the historical nationalism that engendered that nation—and her implicit understanding of the unpredictable and conditional evolution of nationalism in general—is, in the main, accurate.”

Somehow, somebody deleted the reliable and cited explanation of Gevlin. I will assume good faith that it, together with the unexplained bolding of some of Meir's quote that does not appear in the original, as an accident on some of the editor's parts. I am certain that nobody would want to deliberately hide reliable and cited information, or inappropriately emphasize sections of statements, solely to push one point or another; for all we all not bound by the same policies? Regardless, as soon as the protection is lifted, the deleted material must be restored and the improper emphasis must be removed. -- Avi (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The statement is posited as an example of a point of contention (not "contestation", I hope ). As it's presented, it poses no contention and fails at the example it's set forth to provide. Padillah (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avi, Padillah. I removed the Gold Meir section in title=Palestinian_people&diff=147559126&oldid=147556935 this edit after there had been discussion raised on the talk page regarding it's length, relevance and accuracy. I responded to those concerns by removing it and no one objected. I now notice that since then another editor has added her statement, without the accompanying explanation by Gelvin.

I think considering the differing viewpoints on her statement (Gelvin's isn't the only one to be sure - there are many who claim she meant what she said and that this position represents the Israeli denialist position) it's better to leave her statement out of the article altogether, since we cannot give space to discuss all those different interpretations in this article and no one of them is authoritative. Perhaps, the material is better included in an article on Golda Meir herself? Respect. Tiamut —Preceding comment was added at 13:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, thanks for bringing me up to speed, as opposed to yelling at me for "supporting the wrong side". Second, if this is indeed the case then I agree we should remove the entire piece. With that gone do we need something to take it's place? Is there a need to present this point of view? And, if so, do we have something that's not quite as controversial or contentious to present? Thanks for the help Tiamut. Padillah (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Padillah. I'm not really the yelling type (though I have lost my cool a few times when faced with what I thought were intrenchably POV positions or edits). You seem like a good faith editor and I've appreciated your mediation efforts here on the issue of nation, even though it didn't go the way I had hoped.

About the Meir quote, I think we can safely take it out without changing anything. It would read as follows:

The identity of Palestinians has been a point of contestation with Israel.Golda Meir expounded the early position in her famous remark that:

'It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist.'[35]

The British historian Eric Hobsbawn allows that an element of justness can be discerned in skeptical outsider views that dismiss the propriety of using the term 'nation' to peoples like the Palestinians: such language arises often as the rhetoric of an evolved minority out of touch with the larger community that lacks this modern sense of national belonging. But at the same time, he argues, this outsider perspective has tended to

'overlook the rise of mass national identification when it did occur, as Zionist and Israeli Jews notably did in the case of the Palestinian Arabs.'[36]

From 1948 through until the 1980’s, according to Eli Podeh, professor at Hebrew University, the textbooks used in Israeli schools tried to disavow a unique Palestinian identity, referring to 'the Arabs of the land of Israel' instead of 'Palestinians.' Israeli textbooks now widely use the term 'Palestinians.' Podeh believes that Palestinian textbooks of today resemble those from the early years of the Israeli state.[37]

What do you (and others) think? Tiamut 15:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the logic would flow better if we moved the "From 1948 through until the 1980's..." paragraph up after the "contestation" statement. Then it would flow from the statement about contention to how the text books have changed over the years to the presentation of the idea of "nation" and it's growth. On a side note, I hope this gets opened soon, the grammar and syntax are killing me! ;) Padillah (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. And your corrections to grammar and syntax would also be deeply appreciate when the article is finally unprotected again. I was thinking that it might be good if you made the request actually, seeing as your were brought here by the 3O and most others here view you as an uninvolved party. Would you mind doing that? The discussion above seems to suggest it would be reasonable for someone to do so. Tiamut 17:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of your suggestions.--G-Dett (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to get involved in this and be the one saying this; but I do not understand what's the hurry. There is currently a RfArb underway which if it succeeds will have major implications for this page, for these type of pages and for the entire Wikipedia. Something I'm waiting already for a long time, to see a major change in how Wikipedia operates. I’ve all but lost confidence in the workings of Wikipedia (see my user page). IMO a handful of people involved does not a consensus make; especially on a page like this. We need to hear from everybody, and for the time being this talk page has been deserted while everybody is waiting anxiously for the outcome of the RfArb.

Also I think that all the options should be laid out on the table before we poll everybody for first and second choices. While it might unravel everything; proceeding cautiously is IMO the only route to take. Short solutions (desperately sought by politicians); in the long run never work (as witnessed by the P-I negotiations). We need to come to an understanding on this issue, and I think it's do-able. Itzse (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with those who say we should move quickly. We've gotten where we are through a model consensus-building discussion, one that redounds to the credit of all involved and and is a good harbinger for future collaboration. We should all commit to working together to make this a great article. Padillah and Tiamut are already discussing copy-edit and substantive changes they'd like to make; the page needs to open now when there is a high tide of good will and intellectual momentum.

Armon has raised two eleventh-hour objections to "a people": (i) given that in some instances "people" is a synonym for "nation," any objections raised regarding the latter apply ipso facto to the former; and (ii) given that part of the rationale for "a people" is the guideline on self-identifying terms, then we have to consider the views of Islamists within the Palestinian polity, who Armon says don't believe in the idea of a Palestinian people.

Both propositions seem to me self-evidently specious, but if other editors require refutation I'm happy to provide it.

