Talk:Palestinians

POV pushing

The image File:Ramallah-Family-1905.jpg says it is a family in Ramallah. It is wrong to assume that the family is one thing or another. They could be Druze (who generally do not identify as Palestinian) or Bedouin (ditto) or Old Yeshuv Jewish or any number of things. Let us label the picture by what the uploader labelled it, A Family in Ramallah. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The picture was taken in 1905 of a family from Ramallah, Palestine. Nishidani (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You can't brainwash others by sensational titles like POV pushing, CS. As the picture was taken for and added to Palestinian people article, it is very natural that the family was a Palestine family; otherwise it would not have been included here. Your talk-page history shows who is actually noted for POV. -AsceticRosé 15:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your assumptions about the source are noted. Since the file is labelled only as "a family from Ramallah, Palestine" as Nishidani also said, it is POV to suggest that they are one ethnicity or another. Looking at the man's clothing, he seems a bit Ottoman to me, but again that is an assumption. Let's stick to what the source says. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Your attempts to disassociate the Palestinian identity are noted once again CS, it looks like you're not the only one who thinks Palestinians didn't exist in the past, as I look over Yuvn's edit history he seems to share a lot in common with you, might I suggest you both start making useful contributions rather than changing wording in Palestinian articles to suit your agenda? Lazyfoxx (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not disassociating anything. The source says it is a family from a town in the then Ottoman empire. Putting "Palestinian" onto a family photo when we have no idea how they identified themselves is against policy. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edit history shows why you decided to make that edit, you're not fooling anyone. Lazyfoxx (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Enough nonsense Chicago Style, Ayoub's were Palestinian Christians in Ramallah. You're the only one that thinks they don't deserve to be labeled Palestinian, stop editing Wikipedia based on Technicality to support your view about Palestinians, your edit does not improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

What does Ayoubs have to do with this picture? The source (which is what we go by in Wikipedia) says they are a family from Ramallah. Do add any other flavor is to be POV. Let us just use the source given. That is my edit. I am following the source. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Have you even read the picture description? (which is what we read for more information in Wikipedia) I really wonder if your intent is just to troll this page...

The man who uploaded the picture is Charles Ayoub, the picture is a portrait of his family. "I, Charles Ayoub, own the image and release it to the Public Domain. It was also featured in the book 'Ramallah - Anicent and Modern' by Khalil Ayub Abu Rayya. The picture was taken in 1905 of a family from Ramallah, Palestine. From left to right - Abraham Ayoub, Michael Ayoub, Peter Ayoub, Tifaha Ayoub, Louis Ayoub." This picture was also placed in the category Palestinian history by Charles Ayoub. Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course I read the picture description. I exactly quoted it. Adding further adjectives that aren't listed in the description is POV, pure and simple. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Then why did you say "What do Ayoubs have to do with this picture?" That clearly shows you did NOT read the description. The Picture IS the Ayoubs, a Palestinian Christian family, Charles Ayoub added the picture on Wikipedia into the Palestinian history category. Lazyfoxx (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You are lawyering. The fact that it was added to Palestinian history shows that it is related to Palestine. The picture was taken in Palestine. But the description doesn't call them Christians or say anything about their ethnicity. This is actually very simple. My edit is a direct quote of the file description, yours is a POV assumption. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The Ayoubs were one of the many Palestinian Christian families in Ramallah in the early 1900's, Ramallah was almost exclusively a Palstinian Christian town with a small minority of Muslims, up until 1948 when Palestine refugees of all faiths from around Palestine fled there. Have you read the book the picture is featured in titled Ramallah: Ancient and Modern? There does not seem to be a digital version online but they clearly state how Palestinian Christians were the early inhabitants of the town. Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

So you've shown that they probably were Christians. Great. Let's stick with the file's description. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

They weren't probably Christian, they were Palestinian Christians, the picture is cited in the section talking about Palestinian Christian history in Ramallah. Why do you so strongly believe in removing the word Palestinian/Palestine in articles like this? It seems to be your major contributions in your edit history to Palestinian related articles. Lazyfoxx (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm citing one of your other related "edits" Here In which you explicitly state that everyone in the early 1900s in Palestine was called Palestinian, by that logic, you then separately justified that the family in the picture in question deserves to be regarded as Palestinian regardless of if they were Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. Because regardless, they were called Palestinian. Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Palestinian is the word used for everyone living in Palestine at that time. But this article uses the word in its current sense. So it is POV to attach a misleading label on a picture. "the picture is cited in the section talking about Palestinian Christian history". That is circular logic. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is disputed?

