Talk:Palestinians/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

reverts on honor culture

@MShabazz: concerning my reverted addition. The Al Jazeera source talks about honor culture in Palestine, so I think the fact is not in itself in dispute. How do you think this article should present honor culture in Palestine? Here's another source from The Guardian. AadaamS (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

With rare exceptions, Palestinians have two legs. But having two legs is not unique to Palestinians, so we don't mention it in this article. Likewise, honor killings, according to the sources, are a common feature of most Middle Eastern cultures. I don't think the material belongs in this article.

Also, the sources report a recent increase in the number of honor killings of Palestinian women. That's another problem: WP:Recentism. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this article is about Palestinians, not recent events in Palestine. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the text I added wasn't about the recent increase, but the mere existence of the phenomenon so your point on recentism is moot. Honor culture is not a recent phenomenon and the statements I added did not claim so. Also, education is a feature of every country on the planet yet has a section of its own, do you propose to delete everything that isn't unique? I think an encyclopedia should quantify the existence of a phenomenon because any phenomenon might be prevalent in countries to different degrees, even if the phenomenon exists in more than one country. AadaamS (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree if WP:RS think it relevant we should include it.--Shrike (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Shabazz's edit was correct. In editing this page you should all look to the parallel Israelis page, which has no such material, though a POV-pushing editor might like to add extensive material, perfectly sourced, about Israelis using an army of occupation to wrest control of, and settle, the West Bank and, until relatively recently, Gaza, a move which has created a culture of occupation involving 'a dominant ethos of sacrifice in the name of national security' (for the ethos of 'sacrifice' as impelling a 'heroic' image of what either does in both societies see here ), or vendetta/revenge culture in either article (As is frequently remarked, 'revenge' is what the primitive Palestinians do, 'retaliation' is what the modern Israelis do. It depends which side you are on as how you define what are essentially the same acts ) etc.etc.etc.etc. There is no mention there of putative Israeli values. You can find the rather hackneyed distinction, going back to Ruth Benedict of guilt vs.'shame/honour' cultures applied as it was in WW2 to 'put down' the culture of the enemy as premodern. So the simplistic narrative runs that Judaism forges a 'guilt' culture, vs Islam draws on a shame culture for social control, for example. But the editor wants to associate control of women with Palestinian violence. Touch honour and you get into all sorts of complex issues that extend far beyond putting down women: female suicide bombers undertake their acts partially to reassert their honour in the face of what they see as a systematic humiliation of occupation, much as similar impulses informed, understandably, not only the Nakam, but many other actions taken after deliberation in Jewish Honour Courts. So one thinks of shaming/honour in Haredi Israeli culture which controverts the stereotypical framework of Israeli/Palestinian oppositions. In short 'social values' are a very complex issue and ethnic articles I have looked at (See 'family' at Han Chinese,Indian people,Arabs (marriage)), do not get into this territory. It's too easy to manipulate for symbolic cultural vainglory and contempt.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

What I wrote wasn't about Israeli occupation at all, honor cultures exist in many places not occupied by Israel and honour cultures existed before Israel did. I would support adding similar material on the Israelis page provided, as Shrike wrote, it's supported by WP:RS. The section I wrote in was the women section, but the subject is obviously larger. Although this is WP:NOTFORUM I don't see much difference in women being killed for honour or women being killed by boyfriends in alcohol-fuelled rages. So Nishidani, I think you have convinced me that if the subject is as great and significant as you seem to think, you have made an argument in favour of writing about palestinian honor culture. AadaamS (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Reread what I wrote since you either did not understand it or avoid the several points raised. This is not a forum, and it is not a place for hectoring peoples. No people article on Wikipedia gets as much attention from editors keen to add negative stuff as does this. Honour culture has a very very complex history, with which I am totally familiar for background academic reasons, and your edit is so neurotically selective as to flag an approach which is polemical and not encyclopedic.Nishidani (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Well I think Wikipedia is all the worse for it, it's not a place where only the positive aspects are to be recorded and if that's the case in articles on other peoples then those articles are in violation of WP:NPOV. If you are an academic on the subject you are perfectly qualified to write about these things for many peoples and you clearly have strong sources at your disposal. AadaamS (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There are tons of things one could say about every people on earth. I'm writing several hundred articles on aborigines, for example, and could stick in heaps of reliably sourced information on alcoholism, sexual molestation of children, violence against women, murders, suicide. That's all predictable, but nearly all articles keep to the description of an historical culture and people, and do not indulge in recentism, i.e. digging up 'stuff' that has at times afflicted societies that are in a process of disintegration. Not only. A friend of my wife's lived in Sicily and a neighbouring family contracted her girlfriend to be married to a young man whom, however, she rejected. He took a gun, and shot the whole family dead. His honour had been destroyed in his view, and redeemed by the massacre. Some people nodded saying the girl had imperiled her family, who should have restrained her and forced her to go through with the marriage. There are dozens of such cases in any Mediterranean society, but I can't see this highlighted or even noted in the several wiki articles on those societies. It's too specific. I've read numerous wiki articles on peoples, and the general approach is not to slash in put down material. One keeps politics out of it. When you raised the topic of honour, I thought of a monograph on the topic among the Bedouin, who are partially a Palestinian subgroup. Then of honour in Christian Palestinian communities, in urban communities versus fellahin-grounded agricultural communities. There are many distinctions, and different regional weightings that make any generalization difficult (as is true of Israelis, who have dozens of distinct moral/cultural distinctions among their variegated groups). Result: Not worth the trouble. My principle is: either do something comprehensively, or shy away from one-liners and snippets which only beg questions. Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

To editor MShabazz: having two legs is not unique to Palestinians, so we don't mention it in this article. Likewise, honor killings, according to the sources, are a common feature of most Middle Eastern cultures. This is an analogy used by many pro-Israelis, who refer to whatever goes on in the I/P conflict as "nothing new around here, it is a common thing in conflicts".