Incidentally, add President Bush to the consensus. Pro-Palestinian neo-Chomskyian uber-leftist antisemitic Islamofascist Arafat-lovin' loony that he is, Bush referred to "the Palestinian people" three times in a five-minute speech today in Jerusalem:

1. "Both of these leaders [Olmert and Abbas] believe that the outcome is in the interest of their peoples, and are determined to arrive at a negotiated solution to achieve it."
2. "Agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people."
3. "The establishment of the state of Palestine is long overdue. The Palestinian people deserve it."--G-Dett (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I['m not sure exactly what the editprotected request is, but my impression is that this sort of thing will need to be resolved first, protection lifted, and then the article edited, rather than using editprotected requests. I'll have this page watched, to respond to comments here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Gelvin appears to be wrong -at least according to Meir herself:

I have been charged with being rigidly insensitive to the question of the Palestinian Arabs. I am supposed to have said, There are no Palestinians. My actual words were: There is no Palestinian people. There are Palestinian refugees. The distinction is not semantic. My statement was based on a lifetime of debates with Arab nationalists who vehemently excluded a separatist Palestinian Arab nationalism from their formulations. [8] <<-armon->> (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What are the Palestinians?

Are they a "nation", "a people" (an individual people), or "Arab people" of Palestine who are part of the Arab people/nation, or "all people" originating from Palestine? What are the sources for these opinions?

• A nation.
  • Nation-State - Everyone agrees that they don't have a state yet.
  • Nation-without a state - When did such an idea take shape? What is the timeline from its inception until today? In what stage is it today?
• A people.
  • Arab people - Everyone agrees that they are part of the Arab people, but there are those who consider them also as a people within a people.
  • Palestinian people - When did such an idea take shape? What is the timeline from its inception until today? In what stage is it today?
• Arab people - Those that don't consider them as an individual people but as Arab people. This position was held by Golda Meir, Yitzhak Shamir, and Benjamin Natanyahu etc.
• People of Palestine - Arabs, Jews, etc. who consider themselves Palestinian.
• People - Everyone agrees that they are people.

The first and last we all agree to. It is all those positions in the middle which need to be presented in a NPOV and needs to be hammered out, as to what is a significant opinion and what is fringe; what does significant mean and what does fringe mean.

Obviously we disagree with each other on this; but in a spirit of harmony; how much is everybody willing to compromise? Some editors have already made some compromises here, but we need to hear from everyone; otherwise tomorrow someone else is going to come along and start POV warring again. Itzse (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• They are part of the Arab ethnic group, simply because they identify as such and speak Arabic. 90% of Austrians are ethnic Germans, but that doesn't keep them from having a country separate from Germany. Same with Lichtenstein. Funkynusayri (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

They are a stateless nation, although they have many of the institutions of a nascent state. They are a people and a part of the Arab people (or "Arab Nation"). Their name derives from the name for their geographical homeland, which in the past gave its name to all the inhabitants of that region (ie, Palestinian Jews.)

Like all nations and peoples, their existence is a political and social construct, not an objective fact. A mass delusion, if you like: similar to the delusion by which I am compatriot to an Inuit hunter from Baffin Island but not to one from Greenland.

The development of a unique "Palestinian" or "Palestinian Arab" identity continues to be the subject of active study and debate. Scholars are not precisely "divided," but nor do they necessarily agree on the details. Some trace the birth of Palestinian identity to the rise of nationalism in the late Ottoman period, others go back as far as pre-Islamic times. Scholars also debate when and how this distinctly Palestinian identity became more significant to Palestinians than their broader ethnic, religious, or even purely local affiliations. Some say the Mandate period, some say the 1947/48 Nakba, some say the years of the infiltration and border wars (1948-67), some say the Israeli capture of the West Bank and Gaza (1967), and some say the subsequent (~1978) collapse of the pan-Arab movement and the gradual rapprochement of Arab governments with Zionism. Credible scholars of nationhood are, however, united on one point: there exists, today, an ethnic identity and a national movement called "Palestinian", and embraced by millions in the Levant and the diaspora as their own; thus, there exists a Palestinian nation and a Palestinian people.

All of this has been said above, in detail, and sourced to prominent scholars of nationalism and ethnicity. Most of this has not been addressed by those editors who dispute "nation" or "people". At this point, aside from a simple straw poll to determine the rough balance of opinions, the only good option left is a mediation request; heck, if parties indicate their openness to mediation I'll file it myself. But please, don't tell us what you personally believe, or what notable political leaders of a faction you identify with believe, unless you are able to present credible scholarly sources which endorse those beliefs specifically. <eleland/talkedits> 01:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

refactored after; unduly harsh and somewhat personal, my apologies <eleland/talkedits> 02:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eleland; so where does that place me? My parents were born in Eretz Yisroel. They lived there for over two hundred years. I was born in America and am an American citizen. I am not a Zionist, therefore I am not an Israeli; am I a Palestinian? According to the PLO charter; Palestinians are only Arabs and their descendants who never gave up their Palestinian citizenship. I am a Jew who hasn't either given up my Palestinian citizenship. So what am I? An Israeli I am not; but am I a Palestinian? Am I less Palestinian then a child born in Mexico who is one sixteenth Palestinian, who is included in that ten and a half million Palestinian pie chart?

Now how about all Israelis who never gave up their Palestinian citizenship; what are they? Are they Israeli and Palestinian, Israeli Palestinians or Palestinian Israelis? How about those Israelis who aren't Zionists; what are they?