There is an ongoing edit war in this article about the NPOV dispute-tag. The rules are clear:

Please note: This label is meant to indicate that a discussion is still going on, and that the article's content is disputed, and volatile. If you add this template to an article in which there is no relevant discussion underway, you need at least to leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. As far I can see, no dispute is active except maybe the one in the section POV pushing. If so, then only that section should have that tag and there should be an active discussion to solve that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no ongoing dispute. There is a continuous disturbance of the page by a revert-specialist Chicago Style (without pants) who is long due for a report to WP:AE, since, please note the page histories here and at contiguous pages 1948 Arab-Israeli War etc., his functional role is removal of material, esp. regarding Palestinians. He appear to do little else.Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Chicago Style (without pants) must explain what actually is disputed, and why the dispute tag is justified. As a rule, if anything is disputed, you should raise this on talk-page, and discuss them so that the dispute can be solved. Currently, I do not see any part of the article being dispute, let alone the whole article.

Nishidani is correct in saying that CS's main role seems to remove materials regarding Palestinians or, to add more, to make them controversial. He has been warned several times, and was blocked once for disruptive editing. But still no remedy. Can anyone think of any other way?-AsceticRosé 17:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The justification I was given on another page by another user was that "Palestinian is not an ethnicity." From the trend of Chicago Style's edits it would appear that he shares the same views (constant removal of the term Palestine/Palestinian from articles). Not sure these editors should really be encouraged in the Palestinian-Israeli section of wikipedia.

Now I'm not accusing anyone specifically of this, but let's remember everyone that Israel has engaged in professional Zionist editing courses for Wikipedia. We should be vary wary of editors who attempt to disassociate the Palestinian identity and deny the existence of Palestinians. Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

<-The edit warring is caused by the presence of block evading sockpuppets of topic banned users. Stuck in SD with Yaming's behavior is consistent with that of a NoCal100 sock in my view. If Chicago Style (without pants) is becoming too much of a burden, and he does appear to be reverting to a characteristic behavior by deleting impeccable sources like this in this edit, I'd suggest looking through this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this for what I regard as relevant background. As a separate class of user with a disposable account who can disregard policies or guidelines (or game the rules to prolong the life of a sock), block evading editors obviously don't need to follow the community's norms, so there's little point quoting policies and guidelines about templates or anything else or even discussing anything at all with these editors in my opinion. If they made decisions on the basis of policy they couldn't be here operating these accounts, so policy is apparently not how they make decisions. Whether they are blocked or not seems to make little difference in practice because they are apparently not able to overcome the compulsion to return and repeat their mistakes. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

At least on three behavioral grounds, Stuck in SD with Yaming seems to be a sock of Chicago Style. It is chilling if Israel has engaged in professional Zionist editing courses for Wikipedia. The picture of sockpuppetery presented above is really horrifying. Thanks Sean.hoyland for informing us that. I have only lately joined Palestine-Israeli related articles, so do not know so much about the background. Nableezy seems to be less active in these articles. If he were present, probably he would find the present socks. -AsceticRosé 03:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've already reported Stuck in SD with Yaming as a sock here. I expect the account will either be blocked or abandoned, but in practice it makes no real difference. Stuck in SD with Yaming's behavior is typical of NoCal and different from Lutrinae/Modinyr socks. The behavior of a Lutrinae/Modinyr sock is unlike any other user I have ever seen editing Wikipedia in the 6+ years I've been here. Chicago Style (without pants) behaves like that user, and increasingly so. Yes, it's unfortunate that Nableezy isn't around to help protect the charity from disruption, but he's aware of it (see here). The editing courses don't appear to have had much impact so far and it's likely that people would have been explicitly informed not to break the rules and especially not to do unethical things like using deception. I think their presence at this article would be obvious. NoCal and Lutrinae aren't the products of these courses and I think it would be wrong to assume that graduates of these courses, for want of a better word, would exhibit the same quite rare lack of basic ethics and common decency exhibited by the repeat offender sockpuppets active in the topic area. For one thing, behavior like this damages the reputation of Israel and its supporters within the Wikipedia community and elsewhere, which would presumably be the last thing a genuine supporter of Israel would want to do. NoCal and Lutrinae socks seem to keep coming back because they just don't have the ability to stop. Evidently they don't care about damaging reputations or breaking rules. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

