Talk:History of the Palestinians

Copyright violation?

The GFDL requires attribution. Is there a history log that belongs to this article somewhere? -- Jeandré, 2007-12-31t23:25z

Concerning my contributions, there is no copyright violation.

I am confident there is no one from JaapBoBo's contribution too.

What make you think there could be a copyright violation ? Ceedjee (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This article was created as one huge edit, what I'm asking is if it was created in another article, and then copy/pasted here, which is not allowed by the GFDL which requires attribution of all editors. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-03t19:49z

Much was copied from Mandatory Palestine. Where can I read about GDFL in wikipedia policy? --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copyrights and ask an admin to fix the history log. Alternatively you can place a big notice at the top of this page that it comes from Mandatory Palestine and make an edit summary for the article itself indicating the same - tho that's taking dangerous liberties with attribution. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-05t08:25z, -- Jeandré, 2008-01-05t08:30z

As I read it Wikipedia:Copyrights does not refer to copying from one article to another, inside wikipedia. Or does it? --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It does.

This is the principle of GFDL licence. Ceedjee (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to wonder on the sources cradebility- khalidi has a widly known bios in his writing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.20.212 (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Fork?

Is this a fork of Palestinian people ? Also, it seems to present mainly a viewpoint from one source. Adding tags as appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, many of the connecting passages read very much as an essay, or as original research, an example of which I have placed below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

Furthermore that "Recent history (after 1949)" refers only to the PLO, not to the many other Palestinian groups, and placed undue weight on the PLO. Adding one more dispute tag, this time POV violation≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote you give above is a summary of Kahilidi's description. Its not OR.

That only the PLO is mentioned is not a reason for POV I think. Are there POV's contradicting the text (The Palestine Liberation Organization, also known as PLO, was established by the Arab League in 1964. The PLO is a multi-party confederation and since 1974 it is regarded as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.")? I don't think so.

--JaapBoBo (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Some Questions

• What does 'this' rever to in Nevertheless, this remained part of a Pan-Islamist or Pan-Arab national movement? I assume 'the Arabs in Palestine'.
• Does and for a Syria and Palestine independence. mean they ,ilitated for an independent Greater Syria, or for separate independent Syria and PAlestine?

--JaapBoBo (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"this" refers to the "Palestinian arab nationalism".

an "independent" greater Syria.

The turning point was 1920 expulsion of Fayçal from Damas : that is the birth of the Palestinian Arab nationalism.

Ceedjee (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives to a POV fork

With all due respect to those who've worked on this, this kind of article should not be constructed in this manner. Large sections are lifted directly from British Mandate of Palestine (e.g., paras starting "The Palestinian Arabs felt ignored by the terms of the Mandate."). Section taken also from Palestinian people (where, in Talk, much of this article was proposed as an addition). I gather other sections taken from other articles. For instance, some material ("The Palestinian Arabs were led by two main camps.") is copied from History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In other words, the article in large part recompiles material from other articles, but selectively, presenting a picture from a one-sided point of view. Thus, it is a "POV fork" in wp terms. If the authors wish somehow to create a spin-out from Palestinian people, or a summary style overview from various history articles, then they should do so in a proper manner, following GFDL guidelines. (Also, need to notify the respective pages and link as spin-outs, etc.) Thus, I'd think it best to delete this article and I'd ask the authors to engage directly in expanding the history section of Palestinian people. Thank you for your consideration. HG | Talk 10:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am redirecting this to Palestinian people. Material that is new and not copied from that or other articles can be added to that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don;t necessarily object to the redirect, since some of the material can be covered there. I was, however, thinking that it might be very useful to have an article on the History of the Arabs of Palestine since prior to the 19th century, most people who today identify as Palestinians would have identified as Arabs and the region was popularly known as Palestine. If editors who were wrking on this want to work on creating such an article, I would be happy to help out. Tiamut^talk 17:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea, and can make for an interesting article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting or redirecting is a bad idea. The article already contains a number of new additions.

HG's estimate that this is a POV article is incorrect. Of course the material is selective, but it was not selected for a PoV but for a subject. If HG finds it POV, than he should find the original article POV too. HG would have a point if he called it a content-fork. But since new material is already added it's developing into a new article.