You say that you're looking for credible scholarly sources which endorse the Israeli position. So let me ask you. Do you have any doubts that Israelis believe so? Golda Meir, Yitzhak Shamir and Benjamin Natanyahu aren't enough for you? Lastly, let's be honest; the Israelis have scholars too and they know what you know; do you really believe that they are all stupid? Itzse (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this is in regards to a single mention, namely the one within the first sentence, we can go with the overwhelming preponderance of sources, such as official organizations and the media, all of whom recognize "the Palestinian people." the debate or difference of opinion over this can be covered adequately further down in the article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your post. What exactly are you saying? Itzse (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

you're right, i was unclear. i revised it slightly for clarity. (tried to yesterday, but couldn't due to server overload.) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's all about self-identification. Do the Jews you mention identify as Palestinians, in the same sense that Arab Palestinians do? I doubt it. Funkynusayri (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Some Jews do actually identify themselves as Palestinian, for example leftist Jews, Neturei Karta, Satmar and others; but as to the rest it depends. If you ask a Jew in Israel what they are; they will either say: I'm an Israeli or I'm a Jew. Similarly if you would ask an Arab in Israel what they are; they will either say: I'm a Muslim, I'm a Christian, I'm an Arab, I'm an Israeli (Israeli Arab) or I'm a Palestinian. But the minute you will say that Palestine belongs to the Palestinian people; all Israelis will jump up and say: wait a minute; we are also Palestinians!!!

BTW when Oslo started and there was a euphoric atmosphere in the air that there will be two peaceful states residing side by side; I remember that the Israeli government offices were mobbed by many Arabs desperately trying to get an Israeli identity card and be identified as Israelis; because as Palestinians, they preferred living in Israeli Palestine rather then in Arab Palestine.

One of the problems of this article is that it needs to make it clear that this article discusses the Palestinian Arabs, not the Palestinian Jews. But even that is still not fair; because the article as written, is actually saying that the Palestinian people are the Palestinian Arabs; and by excluding the Jews; Wikipedia has actually taken a side and endorsed the Palestinian point of view; because every normal person would say that Palestine belongs to the Palestinians. Now go explain that the Jews are also Palestinian and that they have a history there; it's all missing here. There is quite some work to make this article neutral; but it starts here, by discussing honestly the issues; even if we disagree on them. Itzse (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New proposal

• The part of the historical region of Palestine mostly inhabited by Jews today is now called Israel, that's pretty much all there is to it. Calling the inhabitants there "Palestinians" would be analogous to calling Lebanese "Syrians", as Lebanon is part of the historical region of Syria. Funkynusayri (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking that Israel should be called Palestine or Israelis should be called Palestinians. All I'm asking is that this article should be abundantly clear on who is being called Palestinians and why they are being called so. Any wording, including the article name which implies one side over the other is wrong and is a violation of NPOV. Itzse (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is, today, Palestine only refers to a hypothetical future state, not any actual region or country. The people calling themselves Palestinians today are the ones who see themselves as the future inhabitants of this state. I'd say most Israeli Jews don't. Funkynusayri (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So then how about if the lead should say something like this: "The Palestinians are the Palestinian Arabs' (Arabic: العربي الفلسطيني, al-'arabi il-filastini) who are striving to have a state of their own; side by side with the State of Israel, which was created for the Palestinian Jews".

The next paragraph would say something like this: "The Palestinian Arabs are Arabic-speaking people with family origins in Palestine".

'State of Israel, which was created for the Palestinian Jews'.

>Itzse. That contradicts manifestly Israel's Law of Return (1950), and the wording of the Balfour Declaration, in its endeavour to create discursive parity at the expense of history. What you evidently mean is 'which was created in Palestine for Jews (and not, 'created for Jews in Palestine')Nishidani (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be exactly these words; but do you get the point? How is this for fairness, correctness and NPOV? Itzse (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• The historical meaning should certainly be separated from the present meaning, apart from the fact that there might be non-Arab minorities who wish to live in this state, such as Samaritans and some Jews. Also, the state of Israel wasn't created for Palestinian Jews, calling them this would indicate that they were Jews who stayed in Palestine after most other Jews left, but for Jews in general. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Funkynusayri; we are finally getting somewhere. I totally agree with your entire above statement. We need to nuance the wording; and I think we are quite capable of doing it, to reflect the historical and present meaning. That's exactly what I'm driving at. All edit wars on this page from the day it was created, is only because both sides want to blur the past and present in a way which would make them look right in the P-I conflict. It is our job to find the correct wording; while not satisfying both; but at least not to minimize the other sides’ case. Itzse (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on your comment; how about these words: "The Palestinians are the Palestinian Arabs (Arabic: العربي الفلسطيني, al-'arabi il-filastini) who are striving to have a state of their own; side by side with the State of Israel, which was created for the Jews".

Later on it can be explained that there were Jews living in Palestine as Palestinian Jews and their percentage was such and such; the history when they dwindled in numbers there, and when they started returning in greater numbers. I think the whole thing can be written without prejudice, if only we got the good will to do so. I have to leave my computer until tomorrow but I do value your response. I also invite everyone else to participate in this new found spirit to try to get this page once and for all correct. Itzse (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds fine, though I think it should be expanded to: "Palestinian people (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني, ash-sha'ab il-filastini), Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيين, al-filastiniyyin), or Palestinian Arabs (Arabic: العربي الفلسطيني, al-'arabi il-filastini) are terms used to refer to a nation of Arabic-speaking people with family origins in the region of Palestine, who are striving to have a state of their own; side by side with the State of Israel, which was created for the Jews".