The topic is needed in the article, but the way it was paraphrased by User:AadaamS was not encyclopedic and was not so neutral. And Nishidani, if you think the interest of this edit is to spread negative words on the Palestinians, go add to the articles about Haredi Jews or Religion in Israel about how the ultra-Orthodox movement spread female oppression (including verbal and physical violance). If your problem is that the artciles of Israelis are not as critic as the article on Palestinians, feel free to add sourced notable negative things about Jews.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I was rather hoping that others with better sources were to reword/extend what I started rather than go for outright deletion. As for this being common to the Middle East, this is a fallacy because we write for a global audience who may not be familiar with the customs of the Middle East. At the very least there should be a link to an article about honor culture - except that such an article does not yet exist. There's a page named honor killing which does mention Palestine, but honor culture is a greaer subject than the murders that happen because of it. Also see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Nishidani you can't have it both ways, both explaining how this is a long-standing and widespread feature of the Middle East and then accuse me of recentism when my edit clearly wasn't recentist. Honor killings AadaamS (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Bolter. Specific articles like the ones you mention (Haredis and religion in Israel) are fine. But what you get in those articles is not in the 'Israelis' article because it is too specific. Adams mentions that Palestinian honour killings are in the Honour killings article, where they belong. They do not belong here, because no one has shown that there is evidence that honour killings are a significant part of Palestinian society, and thus this is also WP:Undue, as including Haredi et al., violence would be undue in the parallel Israelis article. Come up with significant RS (academic -not the usual rightwing think tank smearing in pseudo-scholarly texts) that honour killings are an enduring trait with significant impact on Palestinian social life, and you both might have a case for reconsideration. But, it's poor practice to just dragnet for some snippety reference. Russians have astronomical consumption levels for vodka, but the Russian people article doesn't mention it. The article on Australians doesn't mention that over 50,000 adults are subject to sexual violence every year. The article Americans makes no mention of the 73,000 people shot non fatally every year as part of the gun culture. So, no ethnic articles mention rape, gun culture, alcoholism, but our Pally article needs honour killings though it is far less significant a social phenomenon there than those abuses are in the arbitrarily selected countries I named. Pure POV pushing. Shameful. Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Nishidani, when I first saw this article and searched for both "honour" and "honor" those words were not even in the article - so you think this article shouldn't even mention honour culture at all? Note that I wrote honour culture, not honour killings in my first post in this thread. AadaamS (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Note you didn't reply to any of my dozen points, but keep hammering away on your single theme. I just did a check through a dozen ethnic articles using a search for honour/guilt/shame (culture) and none have it. All articles just give a general overview of ethnic composition, historical background, and cultural achievements. Thanks to a large number of 'neutral' editors, an exception is made for Palestinians: you have to show they lack a history, an identity, and have things like honour killings,etc. Until editors apply the same criteria here that are customarily applied to all similar articles (peoples) the POV desire to screw'em, so consistently evidenced by the record, will continue to stand out like dogs' knackers.Nishidani (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Nishidani thanks for your research effort, I would happily see those criteria changed for all articles, then. That issue is out of scope for this discussion. AadaamS (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As consensus is required to add a new information I think the best course of action is to start WP:RFC--Shrike (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Incomprehensible

including Jews (any of the Jews precisely? because the Jews from different races and ethnicities should be replaced by "Palestinian Jews" would be better), and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab (so who are the Palestinians before?) then the Palestinians aren't only culturally and linguistically Arab but ethnically, culturally, linguistically, historically, identically, nationalist, geographically and politically... I see that this text (who today are largely...) does not need to be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.39.223.48 (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Aboriginal group and Indigenous people

@Nishidani: Palestinians are an ethnonational group aboriginal group comprising the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine indigenous to Palestine. Thoughts?.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

ab·o·rig·i·nal
(of human races, animals, and plants) inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists; indigenous.

No.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but also an aboriginal inhabitant of a place. synonyms: native, aborigine, original inhabitant; rareautochthon, indigene "the social structure of the aboriginals"1.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

As long as you don't bring a list of sources that refer to the Palestinians as aboriginals, there is no point in this. And Palestinians include every person that happened to live in Mandatory Palestine at 29th December 1947, and his decendents. The kids born to Palestinians in Netherlands are no more indigenous than say, Sephardi Jews. Many of the Palestinians, such as the Beduins, are also not from the land. I can't think of a single nation that is branded as "native". What does it make me? A second generation Israel? An invador? Anyway don't respond to what I wrote, just bring sources and then there would be a point in discussing. There are already enough sources to support the current phrasing.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The term Aboriginal same the Indigenous people, but if we put that Palestinians as aboriginals, I think there will be a major conflict (To be neutral without conflict). For related ethnic groups: Other Levantines, other Semitic-speaking peoples, Jews (Ashkenazim, Mizrahim, Sephardim), Assyrians, Samaritans, other Arabs, and other Mediterranean peoples. → Other Arabs (Levantines), other Semitic peoples, Jews (Ashkenazim, Mizrahim, Sephardim), Assyrians? but how?, Samaritans, and other Mediterranean peoples are Mediterranean race?.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Would it not be more accurate to say Palestinians are an Arabic-speaking ethnonational/ethnic group, rather than calling them culturally and linguistically Arab since they have their own culture and dialect? I would appreciate a discussion on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.213.130 (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2017