People frequently come to this page making charges of POV content. Currently, there is an ongoing discussion about content. Therefore the header is deserved.

I have never denied Palestinian identity. This seems to be basically crying racist to discredit me, along with calling me a sock or a paid shill. Keep it classy. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You leave no option but to be reverted on sight. There is no content to your objections, you ignore a general consensus and persistently hold to ransom the use of the word 'Palestinian' to describe the people who are the subject of this article. There is no sign you are even serious about this. The pattern is one of happy indulgence in annoyance, every other day. Nishidani (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The only person who called you a shill was yourself Chicago Style, I was simply stating we must be wary as editors due to Israel's practices in POV editing courses for Wikipedia. And that was three years ago, who knows the level it has escalated to by now. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189 Lazyfoxx (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

LazyFoxx consider yourself warned regarding the repeated personal attacks and bad faith accusations you level against anyone that disagrees with you. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Consider myself warned? You blatantly accused me of "highjacking articles when things don't go your away." on the Israelis article when I was seeking neutrality against an editor who justified his revert by saying "Palestinians aren't an ethnicity". Let he who is not guilty of sin cast the first stone Brewcrewer. The bad faith I have recently aknowledged on this article is obvious and I am not the only one who thinks so as evidenced by the rest of the editors on here acknowledging CS's bullshit. Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This edit was a violation of Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use wmf:Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities "posting content that is false or inaccurate". You can't make an edit like that and then complain about people not following the rules. It won't make sense to people. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, Hertz1888, and Chicago_Style, have all recently claimed to be victimized by me when presented with facts concerning Palestinians, that they didn't agree with. This may be a strategy on Wikipedia for some editors. But ignoring/denying facts about Palestinians should not be allowed on Wikipedia, whatever the degree. Lazyfoxx (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

In his latest comment, CS has not yet told us what exactly is disputed, and only made nonsense remarks. Meanwhile he again tagged the article (which was reverted soon) instead of talk-page discussion. All this again confirms his disruptive nature of editing. Don't he think he should stop his nonsense? -AsceticRosé 17:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

There are two ongoing POV disputes. You should at least be aware of one of them, since you've been involved in it. I am in no way supporting Dorpwnz blatant POV addition (not to mention editting it in thrice in a half-hour), but that kind of thing is not unusual on this page. Nor is more civilized and reasonable contests to this article's narrative. It deserves a banner because there are frequent disputes to the article's neutrality, including ongoing ones. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Nothing you have done in editing the page shows any knowledge of the topic. The revert pattern is one of dislike for the subject itself. If you can't commit yourself to improving an article like this by adding material relevant to it, on history, culture, customs, etc. you should keep away from it. Challenging as you do the use of a descriptor like Palestinian by wikilawyering suggests antipathy to the people, not a wikilaw based concern for a correct and neutral evaluation of the subject matter. Pasting tags without any real arguments other than an 'attitude' has no other function that to function as an 'alert' or scare sign for potential readers.Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I fear that CS's position is gradually becoming a burden. CS's argument of two POV disputes is false. The image caption dispute was generated by you unnecessarily. It is not POV in nature. And it is not any discussion relating article content. The thread is still alive because of your stubbornness. You yourself agree that Dorpwnz blatant POV addition is not acceptable. Now, if such disruptive additions are not unusual on this page, then why should the article pay the price for this? Why should the question of tagging come because of such disruptive editors? It is pathetic to see how much you have degraded yourself by your unconstructive position. You are really leaving no option but to be reverted on sight. -AsceticRosé 05:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

So basically, Ascetic Rose is saying that things he doesn't like be dismissed and Nishidani is calling me a racist.