Palestinian doesn't have any other meaning today, it might have had a hundred years ago, which should of course be mentioned somewhere. Funkynusayri (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in to this discussion, but I think there is a potential problem with including "who are striving to have a state of their own; side by side with the State of Israel, which was created for the Jews" in the definition, as it is possible that people we would want to include in the definition are not striving for that. To put it another way, is an Arab who lives in the West Bank who identifies as Palestinian (I am trying to think of someone common sense says must surely be called a Palestinian) who does NOT strive for a Palestinian state side by side with Israel - who maybe has different views - not a Palestinian? Hobson (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• You're referring to Hamas and the likes? Maybe it should say "who are striving to have a state of their own within the historical region of Palestine", which could mean both all of the region, and parts. Or do you men people who don't want a state in any case? By the way, what is POV about the current line? I see there are discussions about the word nation, but what else? Funkynusayri (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not any organisation in particular, but Hamas members might be examples, yes. In general I think it is potentially problematic to define national/ethnic/whatever-the-correct-term-is group by anything that seems like a political view, as there will always be some people who have other views. Perhaps in the case of the Palestinians though, the attempts to create a Palestinian state are indeed an integral part of their identity. I think the language you have suggested works. As to your q, I am not suggesting the current line was POV (if you mean your ealier suggested sentence above), just potentially too restrictive.Hobson (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, I was referring to what is currently in the article, or well, the previous version, which included the word "nation". Funkynusayri (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, sorry to butt in here, but "striving to have a state of their own" doesn't cover all people who identify as part of the Palestinian people either. Some don't support the idea of states at all, some want a state with Jews, and while these may be minority groups, they are still part of the Palestinian people.

I don't see the need to change the first sentence. The next two paragraphs in the introduction deal with subject is a more nuanced fashion. This seems a little redundant and over-politicized for an article on a people. True, politics is big part of their identity, but that's not what Palestinians should be reduced to. There are people after all, some of whom couldn't care less about politics or a future state, but do identify as culturally Palestinian. Let's try and remember that this is article is not about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Tiamut 01:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with the current introduction either, wasn't the sole source of controversy whether "nation" should be included or not? In that case, I'm in favour of including "nation". What me and Itze proposed above is pretty much in the introduction already. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the word "Palestinian" refers to a nationality and an ethnic/cultural group, much in the same way the words "Irish," "Italian," "Greek," "Korean," "Chinese," "Pakistani," etc, do here in the U.S. (especially in Brooklyn, NY). So any definition which is based on political meanings might probably leave somebody out. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What all of you are saying really depends on what terms we use. We could differentiate between the term "Palestinian" and "Palestinian people". "Palestinian people" are striving for a Palestinian state for a Palestinian people; which excludes me, leftists and Jewish anti-Zionists; because we don't belong to a Palestinian people. "Palestinians" on the other hand; would include me, leftists and anti-Zionists as Palestinians; because after all we didn't give up our status as Palestinians; we never joined a Palestinian people, but we also didn't give up our status as Palestinians. "Palestinians" might even include Israelis, because they haven't either given up their rights as Palestinians. So the broader term "Palestinians" can not be said to represent all people who strive for a Palestinian state; but the more restrictive term "Palestinian people" could be said to strive for a Palestinian state. In short: All "Palestinian people" strive for a Palestinian state; but only some or most "Palestinians" strive for a Palestinian state while some do not. Itzse (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Palestinian" refers to all people who share a political consciousness of common Palestinian political goals and/or concerns, regardless of how those goals should be met, on the world stage. The evolution of "Palestinians" as a polity or body politic refers to the people of Arabic-descent who are currently in conflict with ISrael, as shown by numerous sources and groups, such as the PLO, and other. The term "Palestinian" therefore does not include Jews, as it does not refer to any legitimate nation which might encompass a diversity of religious groups, but in fact is defined almost entirely by conflict with Israel. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

This is just a way of gauging where we stand, not an attempt to close the issue. Please use only your signature in the numbered sections; comments can go below.

1

Palestinians are regarded as part of the Arab nation by almost all current, reliable sources; the article should be written in accordance with this view. The belief by some that there is a Palestinian nation or a people is certainly relevant and should be discussed, but as a dubious or discredited theory only.

1. --Itzse (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

2

Palestinians are regarded as part of the Arab people; not as a separate people. The article should in essence treat them as such; but the belief by some that it has already developed an individual identity should not be ignored. They shouldn't be described as a separate people in the lead; but the article as a whole should reflect such a belief.

3

Palestinians are regarded as part of the Arab people; not as a separate people. The article should in essence treat them as such; but the belief by some that it is in the process of developing an individual identity as a people should not be ignored. They shouldn't be described as a separate people in the lead; but the article as a whole should reflect such a development.

4

Palestinians are regarded by some as a (separate) nation or a people, but there is much controversy on this point. The article should not use these terms except in attributed quotes or paraphrases of sources. (Edited by 6SJ7 to improve clarity: "separate" added, in parentheses.)

1. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC) (Comment below)

5

Palestinians are widely regarded as a nation or a people. The article should, in essence, treat them as such, but it should not ignore the notable point-of-view which expresses concern about the correct way to accurately describe their existence. They may be described as a nation or people in the lead, but the article as a whole should reflect discussion on this topic and on this set of concerns.

6

Palestinians are regarded as a nation or people by almost all current, reliable sources; the article should treat them as such and they may be described as a nation or people in the lead. Denial of Palestinian identity is certainly relevant and should be discussed, but as a minority theory only.