There are not 10,000 Palestinians living in Pakistan. Sure, in the '70s it was around that, however, over time, the number decreased to about 400-500. Please fix this.Thenabster126 (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Thenabster126 (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you able to provide a source for that claim? It's proving rather difficult to do so and none of the other Wikipedia articles hold valid sources. IVORK _Discuss 19:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

http://mixplatew.blogspot.com/2009/01/suffering-alone.html Does this source count?Thenabster126 (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Unfortunately not. Generally blogs that are not belonging to credible organisations are not accepted as credible sources (per WP:BLOGS). Additionally, the blog makes reference to 450 students, not a total number. A credible source would be a statement from a government agency or other organization that has the ability to gather such information. IVORK _Discuss 03:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S., there is no source that says there are 10,000 of these people living in Pakistan. If we put this up, at least put a source.2605:6001:E790:5800:48F4:D871:6135:8856 (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2017

Palestinians are not an ethnonational group nor an Arabic-speaking people it doesn't make sense. The Palestinian people linked by blood is strange to find in Wikipedia that Egyptians who are from different ethnicities, Arabs (Sa'idi, Bedouin, Arab-Berber, Lebanese, Syro-Lebanese) Ababda, Abazins, Ahamidat, Alhoarh, Beja, Berber, Bisharin, Circassians, Copts, El homaydat, Hedareb, Houara, Huteimi, Magyarab, Nubian, Roma (Gypsy), Turks, Kouloughlis etc) are an ethnic group and Palestinians are an ethnonational group??, then there are seven sources do not mention that the Palestinians are an ethnonational group. Should they be indigenous or an aboriginal ethnic group.

 Not done. The consensus is that Palestinians are Arabs and members of other ethnic groups that identify on an ethnonational basis. If you wish to challenge this, you will need to base your argument on citations from reliable sources. Also, you will have to adhere to the neutral policy of due weight. El_C 09:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no source regarding Palestininians in Pakistan

If one claims there are over 10,000 Palestinians in Pakistan, please source this. It still states citation needed. Either remove Pakistan from the list of countries or source this. Thank you. Thenabster126 (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2017

Edetour (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)This page has been written by someone who is obviously biased to the Arab - Israeli conflict because there are no such Palestinian people the Arabs who are currently called Palestinians are descendants of citizens of the British mandate for Palestine in which case the Jewish descendants would be called Palestinians too. Otherwise, there was never an exclusive Muslim Arab Palestinian people in history Edetour (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 00:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2017

In the first sentence under the subsection titled "Dance," the word "Palestinian" is misspelled as "Paleswtinian." Please remove the "w"! 2607:FCC8:9C83:4D00:2912:A117:99DA:3F1E (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Done by Bolter21 (talk · contribs). Thanks for reporting the error. Murph9000 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on 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/20090323120645/http://www.memorialdoimigrante.org.br/historico/e4.htm to http://www.memorialdoimigrante.org.br/historico/e4.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a47250072a3dd7950525672400783bde/c2feff7b90a24815052565e6004e5630%21OpenDocument
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/07fc0614021668418525736b005c8a82%21OpenDocument
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0145a8233e14d2b585256cbf005af141/48a7e5584ee1403485256cd8006c3fbe%21OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091013190358/http://www.arableagueonline.org/las/picture_gallery/reportfullFINAL.pdf to http://www.arableagueonline.org/las/picture_gallery/reportfullFINAL.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090722073846/http://laventana.casa.cult.cu/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=514 to http://laventana.casa.cult.cu/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=514
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723174310/http://www.un.org/unrwa/publications/pdf/rr_countryandarea.pdf to http://www.un.org/unrwa/publications/pdf/rr_countryandarea.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090722073846/http://laventana.casa.cult.cu/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=514 to http://laventana.casa.cult.cu/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=514
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080713042517/http://www.un.org/unrwa/publications/index.html to http://www.un.org/unrwa/publications/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041214203922/http://www.badil.org/Publications/Monographs/Palestinian.IDPs.pdf to http://www.badil.org/Publications/Monographs/Palestinian.IDPs.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903022121/http://www.internal-displacement.org/idmc/website/countries.nsf/%28httpEnvelopes%29/F11200E8ECD83F71802570B8005A7276?OpenDocument to http://www.internal-displacement.org/idmc/website/countries.nsf/%28httpEnvelopes%29/F11200E8ECD83F71802570B8005A7276?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505135845/http://www.articlearchives.com/south-america/chile-santiago-chile/914068-1.html to http://www.articlearchives.com/south-america/chile-santiago-chile/914068-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526101818/http://www.pontas-agency.com/Autors/ENG/Ibrahim_Nasrallah_Ibrahim_Nasrallah_6955.asp to http://www.pontas-agency.com/Autors/ENG/Ibrahim_Nasrallah_Ibrahim_Nasrallah_6955.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070419034952/http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=17014 to http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=17014
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110704012352/http://www.arab.net/cuisine/ to http://www.arab.net/cuisine/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925033412/https://www.pnic.gov.ps/english/Media_culture/Literature_Poetry.html to http://www.pnic.gov.ps/english/Media_culture/Literature_Poetry.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105201604/http://www.el-funoun.org/productions/zaghared.html to http://www.el-funoun.org/productions/zaghared.html
• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JyqZXknKWLwJ:www.jewishworldreview.com/0905/arab_hip-hop.php3+palestinian+hip+hop&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a with https://web.archive.org/web/20070816154001/http://jewishworldreview.com/0905/arab_hip-hop.php3 on http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0905/arab_hip-hop.php3