I'm putting the banner back up because there are POV and balance issues on this page that haven't been resolved. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Antipathy: a deep-seated feeling of dislike; aversion. Some of your edits on the Palestinian page remove the word Palestinian/Palestine without proper justification, you justify some on basis of mere technicality while not representing consensus or sources regarding the material. ThisThisThisThisThisThisThisThis This shows a dislike to the use of the words and/or subject material. Calling Nishidani pointing out a trend to your edits an accusation of racism is a poor defense. Your constant removal of the term Palestinian/Palestine can be viewed as Morally_offensive_views. Lazyfoxx (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Your links show that my edits were supported by sources. For example, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edits show me obviously following the sources presented. The 4th and 5th are me changing POV material that manipulates the sources. The 6th and 7th show me representing the sources, directly. The 8th is me undoing obvious anachronistic, POV wording.

This is exactly why this page needs a banner saying there are neutrality issues. This page triumphs a Pro-Palestinian political viewpoint. If you look at the seven edits Lazyfox has pointed out, none of them deal with the post-Mandate of Palestine era. I am simply fighting anachronism, that is being used to try to introduce an historically-revisionist view of Levantine history. This page is a work in progress about a very controversial topic. It deserves a banner. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place where the history of edits of any editor should be examined, I do not take side in this dispute, but it is clear that the neutrality of some of the content of this article has been disputed by one or more editor. There is no justification for removing POV template, especially as this template does not reflect anything beside what I said namely that one or more editors are disputing the neutrality of this article (which is fact)Also, those whose edits are disputed should not remove templates directed to them. --Tritomex (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Please make a list of NPOV violations present in the article. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Generally, although I did not examined the article closely, it seems to me as a well written. However, it is not me who disputes the neutrality of this article, so I would ask User Chicago Style to present concrete reasons for NPOV template.--Tritomex (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

User Chicago Style has been asked several times to point out his alleged POVs which he has failed so far. His only comment There are two ongoing POV disputes is quite unexpected, and has been refuted above. It is pathetic to see an advocacy for POV tag without any knowledge of what the POvs are in the article. -AsceticRosé 15:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, the page is built on a Palestinian viewpoint. There are numerous instances of historical revisionism. There is a lot of use of emotional language and images. Even in the very first sentence, sources are twisted to say what some want them to say. I'm not saying this is a bad article, I'm saying it is a work in progress. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This page is built on many viewpoints as can be seen by the many sources and discussions that have taken place on this page over the years, claiming it is solely based on a Palestinian viewpoint is a very strong and inaccurate thing to say. Please make a list of the "emotional language and images" you speak of. Bringing up your concern with the lead sentence, you engaged a long discussion and edit war about that in the past in which consensus and sources did not justify your repeated revisions. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Lazyfoxx (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Compare the first sentence to the section Palestinian history and nationalism. That section includes people arguing for various timelines of when Palestinians developed a national consciousness. Most say that it was in the 18th or 19th century. Khalidi says that cultures stretching back to the Biblical era have come to "form part of the identity of the modern-day Palestinian people, as they have come to understand it over the last century." So he isn't saying there is a direct link, just that modern Palestinians believe it to be part of their identity. Why then does the first sentence of the article say that they are actual, physical descendants of every "peoples" that has lived in Palestine. Because the quote is lifted from a book (without sources) written by a political science professor.

So the consensus of sources on the article that Palestinian identity is a product of the Ottoman period is overruled by a single, non-academic source that has the quote that makes Palestinians look like the descendants of Canaanites.

There is a Biblical map drawn up with dubious scholarship in the 1800's. The cartographer himself used the Bible as a source, but that isn't a good enough source for Wikipedia.