1. --Hobson (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

7

Palestinians are regarded as a nation or people by almost all current, reliable sources; the article should be written in accordance with this view. Denial of Palestinian identity is certainly relevant and should be discussed, but as a dubious or disputed or discredited theory only.

1. <eleland/talkedits> 03:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Tiamut 04:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
5. G-Dett (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
6. This is getting ridiculous, and irrational. with one small change, I'm in. since all of you have already expressed commitment to compromiose numerous times, I assume that is not too far outside of the realm of reasonable, to you. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

8

Per the NPOV tutorial we shouldn't be stating a political POV categorically. We don't need to take a position, but rather, let the facts speak for themselves. There was a time when there was clearly no Palestinian nation/people and there are differing definitions of Palestine and Palestinians. However, the current political consensus is that there is "a Palestinian people" in the sense of a polity or body politic, and that there should be a future Palestinian state. The article should simply trace that development without attempting to adjudicate the conflict.

1. <<-armon->> (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Current? Look at the early documents. There are any number of references in official League of Mations and British papers referring to 'the Palestinian people' as the native population distinct from the Jewish population that was to be allowed to immigrate there.

‘essential to ensure that the immigrants should not be a burden upon the people of Palestine.’ British White Paper of 1922

‘The conflict has grown steadily more bitter since 1920 and the process will continue. Conditions inside Palestine especially the systems of education, are strengthening the national sentiment of the two peoples..’ Peel Commission Report, 1937

The two peoples mentioned are the Arab and Jewish people. Itzse (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, this is a ridiculously pettifogging argument. Weizmann in his reply to Lansing in 1919 famously spoke of 'the right to establish schools, develop institutions, and generally build up a nationality, and so make Palestine as Jewish as America is American, or England English,’ a right duly conceded (any number of sources, David Vital's Zionism: The Crucial Phase, OUP 1987 p.355, to cite but one example). The Jewish Agency subsequently set about 'building up a nationality' for Jewish immigrants, making them Jewish citizens of Mandatory Palestine, with a Jewish nationality, via instruction in Hebrew and school textbooks. That nationality was programmed, and institutionalized for over two decades before the declaration of the state of Israel (sabras had that distinct national identity), i.e. a Jewish nationality was 'built' before the state was recognized, just as in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, a school system exists, Palestinian textbooks exist, which have built up a nationality (see the work of Nathan Brown on the representation in these textbooks for 'the Palestinian national consensus' on many issues). It is immaterial that the state has yet to be declared, since the Palestinians are precisely in the position of sabras, or the immigrant Jewish denizens of Palestine before 1948 i.e. they have a national identity, constructed by schools and official institutions, without having a state embodying formally that ethnic-national identity, existing only as a promised land in the future. The Jews of April 1948 became the Israelis of May 1948 overnight, i.e. the de facto national identity became de jure in the passage of minutes. Of course what is good for the goose is never good for the gander, when the latter happens to be Palestinian. Notoriously again in Wiki, due pesi, due misure, and endless argument by editors who use coffee klatsch kibitzing to disarticulate what a mere glance at the scholarly literature would have resolved quickly Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish people were a nation long before Weizmann decided to build them up into an Israeli nation. The Jewish people already became a nation exactly 3321 years ago, and had a nation-state in Eretz Yisroel which was later changed by the Romans to Palestine. Itzse (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

9

• None of the above seem complete. Whether directly or as an inference from WP policy, I would expect our encyclopedia to give some significant weight to the principle of self-identification. If so, options 1-3 strike me as quite implausible. (Why would folks identify as Palestinian if they thought the term had no separate sense of peoplehood? Arabs who agree with #1-3 might not identify themselves "Palestinian" and, logically, wouldn't be in the article.) The remainder don't tackle self-identity either. Option 7's last clause is overstated. Option 8 is useful but it's focused on politics rather than mainstream sources, which is what should get us out of this jam. Option 4 is unworkable. Options 5 and 6 -- are these mutually exclusive? Give me much of 8, toss in a combo of 5+6, garnish with sources demonstrating Palestinians' self-identifying nomenclature, and voila -- you've got my straw! Take a sip. HG | Talk 00:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful; how about writing that option, or options; so they can be voted for? I think when we are all finished and done; we can then start zeroing in on first and second choices which adhere to Wikipedia policies, and come to a compromise. Itzse (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

HG, in what sense is the last clause of #7 overstated? Who are the current reliable, credited sources denying a separate Palestinian identity?--G-Dett (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, it's my impression that there does exist a verifiable minority view which doesn't refer to Palestinians as a "nation." En-wp doesn't need to characterize this as a "dubious or discredited" view. It would be sufficient to simply give the view weight proportionate to its prevalence. (Furthermore, #7 implies that objections to "nation" are equivalent to a "denial of Palestinian identity." That's not a necessary equivalence, is it?) Hope that's a reasoned response. HG | Talk 02:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess we're reading #7's "nation or people" differently. Perhaps that clause needs to be clarified. My understanding of the compromise was that "people" was the way forward because it was a generic term signifying their separate identity, which appears to be uncontested, and is line with the phraseology of parallel articles. Also, to be clear, I don't think the article should describe such views as discredited based on our own evaluation of their marginality; we should describe them as such only if that's specifically the consensus of reliable sources. --G-Dett (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If we are trying to select a principle to guide future edits, then clarity about using 'nation' and/or 'people' would be useful. (G-Dett, you are correct that we could use meta-sources to characterize the competing POVs, but it wasn't my impression that the Talk has discussed/investigated such meta-sources. So #7 reads more like too strong an editorializing about the data.) Anyway, I would still like to see folks agree on sources, instead of competing principles based on competing sets of sources. Let everyone answer something like: What is the dataset that supports my principle/option, and how should that dataset be analyzed to demonstrate the validity (or not) of my principle? Thanks. HG | Talk 04:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

10

(Write-in vote; please briefly state your position, and copy the current text below, so others will know where to place write-ins.)