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) 02:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 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/20090720101345/http://al-awdacal.org/iraq-facts.html to http://www.al-awdacal.org/iraq-facts.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130729055833/http://www.immi.se/encyklopedi/tiki-index.php?page=Palestinier to http://www.immi.se/encyklopedi/tiki-index.php?page=Palestinier
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.azure.org.il/magazine/magazine.asp?id=29
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930220135/http://www.azure.co.il/download/magazine/AZ%2027%20letters.pdf to http://www.azure.co.il/download/magazine/AZ%2027%20letters.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060324095745/http://www.hanania.com/profiles/aaintro.htm to http://www.hanania.com/profiles/aaintro.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bic.org/statements-and-reports/bic-statements/47-0715.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050418192423/http://angelingo.usc.edu/issue03/politics/a_palhiphop.php to http://angelingo.usc.edu/issue03/politics/a_palhiphop.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131127142714/http://freedomofbleep.com/2009/02/obama-brings-terror-to-the-us/ to http://freedomofbleep.com/2009/02/obama-brings-terror-to-the-us/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411063421/http://www.antiquemapsandprints.com/BOOKS/STEBBING-PALESTINE-1847.htm to http://www.antiquemapsandprints.com/BOOKS/STEBBING-PALESTINE-1847.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222045722/http://www.arab2.com/arab-traditional-dress/palestine.html to http://www.arab2.com/arab-traditional-dress/palestine.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408012902/http://arabicsoftware.org/embroidery.htm to http://arabicsoftware.org/embroidery.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) 15:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Nation?

I think in the very first sentence we should explicitly describe the Palestinians as a nation or a people just to drive home the fact that they have a unique identity and peoplehood. We do this with the Jews article as well. For scholarly sources, I did a quick Google search and the term "Palestinian nation" is indeed used by some scholars. We can probably find more if we dig a little deeper. CompactSpacez (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, CompactSpacez. Before I reply, let me echo the warning that was already left on your talk page: all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict broadly construed, including this one, are subject to discretionary sanctions. Furthermore, editors who have been registered for fewer than 30 days and made fewer than 500 edits—including you—may not edit articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict broadly construed. Please read WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBPIA3, especially WP:ARBPIA3#500/30.

I would recommend that you review this article's talk pages for previous discussions concerning the descriptions of Palestinians as a people or nation. With a quick look, I found this discussion from a year ago, and I believe there are others. Wikipedia works by consensus, and while consensus can change, if you would like to re-open an old discussion, I would strongly encourage you to do some research and bring some reliable sources that support your argument. Don't waste your time trawling Google for mentions of two terms in close proximity to one another; most of them aren't reliable sources for an encyclopedia article.

Finally, I would encourage you not to waste your time (or anybody else's) on false equivalencies. The fact that Jews or Egyptians or Ukrainians or Israelis starts with a particular sentence or is written in a particular style is not a valid argument for rewriting this article using that sentence or in that style. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz (interestingly, you've named yourself after a bigoted anti-white racist), you don't need to repeat that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions. I can read. I have eyes. It was left on my talk page, and it's on the top of this page. I'm also aware that I'm not able to edit this particular article. Again, that's obvious to me. You don't need to explicitly point that out as though I'm some simpleton. Do you think I'm an idiot? You appear to be quite condescending: do you think I don't know how Wikipedia works? Do you think that I never bothered to take the time to learn basic rules like consensus? If I'm uninterested in trying to achieve a consensus, why do you think I'm on the talk page trying to start a discussion? For your information, I've actually edited Wikipedia a fair bit a few years ago. I have made this new account because I forgot the password to my old one. You also seem to be suggesting that I don't know what a WP:RS source is. More condescension that is uncalled for. I evidently used the word "scholarly" in my original post, and the link I've provided includes scholarly sources entirely suitable for an encyclopedia. There is also nothing wrong with "trawling Google" (again, an unwelcoming and rude choice of vocabulary) considering that Google is the largest search engine on the internet. Many editors use Google to find sources, and there is nothing wrong with that.

You are correct that this issue has been discussed before. You have linked a discussion. However, there does not seem to be a consensus in that particular discussion. I am looking over the archives, and there is certainly not a consensus that the Palestinians are not a nation, so I don't know why you're suggesting that I want to "change" the consensus. In any case, I am interested in restarting a discussion on this issue. CompactSpacez (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Ugliness in the citations

In the very first sentence, we have several citations for the claim that Palestinians are an "ethnonational group" who today are largely "culturally and linguistically Arab". However, these citations are very cluttered; they take a lot of space in the sentence. Is it possible to get rid of this clutter and just have one, single vertical list of citations for each claim, so that there is only one hyperlink corresponding to the set of citations for each claim? To see what I mean, see this article on Breitbart and notice how the sources, in the lead sentence, for the claim that Breitbart is "far-right" are arranged. That is how it ought to be. CompactSpacez (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree, but the real problem is WP:OVERCITE. 15 citations for one sentence is too much and makes it clear that this was edit warred over. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Pare it down, and you'll invite editing warring back. I.e., the fewer the references, the more tenuous the claim, and it's easier to attack the reside. It is still thought intolerable in some quarters that the Palestinians should have a right to an ethnic identity, which everyone else has. That there is no such thing as a Palestinian people has for several decades been endlessly repeated. There are endless things wrong with the I/P articles, mainly from stupid sourcing. Once you actually get close sourcing because numerous editors refuse to accept that there is such an identity, to then put the shoe on the other foot and say, 'too much sourcing' is, well . . . Leave'em alone.Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree it is ugly. Unfortunately, it is probably also necessary. Just today, I had to revert a Tel Aviv IP who changed Palestinian into Arab-Palestinian...this happen day in, and day out. Huldra (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I support CompactSpacez' proposal to change the formatting without reducing the number of citations. Zero^talk 00:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2017