I agree with Tiamut that we should do further work on the article. Maybe, if Tiamut wants to include much history from before 1900, the article could be renamed as suggested. --JaapBoBo (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JaapBobo. this article should be kept. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. If they are material to add (and I think there is) we just to do it to get a NPoV article. But deletion is not an issue. --Ceedjee (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a huge number of NPOV problems with this article. To begin with, the term "Palestinian" prior to 1948 referred to the Jews of Palestine. The Palestine Post was a Jewish newspaper. The Palestine Symphony Orchestra was a Jewish orchestra. This article fails to even mention that. Beyond that, it is basically promoting one particular point of view, that of Rashid Khalidi and his allies. Hyperbole such as "excessive and indiscriminate force" presented as fact are simply inappropriate. (I deleted that particular sentence) If the British "lost control" of Jerusalem, how was public order maintained? The reference to the PLO handily avoids mentioning its charter which called (or, depending on whose interpretation, still does call) for the elimination of the state of Israel. I added that explanation. This article is so shoddy it should be deleted unless those who wish it to be retained can bring it up to some minimal standards. Drmikeh49 (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the geographical term "Palestine" with the idenity and ethnic term "Palestine". The people of Palestine included Jewish populations, Christians, Muslims, Druze, Samaritans, and others however, not all the people living there considered themseleves Palestinian. Think of America as an example. Everyone in the US is American but they can also have another identity. In relation to the idea that we should mention the PLO's former position regarding the elimination of the Israeli state - its largely irrelevant to the idea of a Palestinian idenitity and the history of a "Palestinian people". This is not a political history of Palestine wiki article. Thanks for your suggestions though! Achamy (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is this article necessary?

With all due respect for the people who worked on this article I see many issues with it, many of which already raised by in this page yet not addressed. Here are some additional ones. The history of the Palestinian people seems to start at 1834 and end at 1945. What happened before and since? Where did Palestinians come from? Did they live in this area forever? Why are the large immigration waves of Arabs into Palestine throughout the 19th century and early 20th century not mentioned? Why are pre-Israel anti-Jewish hostilities such as the 1929 attacks so underplayed? Why is the role of the PLO as a terrorist organization (Munich etc.) not mentioned? It's very hard not to see this article as anything but a pro-Palestinian POV. At best this article ought to be called "History of the Palestinian national movement", which I doubt is a subject deserving its own article. I call to delete it.

There is a distinction between nationalism and habitation. The people who would come to think of themselves as Palestinian existed in the region long before 1835. Overall though the important thing is who people think they are. The idea of a Palestinian identity occurred with the falling apart of the Ottoman empire, colonialism, and finally the large immigration of Europeans during the peak eras of Zionism immigration... This led to an awakening of what made them unique and the idea that they were a distinct people. Also, the idea of large scale immigration of Arabs into Palestine in the 19th and 20th century is largely baseless. Yes, there was more people who went immigrated into the region but a lot of the increase in growth was also natural population growth, better census keeping, and the degredation of agriculture on the east bank (Jordan) due to the Hejaz railway. All in all, it didn't account for as much as many would account it for.

Pre-1929 were in no way as severe as they were later. Also, Palestinian idenity at the time was more regional - influenced by the crumbling of the Ottoman empire - rather than Jewish immigration and tension in the region. The ommission of tensions is because they are largely irrelevant to Palestinian idenity.

Once again, the PLO was a terrorist group at the time but that also isn't directly relevant to the formation of Palestinian identity or the history of Palestinians as a people.

As for this having a Palestinian point of view. Typically issues of identity are discussed within that ethnic group. Americans decide what it means to be American (including stories of wagons going to the New World and ommissions of massacres of native americans), British have decided collectively overtime what it means to be "British" and what historical facts have formed that identity, under the same notion Palestinians have formulated their own identity. So, of course the article has a Palestinian point of view... any other point of view would be invalid.

In closing - we should take down the POV tab. Any objections? Achamy (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Who's in favor of melding this article with "Palestinian people"?

This article doesn't expend on the main article, and therefore redundant. Anyone in favor say aye TFighterPilot (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I second this notion OR we could rename the article "Roots of Palestinian Identity" or "History of Palestinian national idenitity" or something. Achamy (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Renaming will not be suffice without a complete rewrite to differentiate it from the main article. TFighterPilot (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Aye. This article is POV by definition. Some people say their history starts in the 1800's, some say 1948 or later, some say they go back to Bible days. You can't write about Pally history without POV. Simply saying "Palestinians have a history" brings up problems. This page isn't very popular and is unnecessary. But good work guys!