Comments

I really think that "1" is correct; but as a compromise, I'll go with "2". Itzse (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We aren't voting now for a compromise; but only gaging where everybody stands; therefore I placed myself where I stand; which is number "1". When we vote for compromise; that's another thing; then I'll be ready to compromise. Better yet; if we can find the wording which doesn't exclude anyone. Itzse (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. so i assume that now you contend that there are no notable sources which refer to Palestinians as "a people." I thougyht that earlier on, you suggested that perhaps many sources do refer to them that way, but a similar number of sources also do not. It appears that you are stating here that no notable sources refer to Palestinians as a people, and almost all notable sources refer to them as not being a people. just want to make sure that i have this correct. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure there are notable sources referring to them as "a people"; I think President Bush is quite notable. But notable and true are quite different things, as I have already explained many times; that countries have interests, and for those interests they are ready, willing and able to sacrifice the truth; because it is much cheaper then sacrificing people. All the other notable sources as far as I know have their own reasons too.

Steve, you can ask the same question of the last option ("7"). Does the writer of that option really believe that "denial of Palestinian identity is a dubious or discredited theory only"? Hasn't Armon brought from the internet alone, numerous sources for that opinion? Imagine what you will find in the library. My option "1" is only the other extreme of option "7". Both are considered extreme by the other side. Itzse (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my write in suggestion - "Palestinians are regarded as a nation or people by almost all current, reliable sources; the article should treat them as such and they may be described as a nation or people in the lead. Denial of Palestinian identity is certainly relevant and should be discussed, but as a minority theory only" - I am trying to suggest basically option six *but* if comments made by people such as Golda Meir or Ben Gurion are to be mentioned somewhere in the article, they should not be presented as dubious or discredited. That is not to say, however, that they need be given equal weight to the more widely accepted view, especially as the main proponents of the view that the Palestinians are not a nation or people appear to be only sources who are clearly partisan (if anyone finds less partisan sources then I'll happily take that back) and they appear to be views which are no longer expressed even by significant partisan sources (such as Israeli Prime Ministers - again I am open to correction). Suggesting or appearing to suggest that statements from people such as Ben Gurion are discredited would at the very least appear to be POV to some.Hobson (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hobson, I appreciate your comment. It was written simultaneously while I was writing my own comment. Your new option is meant to break number "6" into two. I am switching "6" and "7" as; the order should be from one extreme to another, with as many moderate options in the middle. If someone feels that another option best reflects their opinion then feel free to change it. I might do it too. Itzse (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hobson, I didn't notice that you wrote it as a write-in option; I thought you added another option "7". I hope you don't mind how I placed it. If it is not what you would like; then my apologies; and change it to whatever you want. Itzse (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem for me:)Hobson (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; and if anyone else wants to change the wording to reflect their accurate stand, then they should do it; but care should be taken not to change its gist; which might not reflect anymore someone’s vote. Itzse (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Your view is quite extreme, Itzse, it's pretty much the same as if we wrote the Israel article from the standpoint of Arabs who do not recognize Israel as a state. Funkynusayri (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You got it; that's exactly the point I was trying to make; that all those voting for "7" are doing exactly what I'm doing by voting for "1"; both these options want Wikipedia to take an extreme position; "1" is extreme to you; "7" is extreme to me; now we understand each other. By highlighting the extremes we have a better chance of finding some middle ground which adheres to NPOV, UNDUE, etc. I truly believe that "1" is true in reality; but I know better then suggest Wikipedia be written according to my view, in exclusion of all others. Itzse (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I find Armon's option #8 to be confusing; he seems to be stating that since the "People"-hood of Palestinians is politically controversial, the fact is thus in dispute, and Wikipedia should not state it as a fact. I don't understand why this should be so. Evolution is politically controversial, the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV is politically controversial, etc. Heck, in the Israeli-Palestinian realm there are Muslims who claim that Jerusalem is not holy to Jews, and vice versa. A political controversy alone does not invalidate the findings of scholars. I've yet to see a current scholarly source which states that the Palestinians are not now a people or nation. Some (mostly extremist) political sources, sure. And if you read scholars, even conservative pro-Israel scholars (such as JCPA fellows) incorrectly, or quote them out of context, you can draw a "Palestinians do not exist" conclusion. But I'm just not seeing any difference of opinion in the scholarly sources, so asking us to "assert facts about opinions," in my view, conflates "opinions" with "the firm consensus of all reliable scholarly sources." <eleland/talkedits> 23:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's simple. There is a big difference between scientific, and political POVs. For example, Hamas, like Golda Meir and the Arab nationalists before them,

...also opposes an independent Palestinian state. In an interview in Haaretz, Gaza Hamas leader Mahmud Azhar stated: "The Palestinians were always part of a pan-Islamic state. Never once in history was there a Palestinian state....In Europe they are now establishing an economic union and soon they will also establish a political union. This is the direction in which the world is going today. We Arabs have one culture and one language. The borders of the different states in the Arab world are not our borders, but rather borders set by France and Britain. The border with Egypt is not our border and the border between Iraq and Syria is not our border. Nasser wanted to establish a pan-Arab state in his way, the secular way, and failed. Now we want to try this idea our way."