Pakistan does not have 10,000 Palestinians. It probably has a couple hundred, but that's it. The sources are cited n the article Palestinians in Pakistan. Thenabster126 (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: G'day, I looked through the references on that page and none of them quoted the figure of 400-500 as is in that article (although the first link seems to be broken). Are you able to paste the link here? — IVORK _Discuss 03:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: Marking as answered. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on 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://archive.is/20121205040152/http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/msm049/DC1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cruciani&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT to http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/msm049/DC1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cruciani&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928063651/http://imeu.net/news/article0046.shtml to http://imeu.net/news/article0046.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121620275700/http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/chronology/14001962.htm to http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/chronology/14001962.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100909035853/http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/PNAcharter.html to http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/PNAcharter.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604233639/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1679.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1679.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110112025712/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1681.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1681.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203031206/http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook2/Pages/48%20Statement%20in%20the%20Knesset%20by%20Deputy%20Premier%20and.aspx to http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook2/Pages/48%20Statement%20in%20the%20Knesset%20by%20Deputy%20Premier%20and.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110916050054/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1249418656478&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1249418656478&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207110028/http://reemkelani.com/album.asp to http://reemkelani.com/album.asp

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) 01:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 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/20121620275700/http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/chronology/14001962.htm to http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/chronology/14001962.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160229164114/http://blog.palestine-studies.org/2016/02/18/who-was-the-first-palestinian-in-modern-history/ to http://blog.palestine-studies.org/2016/02/18/who-was-the-first-palestinian-in-modern-history
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413142345/http://imeu.net/news/article0042.shtml to http://imeu.net/news/article0042.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130714071941/http://imeu.net/news/article002665.shtml to http://imeu.net/news/article002665.shtml

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) 20:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2017

Under the "Religion", it should be only mention in the state of Palestine, not worldwide. Worldwide Palestinian religion percentage maybe different? Majority of Palestinian Christians live outside of Palestine. 184.101.135.103 (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

New Lebanese census data

Can anyone who is fluent in Arabic have a look at the actual Lebanese census data, reported here? This information is remarkable: not only does it mean that the numbers in the article are wrong, but it's also more up to date, meaning these numbers reflect reality after many Palestinians escaped Syria and moved to Lebanon. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

A more detailed version of this interesting story appears in the Daily Star. It isn't clear if recent arrivals from Syria would have been included though. Zero^talk 11:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I.e. that(Victoria Yan https://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2017/Dec-22/431222-census-puts-palestinian-refugees-at-third-of-estimates.ashx Census puts Palestinian refugees at third of estimates 22 December 2017 The Daily Star) has restricted access.

The more recent (prior to this) earlier figure (2010) is given here.

Chaaban, J., Ghattas, H., Habib, R.R., Hanafi, S., Sahyoun, N., Salti, N., Seyfert, K., Naamani, N. “Socio-Economic Survey of Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon”, Report published by the American University of Beirut (AUB) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).December 2010

Never was a census taken of Palestine refugees living in Lebanon. Only UNRWA’s registration system gives some data but is inaccurate given the massive emigration of Palestinians. This survey allows for the first time to estimate accurately the total number of refugees living in Lebanon. Of the 425,000 refugees registered with UNRWA since 1948, only 260,000-280,000 currently reside in Lebanon. About a quarter live in Tyre, Saida and Beirut areas, one fifth in the North and 4% in the Beqaa. More than half of the refugee population live in camps (62%) as compared to 38% living in gatherings, mainly in camp vicinity. Based on the household survey results, 53% of refugees are women and the Palestine refugee population is young, with an average age of 30 years, and half of the population is younger than 25 year-old. The average household size is 4.5 members, compared to 4.2 for Lebanese households. p.x.

Well worth pursuing to get more accurate contemporary figures.Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

At a glance,—Ynhockey, our figures are a gross overestimate taking the UNRWA general refugee figures for Lebanon as applying exclusively to Palestinians. As of Jan 1 2016, UNRWA gave 450,000 for the general estimate of all refugees per country registered with them), but if you glance at the West Bank and Gaza figures, they do not respectively reflect the known Palestinian populations of those areas (Gaza has 1,300,000 refugees, well below the 1,800,000-2,000,000 mark given in estimates now. Meaning the UNRWA figures are not total Palestinian demographic indices, but relevant only to those receiving refugee aid (70% from memory in the Gaza Strip) The Times of Israel article, as no doubt many other sources will do, emphasizes a 2/3 reduction (the suggestion is Pallywood games), but the problem with that spin is that the 2010 figures UNRWA commissioned, which I linked to, gave a figure for Lebanon of 260-280,000, compared with which the December 2017 figure of 172,000 (from memory) is the relevant contrast, not the generic pan-refugee 450,000+. Geopolitical upheavals since 2011, again, complicate the picture. For the moment I think the safe thing to do would be to scale down the figure our page has and give the 2010 and 2017 figures (260,000 (2010)-172,000 (2017) until more light can be thrown on this.Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20121102045850/http://museumvictoria.com.au/pages/11443/handing-on-the-key_brochure.pdf?epslanguage=en to http://museumvictoria.com.au/pages/11443/handing-on-the-key_brochure.pdf?epslanguage=en

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) 21:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

False use of a citation

This section has a serious problem:

>Inscriptional evidence over a millennium from the peripheral areas of Palestine, such as the Golan and the Negev, show a prevalence of Arab names over Aramaic names from the Achaemenid period,550 -330 BCE onwards.[105]