The Palestinian People article isn't perfect, but it's got a decent history. I agree with merger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.155 (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

• Following a non-active move proposal of [ this article ], i revive it and propose to merge it into History of the Palestinian people, since "History of Palestinian nationality" is essentially the last chapter of the Palestinian Arab history and largely overlaps the Palestinian nationality (there are almost no non-Arab Palestinian citizens in the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip). Please vote "Support" or "Oppose" with a proper explanation.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC))
• Comment - agree with need for clean up I agree the content needs to be merged and cleaned up but i think the articles should remain separate as they are different topics. The nationality is only a century old, but the "people" have a much longer history. It's similar in my mind to the cleanup we needed to do around Mandate Palestine / Mandate for Palestine - where the content had overlapped but the articles were different. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

the origin of the palestinians

here is source that saying the origin of the palestinians are not from palestine and they came as migrant workers in the late 19th century https://books.google.com/books?id=5e8fUmqEuNIC&pg=PA139&dq=Palestinians+of+today+are+descended+came+from+many+nationalities:+%E2%80%9CBalkans,+Greeks,+Syrians,+Latins,&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OZNjVez1CMzSUdaLgLgB&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Palestinians%20of%20today%20are%20descended%20came%20from%20many%20nationalities%3A%20%E2%80%9CBalkans%2C%20Greeks%2C%20Syrians%2C%20Latins%2C&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orcohen45 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid Randall Price's book Unholy War doesn't satisfy the requirements of WP:Identifying reliable sources. Instead of trawling for another source, please discuss your proposed change here and try to build consensus for it before you add it to the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

name

A good source is needed for when "Palestinians" rather than "Palestinian Arabs" or "Palestine Arabs" became commonplace. It is very easy to find examples earlier than the year 1964 stated in the article, in mainstream sources. For example, NYT 25 Apr 1962: "King Saud told Palestinians 'in all parts of the wide earth' last night that Palestine 'cannot be liberated except by the blood of Palestinians'". Irish Times 12 Aug 1960: "Palestinians train" (article title). TImes of India 16 Feb 1960: "..representatives to the new Council should be elected by the Palestinians themselves,... Elections among the Palestinians...". NYT 12 Mar 1958: "Egypt giving Palestinians right to elect members of Strip's assembly...Palestinians living in the area..." It's easy to find scores of examples. But a source is needed. Zero^talk 09:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but its an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims

"The Arab population of Palestine traces their history to the Muslim conquest of Palestine in 640 CE" What does "traces their history" even mean? Is it implying that all Palestinians are Saudi Arabian? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that. This is clearly incorrect - the article Palestinians states that they trace their origin to all the different peoples in the region. Arafat used to enjoy talking about Jebusites and Canaanites if I remember correctly. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Palestinians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160421094709/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/palmanda.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/palmanda.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160415165629/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

New Source

I'm new and can't edit this article but Kimmerling and Migdal give the origin of Palestinian bedouin tribes on p. 4-5 here: https://books.google.com/books?id=6NRYEr8FR1IC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA7&focus=viewport — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhachev (talk • contribs) 00:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Early history sources

Currently the early history section makes 2 claims:

1. The Arab population of Palestine traces their history to the Muslim conquest of Palestine in 640 CE - this claim is unsourced. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, this statement requires very high quality sources.
2. Dome of the Rock, one of the oldest Mosques in the world, was completed in 691 CE. There is no explanation how this fact relates to history of the Palestinians. Was Dome of Rock built by Palestinians, for Palestinians, or something else entirely ? If the relevance cannot be sufficiently explained (with proper sources), this statement has no place in the article.

If neither of the statements is relevant/supportable, the whole section has to be removed. “WarKosign” 12:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree both should be removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It has been over a week, no objection or clarification was heard. “WarKosign” 07:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2018

Edit the Following:

"...Since 1964, they have been referred to as Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيين‎, al-filastiniyyin), but before that they were usually referred to as Palestinian Arabs (Arabic: العربي الفلسطيني‎, al-'arabi il-filastini)." -

Insert: "Palestine's Early Roots, "Scholars believe the name “Palestine” originally comes from the word “Philistia,” which refers to the Philistines who occupied part of the region in the 12th century B.C." Citation: History.com Staff. “Palestine.” History.com, 108.48.53.87 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Can you please provide a specific source (URL is fine) for that? Thanks for your edit request. Please understand that Anything that you want to add to Wikipedia must be WP:VERIFIABLE from WP:RS. So kindly provide a reliable source for your edit request.--DBigXray 10:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Could be a case of WP:BLUE. There are countless sources showing that Palestine (region) is called after Philistines, and Palestinian peopled called themselves after the region. This is explained in depth here, already linked from this article in the first sentense. The real reason not to include is why is it relevant? There is no connection between Palestinians and Philistines, except the name. “WarKosign” 11:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2023

In this sentence:

It is referred to by most Palestinians and Arabs as the '''Nakba''' ({{lang-ar|النكبة}}), meaning "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm".

Make Nakba a hyperlink to Nakba article, like so:

It is referred to by most Palestinians and Arabs as the '''[[Nakba]]''' ({{lang-ar|النكبة}}), meaning "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm".

Thank you SomethingForDeletion (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)