There is emotionally-charged language, such as in Struggle of self-determination. It is straight up advocacy. I look forward to discussing this and other instances of NPOV content on this page. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The issues I've brought up haven't been addressed, besides the two ongoing POV disputes on this talk page. Neutrality banner is warranted. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The same is true of Jewish or French or any identity, and you are making exceptionally niggling casuistry to challenge the use of 'Palestinian'. If you dislike them, edit elsewhere. I think it obvious now that you find that word indigestible.

• French identity was formed in the late 18th-early 19th centuries but it is endemic in scholarly works to find phrasing like 'Henry IV, 'the good king' associated in the minds of Frenchmen of Louis XIV's time with peace and prosperity.' (Geoffrey Treasure,The Making of Modern Europe, 1648 1780, 3rd.ed. Routledge, ‎2003 p.209).
• When David Mungello, writes: 'Although Chinese merchants of the Ming dynasty traded abroad, they were impeded by the Ming government.'(The Great Encounter of China and the West, 1500-1800, Rowman & Littlefield, 2005 p.5), he really should have written in your view, Ming dynasty merchants, since at that time a Chinese national consciousness didn't exist.
• When Dinesh Lal writes:'At times the Tibetans also used armed resistance against Ming forays.'(Indo-Tibet-China Conflict, Gyan Publishing House, 2008 p.44), according to you he must be, like hundreds of scholars who write of that period, uncitable because there was no such thing as 'Tibetans' and in each case where conflict arose we must identify if we are dealing with Khams or Khalkhas, or Lhoba tribesmen, etc.etc.etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

A tag on the whole article is far from warranted, and certainly not from April 2013, and there is not "two other ongoing POV disputes". One statement is disputed and the other clearly have an agenda, which is not based on facts and all other known users don't agree with.

Regarding your point, I don't see any problem. Khalidi's statement is not used in the first sentence of the article so there is no contradiction. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani, you need to stop accusing me of racism. You have submitted a strawman attempt to make me out as a historical revisionist. Please address my concerns, and use the edit summary when you revert. Iriszoom, the tag has existed for quite a while because there are multiple issues that get habitually addressed on this article. NPOV is the majority of them. Both above and below this thread, there are POV disputes. The banner must remain, as per the WP, until the issues are adequately addressed. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your comment time stamped 03:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC) you are conflating two separate issues and as a result drawing illogical conclusions. The first sentence of our article is addressing the ancestral origins of the Palestinian People. The later section is talking about the development of a Palestinian nationalism and national identity. That the Palestinian people are indigenous to Palestine, "descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries", does not contradict later discussion of the development of Palestinian nationalism and the nature of Palestinian identity (which Khalidi explains encompasses the cultures of peoples living in Palestine going back to biblical times). Dlv999 (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, and now I am repeating myself, this article is well written. However I must point out to two problematic cases with sourcing which may involve original research. " Herodotus also employs the term as an ethnonym, as when he speaks of the 'Syrians of Palestine' or 'Palestinian-Syrians'," this sentence seems to be sourced with Herodotus itself while such claim certainly needs secondary sources as Herodotus himself surely did not qualified his description as an "ethnonym," the continuation of this sentence is also problematic "an ethnically amorphous group he distinguishes from the Phoenicians" This has been sourced with Kasher, 1990, p. 15. I am not sure which of Prof. Asa Kasher books is cited here, but I am convinced that Kasher named this "ethnically amorphous group" without just using this abstract description. As links per WP:V are not provided (or I did not find them), I can only guess that Kasher speaks about Philistines.Tritomex (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The specs of the book are in the bibliography and the sentence (all of it) is a close paraphrase of what is there. Zero^talk 13:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've provided the original Greek, and two separate commentaries on some of the passages cited from Herodotus. There is not a shadow of doubt that Herodotus makes the distinction. Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes I see it now. Maybe an explanation about the meaning of 'Palestinian-Syrians', as per source would be beneficial.--Tritomex (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There are all sorts of hypotheses about the meaning of the term, but there is no scholarly consensus other than the fact that Herodotus does use it to refer to the inhabitants as a collective designation for several tribes in (coastal) Palestine. One could write a whole page on the scholarly controversies, - Herodotus deals with periods when Palestine was under Egyptian and then Persian rule, where classifications are fluid and not quite clear - but several secondary sources concur on this basic formulation.Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Noone has responded to my claims of POV advocacy and emotional language in the article. The banner needs to remain. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your issues, one or two, have been comprehensively answered. Is the use of the word 'Palestinian' emotive language? Really? I repeat: unless you can point to specific wording in the narrative that requires revision for NPOV, there is no justification for challenging the article because of its use of the word 'Palestinian'. That is what the article is about. The banner's function as promoted here is to warn readers off the whole page, self-evidently.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