However the text being cited "Palestine in Late Antiquity" covers the period of period 300-650 **CE** not BCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origninal Evade (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. The other sentences there were also quite cherry picked to show any Arab presence. Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll give you an hour to self-revert. Your edit summary shows you have not examined the sources cited, which state exactly what they were quoted to show. There is nothing 'cherry-picked'. All historians acknowledge that Arabic names are a commonplace on ostraca from the Persian and Hellenistic periods which, note bene, are BCE.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Nish beat me to it. Would it have hurt either of these two to visit Achaemenid Empire to find out when it was? I'll add a more direct citation to Ran Zadok, who is the expert on the ethno-linguistics of that time and place. Zero^talk 09:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the use is accurate, the relevance of Arabic place names in the southern Negev for modern-era Palestinians is WP:SYNTH - as is the connection to the Muslim conquest in the 7th century. Icewhiz (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I've warned you twice before about removing high quality sources dealing with known facts, simply, it would appear, out of dislike for the fact they contradict an ideological rewriting of the historical record. This is your third strike. This has nothing to do with synthesis, since the sources note the Arabic ostraca are attested in Palestine. This is not to do with the Muslims of the 7th century CE, but with the process of Arabization predating that by a millennium, absolutely appropriate to the historical record of Palestine and the Palestinians.Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Does the source mention Palestinians?--Shrike (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The ones I checked - don't seem to mention Palestinians. They also seem to be cherry picked to present an Arabic (or in one case - a coupled Edomite/Nabataean) narrative as opposed to a balanced presentation of linguistic patterns for the period (which would, one assume, focus on regions with significant population - as opposed to mostly empty desert border lands). Icewhiz (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If the source doesn't mention the main topic of the article then its WP:OR and should be removed --Shrike (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but that's a weak and pointy argument, a bit like saying that sources mentioning Jews, Hebrews or Israelites are WP:OR unless they use the modern term 'Israelis'. In English, the term 'Palestinians' refer to Arabs living in what is Israel and Palestine. Removing good sources talking about Arabs living in what is now Israel and Palestine with the argument that they don't use the term 'Palestinians' to describe them is not serious. Jeppiz (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Re this extraordinarily obtuse piece of edit-warring sources that doesn't mention Palestinians per WP:OR

Shrike, if you have neither the patience nor curiosity to read what you are reverting out, then you shouldn’t be editing here. You claim the source must mention the Palestinians or else it is WP:OR. Rubbish. The section header is nota bene: ‘The Arabization of Palestine,' not the Arabization of Palestinians, and the sources cited specifically address the history of Arab penetration of Palestine.

Icewhiz denied the sources given stated what they, on checking, state. That was either a lie, an equivocation, or a refusal to read the sources.

So I provided in the notes the material from which the contested remarks were paraphrased.

I also fixed an error in the original citation, which attributed to the editors Schmid and Mouton, text from an article written by someone elser, David F.Graf.

Zero added a third source, on which one of the two other RS is based, i.e. Ran Zadok (1990). "On early Arabians in the Fertile Crescent". Tel Aviv. 17: 223–231.

So your edit summary was utterly muddle-headed,(a) your revert maintained the textual paraphrase but elided the quoted original, as if quoting the fucking original source in a footnote was original research!, meaning you have not read the relevant policy on either WP:SYNTH or WP:OR.(b) you restored the faulty attribution I fixed, leaving the text now claiming Schmidt and Mouton wrote what David Graf actually wrote . (c) you excised Zero’s addition of the basic source-providing a source is not original research - and since the source you left in Hagith Sivan, directly cites Ran Zadok’s paper, you contradicted your own policy assertions ; If you thought the addition of Ran Zadok’s paper was original research, then you would have, in a logical world, have been obliged to obliterate Hagith Sivan’s text as well, which sums it up. (e) you made a preemptive strike out of material removed without any rational policy justification while discussion of it had just begun.(f) That text has not been questioned, i.e. has been stable, for many years. You need strong and rational policy grounds to tamper with it.

This level of crass misunderstanding, failure to read policy, and blind team-tagging reverting is not tolerable.Self-reverting is your only decent option. Please do so, since restoring at the least a false attribution, and refusing to admit it, and removing source evidence for statements that, themselves, are not questioned, is regarded very dourly at arbitration.Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If it is ok to include a section on the Arabization of Palestine (which it is, since it is obviously relevant to the topic), then it is ok to include sources that study the Arabization of Palestine. Zero^talk 23:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Canaanite theory section must go

I am more than sure that anyone who's neither a muslim nor a Jew knows that the "palestinians" (I won't ever let go of the quotation mark as it wasn't their name till 1964 and while the British Mandate of Palestine existed they claimed to be "southern syrians" - ask philip khury) are people of arabian, north african, sub-saharan ("afro-palestinians" and african looking bedouins) and even european descents (if one thought ahed tamimi is a "Canaanite" then it's this whole section's fault). The Jews and Samaritans who lived here since before the arab conquest of the Levant never referred nor acknowledged the "palestinians" as Canaanites nor as even indigenous to this region (despite some of these two minority indigenous groups were converted to islam during times). I think it is about time to let go of the sharade and remove this section from the article. Besides even the genetic studies show that the "palestinians" do not cluster with Jews, Samaritans and even with most of the lebanese people.-User:Wolfman12405 10:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree the canaanism pseudo-science/theory should be trimmed, and we should emphasize that this is fringe. However, this should be based on strong sources.Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Icewhiz, I believe that even the earliest of genetic studies like Oppenheimer et. al (2001) point to the fact that the vast majority of the "palestinians" do not cluster with Jews in the last several milleniums but do have common Neolithic Period ancestry prior to the split into 2 groups: Levantines and arabians. Here is the link: [1] and the quote: "The two haplogroups Eu 9 and Eu 10 constitute a major part of the Y chromosome pool in the analyzed sample. Our data suggest that Eu 9 originated in the northern part, and Eu 10 in the southern part of the Fertile Crescent. Genetic dating yielded estimates of the expansion of both haplogroups that cover the Neolithic period in the region. Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin differed from the other Middle Eastern populations studied here, mainly in specific high-frequency Eu 10 haplotypes not found in the non-Arab groups. These chromosomes might have been introduced through migrations from the Arabian Peninsula during the last two millennia. The present study contributes to the elucidation of the complex demographic history that shaped the present-day genetic landscape in the region."--Wolfman12405 (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You are cutting and pasting 'stuff' from other articles, as here again, without reading the documents, and without apparently troubling yourself to study the respective issues in any depth. The results of genetics over the last 2 decades are highly conflicting, and Oppenheimer's result is challenged by other studies, that conclude, for example, that:

In a principle component analysis (PCA), the ancient Levantines clustered predominantly with modern-day Palestinians and Bedouins and marginally overlapped with Arabian Jews, whereas AJs clustered away from Levantine individuals and adjacent to Neolithic Anatolians and Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans.(Elhaik et al 2017

i.e. a diamentrically opposed conclusion, stating Palestinians profile as indigenous Levantine, while Ashkenazi do not. In any case, one should not be citing primary papers from a contested field of research, per WP:OR. Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Elhaik's works have been repeatedly excoriated for their ridiculous methodology (Armenians as proxies for Khazars when Central Asian Khazars have no relation to Armenians and did not rule Armenia) and might be called Khazarist pseudo-science. Please enough Khazar baiting.--Calthinus (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't be silly. He is a highly respected molecular biologist. for all of the newspaper know-alls who spout nonsense because he touched a sensitive issue (and redeveloped his ideas in response to criticism), I much prefer to trust his mentor Dan Graur's estimation. One of his genetics peers who criticized his methology made a complete arse of himself by mangling his mathematics. If his methodology was ridiculous, her wouldn't be so prolifically published in top-ranking science journals.Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should inform Wikiproject Armenia on the close relationship between Armenians and Turkic Khazars, and we'll see how long it takes before you end up on drama boards for spreading ethnic incitement and spreading wild fringe theories.--Calthinus (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Insult away. 'Ethnic incitement' is a new one, and good for a laugh. Ware off a duck's back. You are not familiar with the scholarship. Scholarship, as opposed to ideology (of which Zionism is one, well represented here), has no truth claim, only hypothesis-making, and provisory models. I have no project here, other than to see that the precision and intelligence of serious scholarship find some minor voice in the urgent POV pushing of ethnonationalists of any description. Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

You are not familiar with the scholarship could be read as a personal attack. Alas, perhaps you would like to consider the scholarly credentials of Elhaik's hordes of critics. Elhaik's paper is so hilariously ridiculous and methodologically absurd that entire papers have been published by large groups of other renowned geneticists like this one [[2]] like the prolific Mark G. Thomas from Cambridge. But its not just geneticists who find his claims absurd: demographer Sergio Della Pergola, Judaic historian Shaul Stampfer, Yiddish linguist Dovid Katz, Aptroot etc... [[3]] --Calthinus (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the Canaanite section. It is basically negative, and contradicts a certain ideology. The Palestinians like the Jews are of mixed ancestry, neither being lineal descendants of the Israelites,- who were themselves a congeries of tribal groups of varying provenance, including the 'riff raff' Moses of the Exodus myth whinged about- yet both in their ideologies proclaiming direct descent.Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Lol u know what's the difference between my sources to elhaik? that he's just one scholar whose work is heavily criticized by the rest of his field while my sources are legit and widely accepted by peer geneticists. u can cry all u want, it won't alter history. Regardless of ur envy &/ hatred towards the Jews for returning here.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You have twice or three times broken the 1 revert rule for I/P articles (See the banner above, at the top of this page). Self-revert or you will be reported. The rest of your fantasies about antisemitism as a factor in article composition when sources and other editors disagree with you means you are not a valid interlocutor here.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

ur getting mad there, huh? why is that? I'm cool as an ice cube.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - The section looks fine, as it is mostly a discussion of why it might be politically unadvisable (at this particular junction in time) for the Palestinians to affiliate with Canaanism, though it's pretty clear the Israelis are simply a separatist Canaanite faction, so in the end all people currently living in the former Roman province of Syria Palaestina are descendants of Canaanites, with descendants of invaders excepted, of course. XavierItzm (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz and Wolfman12405 here. Nishidani is misunderstanding things here. Ethnogenesis does not equal ancestry (actually asserting the latter can come off as rather racist -- i.e. various people assimilating into the French identity does not fundamentally change when the French emerged as a group, unless you are, of course, Marine Le Pen). Jews emerged as a group very long ago; the specific Palestinian identity emerged quite a bit later (whether it was in the middle ages or the 1940s, that is more disputable but literally nobody who matters thinks they can trace the Palestinian identity back to effing 1200 BC). --Calthinus (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not misunderstanding anything. I happen to be peer-reviewed on a subject like this. Wolfman's erratic remarks and editing earned him a near indeff just after this. Cultural identity is one thing, ethnogenesis another. One cannot, as Wolfman did, define a cultural group in terms of biological origins, except in extremely rare cases, and this is not the case. Israel itself accepts in its aliyah policy that large numbers of Jews, Beta Israel, B'nai Moshe are not ethnogenetically 'Jewish', not to speak of the fact that half of Russian Jewish immigrants to Israel are not halakhic Jews. The point I made is if you are going to cite genetics as an identity marker to prove a superior historical rootedness to a country, it will backfire, since Palestinians turn out to be as, if not more, Levantine as (than) Jews. Nishidani (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. Well, this page is not about Jews but about Palestinians. Second, not sure why Jewish genetics is relevant here, as I said in my previous, no one respectable nowadays equates ethnicity with ancestry. So, so what if Palestinians have some Jewish ancestry (or "Canaanite", Neanderthal, whatever) or if, by your tangent, some Jews many of whom aren't really regarded as Jewish by many anyways (in the case of many of Israel's Russian Christians and those with like, one Jewish grandparent). The genetic origins of Jews where they do occur in argument arise as a response to racialist Arabist and other anti-Zionist discourses that deny Jewish identity by stating Jews can't possibly be native to the Levant because some of them are blond (like Ahed Tamimi the … Crusader?) or blue eyed (never knew Bashar al-Assad was... uh French?) or that others look quite African, well responding to that we do have genetic tests showing substantial shared Jewish ancestry, showing Jews are not "FAKERS" (even with some admixture) as our favorite internet forums like to proclaim us as. Of course genetic tests also cast light on the fact that most Palestinians except Bedouins also have substantial Levantine (Aramaean, "Canaanite" and yes Jewish) ancestry, plus ancient but not Levantine ancestry (Qedarites are an Arab tribe in the region quite long ago after all). But this page is about Palestinians not Jews at all, and furthermore -- ancestry is relevant as group prehistory but not relevant to the modern Palestinian identity, which arose long after all of those groups were assimilated.