The idea that this is an issue to be settled by one's preferred sources, is wrong, per WP policy. <<-armon->> (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I entirely agree that there is big difference between the two. But it seems to me that "my preferred sources," namely scholars of nationalism and ethnicity, are exactly those sources which WP:V recommends: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." In particular, a red flag flies over "claims contradicted by, or with no support within, the relevant academic community," and they need particularly strong sources. That the article is clearly structured as ethnographic and not political also seems to weigh against deferring to the "political POVs."

Secondly, even as a political view, the sources disclaiming Palestinian identity seem to me to be very much in the minority, to the point where it's something of a WP:FRINGE theory. Within Israel, only Likud seems to endorse that, while Kadima and Labour recognize Palestinian peoplehood. All other governments in the region, the UN-US-EU-RU quartet, and pretty much everyone else I can think of agrees.

As an aside, it is not clear that the Hamas position on an independent Palestine has not changed in the >15 years since that article was written. In fact, Hamas leaders ranging all the way to the top are on record much more recently as explicitly endorsing something like the standard two-state solution, although in the context of a long term cease-fire rather than a final settlement.

As a second aside, I realize it's a time honoured tradition around here, but could you avoid punctuating your legitimate points with obnoxious straw-man arguments like "The idea that this is an issue to be settled by one's preferred sources is wrong"? It makes you look rather desperate. <eleland/talkedits> 23:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I "voted" for "4" but first edited it slightly. I don't think I changed its meaning. I just added the word "separate" which also appears in 1, 2, and 3. Maybe it is implied in the rest, but I wanted to make that clear. I could have made it a write-in, but I thought that would be too confusing, and I thought nobody would disagree with my edit. (An expectation that, sadly, seldom proves correct on Wikipedia, but we shall see.) A few other comments; unlike HG, I do not think "4" is unworkable. In fact, I think it is essentially the version that was protected for almost a month, which I didn't have a problem with. I also am not sure what the difference is between "4" and Armon's "8", with which I basically agree as well. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What seems unworkable, IMO, is the expectation of only attributed quotes/paraphrased uses. It's also rather cop-out: we can't figure out the mainstream/encyclopedic descriptors within this controversy, so for now we're in a holding pattern. Still, it's plausible from a WP policy standpoint. HG | Talk 02:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there's a big difference between 4 and 8. I've attempted to clarify #8. <<-armon->> (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Armon, why does #4 mention 'nation' but #8 does not have 'nation' in the current consensus? Thanks. HG | Talk 02:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the discussion. I thought we had a consensus and a compromise. 6SJ7, I thought you in particular were urging other editors not to simply sign on and then reopen the issue.--G-Dett (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand it either, actually. I didn't start this parade. I just can't resist voting. I already have my schedule for Super Duper Tuesday all planned out. Give me a ballot or a lever, and I'm there. So, in this case, I don't know what it all means. Someone asked for opinions, and there mine is. It is nothing different from what I have said previously. Oh, by the way, you really shouldn't call other peoples' contributions "a truckload of BS." 6SJ7 (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No kidding – that's now on the arbcom evidence page! Also, 'truckload' suggests heft.--G-Dett (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What none of you seems willing to admit is that this getting excessive. I agree with G-Dett. reopening this compromise does not seem to assist this article in a ny good way.---Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

moved belowLet's see where we stand. Here is the text that I think is being presented as a consensus, or at least a compromise: "Palestinian people, Palestinians, or Palestinian Arabs are terms used to refer to an Arabic-speaking people..." I believe that Tiamut, 6SJ7 and various others are willing to accept this wording, even if it's not their first choice. I'm a bit less clear about Armon. Maybe you're willing to live with it, Armon, but you also want to be able to register your analysis that the wording still reflects a POV. Is that right? Plus, it sounds like we should try to add some sense of stability to the agreement (if there is to be one), e.g, that none of the agreeing parties would try to re-edit the text for, say, 6 months. Is this helpful at all? HG | Talk 05:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with HG. i accept that compromise, and have just voted for it. I do not see any constructive value to this entire discussion. The phrase "a people" is supported by sources and by facts, and actions of all concerned parties. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

HG; I have misgivings; but I'll reserve judgment on this; maybe just maybe this will work. I thought this was a straw poll where we stand; but if I need to compromise; then I'll defer judgment to Armon and 6SJ7. If they can live with it; then so can I. Itzse (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if everybody starts acting so conciliatory, we gonna hafta start writing some articles! Good for you, Itzse. HG | Talk 19:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Jewish nation"

I noticed this on the Jew page: "The ethnicity and the religion of Judaism, the traditional faith of the Jewish nation". Ok, so what makes Jews a nation, apart from having a state which the majority of Jews doeesn't even live in, more of a "nation" than the Palestinians? From everything I've read, Jews were considered a "nation" even before they created Israel, and in fact, following the logic of Itzse and others, only Israelis, not Jews as a whole, should be considered a nation. What applies here should apply there too, but I bet I would be accused of "anti-semitism" if I removed the word "nation" from there.