How has Chicago_Style not been perma-banned from the Israeli-Palestinian area yet? If a user did this sort of editing on any other ethnicity there would be action, especially since he trails onto other Palestinian/Israeli related articles and does the same thing. Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I see two ad hominem attacks, but nothing addressing the topics I raised. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing can address your topic, because your topic is actually no-topic. You're simply wasting others' time. -AsceticRosé 04:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Addressing the issues

One of the reasons provided for the repeated tagging of the article appears to be that "There is emotionally-charged language, such as in Struggle of self-determination. (sic) It is straight up advocacy." The phrase "struggle for self-determination" is used by countless reliable sources in this context, many of them impeccable scholarly sources that are not engaged in "straight up advocacy". This is easy to verify using google books by searching for "struggle for self-determination" palestine. If a person finds this phrase emotive, a phrase used by numerous high quality sources, and they have an emotional response to it that they find uncomfortable, and they then conclude that it is "emotionally-charged language" in anything more than the limited sense of their subjective experience, it has nothing to do with this article and everything to do with the person. This article and Wikipedia in general are not responsible for a person's emotional response to the words and phrases used by reliable sources. If someone, for example, experiences displeasure when they see or think about the word "Palestinian" because, for them, it's emotionally-charged in the real sense that something actually happens in their brain that makes them want to erase this word or replace it with an alternative that produces a more tolerable emotional response for them, like Pally for example, it's not the fault of the article, it has nothing to do with the article or policy, and the article can't legitimately be tagged on that basis. Rather than the article, it is the person who is, in effect, tagged when they are topic banned/blocked for inappropriate responses to reliably sourced information that result in behavior inconsistent with Wikipedia's rules. Editors tagged in this way are not allowed to be here and so they should not be here. This rule is simple enough for anyone to understand. It is especially unethical for these topic banned/blocked editors to violate sockpuppetry policy to complain about what they regard as policy violations, regardless of the merit of their view. Tagging topic banned/blocked editors is necessary and allows other editors to identify them and take appropriate action. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the issues I raised was politicized language. The response here seems to be "shut up, you are a racist". While accusing someone of racism is an effective tactic in certain arenas, it isn't a good response on a Wikipedia talk page. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There isn't a "good" response on a Wikipedia talk page to a person who is not allowed to edit that Wikipedia talk page other than reminding them that block evasion and sockpuppetry are prohibited. Everything that happens to a block evading editor here happens because they have evaded their block. It would not have happened otherwise and it can be prevented from happening again by complying with policy regarding block evasion and sockpuppetry. It's unclear what an editor means unless they say so, but it is probably reasonable to assume that most editors definition is close to that of the ICERD. The United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 1.1[1],

• "In this convention the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life".

If a set of reasonable editors each make an assessment of your edits based on either your current sockpuppet, or more properly, in order to negate the effects of deception that conceals a lengthy and pertinent editing history, if they went right back to when you were using University of Hawaii IPs and a misappropriating United States Army Information Systems Command server in Fort Shafter, Honolulu, and all of the sockpuppets/IPs in between, it's not surprising that one or more would find instances of behavior on matters related to Palestinians that they regard as being consistent with the ICERD definition or something similar. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Birth of the Palestinian identity

I read it fast but it seems that the article refers to Efraim Karsh to state the Palestinian identity would have birthed after the '67 war.

Karsh is not really the most reliable or less controversial source on this topic.

Most Israeli historians fixed it at the collapse of the Kingdom of Syria of Fayçal in 1920 when Palestinian Arabs realized Palestine would not join that Kingdom. Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, Cambridge University Press, 2000 goes farther and fixes this at the beginning of the XXth century.

Palestinian Arab identity grew during the Mandate period and some historians see the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt as a lost Independence War. Karsh is right that the identity suffered after '48 and re-emerged in '67 but his view it didn't exist before is WP:Fringe and should not be mentionned in the article.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth noting a couple of interesting early milestones:

• In 1911 the Arab nationalist Filastin (newspaper) began printing
• In 1913: Al-Karmil (newspaper) wrote "We hoped that they [the Ottoman Party for Administrative Decentralization] would rid us of Zionist threats and dangers. We comprised a group of people who had hoped the best for their leaders. This team possessed tremendous power; not to ignore that Palestine, their country, was part of the Ottoman Empire."

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Palestinians?

I think you might have to consider the last names of palestinian families to detect where they came from (as they're not an ethnic group or a cnaanite people): Rifaat_Turk rifat turk for example , is a person of turkish origin classified under the name palestinian. he's a living example for that.

You might have to consider other last names such as : Kurd,Masrawa (Al masri) ,otman,etc

goodluck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorpwnz (talk • contribs) 10:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"The Palestinian people (Levantine Arabic|الشعب الفلسطيني, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī), also referred to as Palestinians (Levantine Arabic|الفلسطينيون, al-Filasṭīniyyūn), are the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab due to Arabization of the region.["

" and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab due to Arabization of the region"

any proof for this statement ? as you know ,the last names would easly tell where they came from.

maybe i will add it by myself --Dorpwnz (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi , i have just added some information to the article relating to the last names of large palestinian families and their country of origin . i know that there are some wording fixes that are need to be made but i hope to recieve your suggestions --Dorpwnz (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi ,i have also add https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firas_Mugrabi as an example for a palestinian of Moroccan origin. (magreb - morroco in arabic)

i also remember an israeli arab member of the knesset which was interviewed in "Hala Rafiq" telling about his typical palestinian family (gazan,lebanese,morrocan,syrian,egyptian) his name is afu agbaria. he talks about it in the interview . here is the link ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pESwbDnowSA

he talks about this subject in the start.

--Dorpwnz (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

So if someone goes to Israeli Jews and starts listing the hundreds of Jewish surnames that derive from place names in dozens of countries, you won't mind even a little, right? It is simply impossible that this type of stuff is going to be accepted, so you might as well spare yourself the effort. Zero^talk 00:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A large number of Ashkenazi names, even of non-Israelis, reflect European place-names (Pontecorvo, Cracow, Mannheim, Napoli, Frankfurter, Pollack,etc.) and the same is true of Sephardis (Al-Fassi from Fez), Isfahani), but of course the same logic is not applied in that case, since a distant genetic ancestor is placed by the narrative of origins in Palestine. A family name represents one line of origin in our mixed, philoprogenitive, and promiscuous world, and al-Masri in Palestine suggests only that part of the line had an Egyptian forefather, just as Sydney Pollack's forefathers must have had a Pole amongst them, though the family came from the Ukraine, and identified as Russians. The name-game is just a POV gambit and has no place here.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

So here's the catch. the palestinains are not the original inhabitors of the land while the jews were migrating due to diaspora. thus if you look into talmudic villages before the palestinain villages of nowdays you can find synagogues and other jewish symbols for their earlier existence. what i am basically saying is that the communities were living in diaspora for thousand of years while the palestinians actually migrated from other countries ( like the mentioning in Hala Rafiq by afu agbaria,where he says most of his family are morrocan,lebanese,egyptian....)you might have to check the fact before responding. it's not a game since Sepradi Jews were not Converted arabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorpwnz (talk • contribs) 17:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like inventing a nation to me . i have to admit that looking in the small details makes a huge difference in that subject. --Dorpwnz (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dorpwnz, that's a good comment - it's good to see that you can see both sides of this debate after all. After what you said above I didn't expect you to identify that - were the small details you've been reading found in The Invention of the Jewish People? Funny, as i didn't imagine you to be a Shlo Sand fan. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