The fact that the use of "nation" on that page isn't even sourced, but is fiercely demanded to be sourced here, reeks of hypocrisy. Funkynusayri (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I know you mean well, but this is a distraction. (Should I explain that Biblical descriptors have long been translated as nation? Nah.) Let's help folks here clarify their points of disagreement and see what methods might either settle specific questions or otherwise bridge the gap. Thanks. HG | Talk 05:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I believe that my argument is extremely valid, and that this is going on is an utter disgrace. Using arguments like these "my take: the clear cut nation is arabs, palestinians are a mishmash of arabs and some ottomans (and very few others), i'm not sure on what really makes them into a nation" only suits to bite deniers of the use of "nation" here in the tail, as Jews are one of the most heterogeneous ethnicities in the world, and were pretty much in the same state (not as in "country") 150 years ago as the Palestinians are now.

If "nation" is not to be used here, it should be removed from there too. Otherwise, give some good arguments aganst it. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you should try to denigrate every nation on Wikipedia; so maybe finally, an argument will be made that if they are a nation then we are also a nation. If you can't pull yourself up; then pull others down, to equalize the playing field. Itzse (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion page is 367k of argument for and against. In an effort to keep from opening up the same arguments please read those discussions. If you have a question about a specific argument, please ask it but the general question of "why" has been addressed above and the "balance" is precarious at best. Padillah (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with HG. i accept the compromise, and have voted for it. I do not see any constructive value to this entire discussion. The phrase "a people" is supported by sources and by facts, and actions of all concerned parties. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Seems like my point isn't clear, or that you didn't read my message properly. I am pointing out the fact that the word "nation" is used on the page Jew without any sources, and not here, even though there are several sources for it, and though the term applies to Jews and Palestinians to the same extend. That's a clear double standard. So I'm not arguing for the inclusion of the word nation in this article, as much as arguing for the removal of it from the Jew article.

I have read and taken part in the previous discussions here about the use of "nation", and that's exactly why I'm bringing this up, as the arguments used against apply to the use of "nation" on the Jew page too. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you saw the section describing the fact that "nation" has both technical and colloquial definitions. The current standing is one or both of those are arguably filled by the Jewish nation (they are a collective, separate culture and they have a recognized nation-state or country), as opposed to the Palestinians where both definitions are being refuted (that "Palestinian" is not a culture but an extension of "Arab", and they are lacking a recognized nation-state). So, in point of fact, the two situations are, in almost every way, dissimilar. But if you did see that section above then I must admit I'm stumped as to what your question is. Padillah (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Padillah; it is interesting that you even have to defend it. That it's even a question, speaks volumes. Itzse (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Padillah, while it is true that there is a Jewish state, it does not represent all Jewish people. Some Jews reject the notion that they constitute a nation. I think Funkynusari's point about the double-standards regarding the sourcing requirements is valid. I'm not sure what it means for this discussion, but it's a fair point to raise. Tiamut^talk 19:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's news to me. Which Jews reject the notion that they constitute a nation? Itzse (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to dispute your points in any way, i was merely mentioning that i felt this whole issue should never have been reopened. it is not due to you that it was. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Padillah, Jews have become a collective, separate culture with a recognized nation-state or country, or rather, Israelis have, and I pointed this out before. Israeli isn't synonymous with Jewish. Before the creation of Israel, and even today, Jews were an extremely heterogeneous collection of people only sharing a religion and a notion of a shared past, without any shared language, culture, state, or in some cases even genetic descent (exemplified by the Falasha and the many converts), yet they are referred to as a nation here on Wikipedia. The ancient Hebrews/Israelites were a nation though, that's indisputable.

As for Palestinians being "an extension of Arabs", again, so are the people of Austria and Lichtenstein in relation to the German people, yet they have their own nation-states. I do not see any dissimilarities, apart from the fact that Palestinians are, as a group, even more ethnically homogeneous than Jews are today.

Sm, this "whole issue" has only been reopened because I noticed the wording on the Jew page yesterday, otherwise I would had brought it up long ago. My whole point is that this expresses an obvious double standard, and places the discussion of "nation" here on another level.

And Itzse, what do you mean by "speaks volumes"? I could say exactly the same about your denial of Palestinians as a nation. And what is the purpose of this: "I think you should try to denigrate every nation on Wikipedia; so maybe finally, an argument will be made that if they are a nation then we are also a nation. If you can't pull yourself up; then pull others down, to equalize the playing field". As far as I'm concerned, you're denigrating the Palestinian nation. Funkynusayri (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed revision

Let's see where we stand. Here is the text that I think is being presented as a consensus, or at least a compromise: "Palestinian people, Palestinians, or Palestinian Arabs are terms used to refer to an Arabic-speaking people..." I believe that Tiamut, 6SJ7 and various others are willing to accept this wording, even if it's not their first choice. I'm a bit less clear about Armon. Maybe you're willing to live with it, Armon, but you also want to be able to register your analysis that the wording still reflects a POV. Is that right? Plus, it sounds like we should try to add some sense of stability to the agreement (if there is to be one), e.g, that none of the agreeing parties would try to re-edit the text for, say, 6 months. Is this helpful at all? HG | Talk 05:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with HG. i accept that compromise, and have just voted for it. I do not see any constructive value to this entire discussion. The phrase "a people" is supported by sources and by facts, and actions of all concerned parties. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

HG; I have misgivings; but I'll reserve judgment on this; maybe just maybe this will work. I thought this was a straw poll where we stand; but if I need to compromise; then I'll defer judgment to Armon and 6SJ7. If they can live with it; then so can I. Itzse (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if everybody starts acting so conciliatory, we gonna hafta start writing some articles! Good for you, Itzse. HG | Talk 19:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, let's move on.--G-Dett (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it'd be wise to give Armon a chance to respond? Patience is the something.... <yawn>. HG | Talk 21:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)