There are no 'original inhabitors' (sic ='inhabitants') of any country. History is migration and miscegeneration. 'Egyptians' were in Palestine before the 'ivri' coalesced into an Israelitic set of tribes, ergo? In your logic the Palestinian al-Masris descend from recent folks who returned to the land of some of their forefathers in the 15th-14 centuries BCE. Stop your tomfoolery.Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

first of all,we are all humans. we all came from africa possibly . second , if you want to measure the presence of someone you need to know which civilizition have been developed ,how widely and for how many time. the jews/israelis take the goblet in that section. and im not trying to turn a fire. you dont seem to care about my information by dismissing it . it should be added to the article. i gave sources , you didnt review them , so mine is a valid arguement for now . i will add it to the article if you want or not. im not here for fighting with someone. --Dorpwnz (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me more like a personal conversation without caring alot about the article. i will have to add more relieble information which could debunk the possibility of a palestinian ethnicity/people. not in the way of editing war but to let people hear the other side and not take the article as 100%. because the genetic researchers are not very biased and archeological finding wont say alot about todays jews/chrisitians (a mixture of the israelite theory and the cnaanite theory ) "palestinians" to say that palestinians were arabized is like to say that the turks or ayuubis were arabized too... if you go by this way of thinking so todays palestinain would not even have a nationalist perspective and they would try to merge with christians and jews back in favor of their ancestral fathers... --Dorpwnz (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

So in essence, nobody has actually LIVED in today's Palestine the past 3000 years -- people have just moved in... without living there until year 700, but people have moved out -- including most of jews originally living there..? ...it has always been a fertile area -- so why haven't anyone actually lived there? I read the following sentence in the article, and I quote: "Genetic research studies suggests that some or perhaps most of the present-day Palestinians have roots that go back to before the 7th century, maybe even ancient inhabitants of the area.[96]" Wow. Is it just me or is that phrase seriously skewed into making it sound like most palestinians do NOT have roots back before the 7th century -- at BEST??

There's an island with 1000 inhabitants that date back 2500 years. 200 outsiders move in, and over the next 500 years -- the outsiders and islanders are fully integrated with eachother. Are the people on the island still the ancient inhabitants of the island of 3000 years? Let's increase the outsiders moving in to 1000. 1000 islanders who have lived on the island for 2500 years mingle and integrate with 1000 outsiders over the next 500 years.

They are still the same people in that they entitled the heritage of their ancestors: It was their parents and their parents and their parents again that plowed the earth, planted trees and herded animals continuously over 3000 years. Maintenance of land is important, lest the area becomes overgrown and wild. And that is the most important part of any inheritage: The building and maintenance of roads, villages, farms and farmland, herding of animals, maintencance of water supplies and safe sewage and waste disposal... Somebody did that in Palestine for thousands of years. I doubt, very much, that random people from outside continiously immigrated, built roads, and then emigrated -- leaving their homes and work behind. I have not seen any evidence suggesting that those people have been slaughtered. So. Tell me: What do you call the people that are the decendants of the people that for the past thousands of years maintained and worked on the land which Great Britain, France and Russia called the British Mandate of Palestine? 85.164.254.244 (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Palestinians, as per the page.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

palestinians arabized

it is written that the palestinians are now culturally and linguistically arab why is their immigration not mentioned in this page ? the immigration to palestine,in the late 1800's. i would like to get some documentary facts about the issue aswell

and please dont accuse me of zionism ,i want information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorpwnz (talk • contribs) 08:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You are probably looking for Demographics of Palestine. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Now i found it . anyway ,the article lacks equality or balance while it mentions only Israeli leftist academics or anti zionists. i have seen the word "israeli propaganda" once in the article . it is unbalanced because the common sense says there was no reason for a large arab community to stay before the 19th century . i will have to look for sources about the migrations from Syria,Lebanon,Yemen,maghreb states etc in order to balance the article. thanks for noticing you might want to read about the ancient jewish settlement named Sakhnin , or Joshua Desakhnin/Shimon desakhnin for example if you want to get a better perspective thanks again --Dorpwnz (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)