The question for me, I suppose, is why are we highlighting the Canaanite theory, which is the purview solely of Palestinian nationalism, on an a page that should be NPOV? We do not talk about Hungarian obsessions that they supposedly come from Sumerians on their page, nor Albanian nationalism's desire to claim Pelasgians on Albanians, etc -- and for good reason.--Calthinus (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we highlight the Canaanite theory. It's simply that sources, and editors, persist in wrestling with the hypothesis re both Jews and Palestinians, each side trying to wrest a charter from pre-history to 'authenticate' their respective claims to be indigenous. I regard all of this as rubbish, no matter which side promotes it, but unfortunately it is part of the record, ideologically inflected, but there. People, especially in a notorious ethnic crossroad like Palestine, are ineludibly mixed, genetically promiscuous in their heritage, and both have to face that fact. I'm for complexity, not comic simplifications of the past.Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani we currently include it under the "origins" section -- which could lead people to think the page views it as a notable and still relevant theory, which it is not. Instead it should be included in History of Palestinian nationalism. --Calthinus (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

It is a theory of origins which many sources state has an element of truth. The present Palestinian population obviously descends in part from peoples in that specific area. This is particularly evidenced by that part of it, Christian Palestinians whose contention of continuous communities going back two thousand years (as descendants of a core group of Jewish and Greek,etc. inhabitants of Palestine, no one challenges, because Christians belong to our ethnic block and their claims pose no problem for contemporary identity claims to rights over the whole area. By making an exception of Muslim Palestinians, treating their claims to continuity as false, one shows a profound bias. There is nothing inherently improbable in that claim any more than is the case for Jews or Christians of Palestinian descent. As to identity it is extremely labile. Jewishness is no more an ontological category with an Ockhamesque definition that covers the massive diversity of identities of people who identify as Jews, than any other proclaimed identity.Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Uhh who are you arguing against? It's not me. I never mentioned any difference between Christian and Muslim Palestinians (though there are those who challenged Christian Palestinian autochtony -- after all the Jewish population was ethnically cleansed from the region progressively by a combination of Roman/Byzantine deportations and massacres following a series of revolts, i.e. Bar Kokhba, Heraclius etc... such that Jews outside of the mountainous regions of Galilee and Tiberias were basically cleared... and replaced.). And what exactly is the topic here? This page is called "Palestinians". Not "is Jewish peoplehood legitimate". Flowery ideology and words (labile, Ockhamesque) aside, you're just using this post to impose your value judgment on the identities of millions of people. That's not our business here on wiki. Of course once again-- why are we talking about Jews on a page about Palestinians?? --Calthinus (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus I read your posts with interest. Two things confused me:

"Jews emerged as a group very long ago; the specific Palestinian identity emerged quite a bit later... nobody who matters thinks they can trace the Palestinian identity back to effing 1200 BC"

Here you are comparing apples and oranges – Jewish “existence as a group” [togetherness] vs Palestinian “modern identity” [specific terminology]. In doing so you missed both the apple and the orange you should have compared against – Jewish “modern identity” (only a few decades older than Palestinian) and Palestinian “existence as a group” (defined by the clear geographical boundaries and similar language, and like the vast majority of other geographically-defined groups, under different labels over time)

"ancestry is relevant as group prehistory but not relevant to the modern Palestinian identity"

This point makes no sense to me.

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Onceinawhile I'll continue this on your tp. --Calthinus (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Dubious claim

"Palestinians [...] are an ethnonational group comprising the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, including Jews and Samaritans, and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab."

Does that include the millions of Jews who are Palestinians (by definition) because their ancestors lived in Roman province Syria Palaestina and/or British Mandate Palestine prior to the State of Israel's independence in 1948? VwM.Mwv (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It means the former (the sentence notes that in past tense "who have lived"), the ancient and medieval population of Jews and Samaritans that underwent linguistic shifts to Aramaic and then Arabic with religious shifts from Judaism to Christianity and later with some to Islam, processes that formed a sizable part of the modern Palestinian population.Resnjari (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Resnjari: Then why include the claim that they "today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab"? Is there any evidence that the majority of the descendants of the individuals who lived in the region when it was officially known as "Palestine" (as imposed by the Roman and later British authorities) are "culturally and linguistically Arab"? Aren't most (or at least a substantial minority) of them culturally and linguistically Jewish? VwM.Mwv (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Because today that's what that population is. The Judaic populations (Jews and Samaritans) that remained in the region after the Bar Kokhba revolt and thereafter underwent transformations (due to revolts and subsequent persecutions under the Byzantines, Caliph Al Hakim the Ottomans etc), as did the wider Levant (especially after the Islamic conquests). Palestinians like other modern day Arabic speaking populations of the Levant have elements of past populations (some more then others -here it gets complicated) that resulted in making who they are today. Obviously past identities of ethno-linguistic and even religious affiliation have not been continuous (due to the many changes), so with the Palestinians its referred to in past tense. In present tense the bit "culturally and linguistically Arab" defines the state that they are in today because Palestinians at least for some decades now overwhelmingly use the self appellation of Palestinian and not Arab for themselves and associations with the Arab world and their identity are mainly cultural and linguistic.Resnjari (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Resnjari: But why single out the Palestinians who are culturally/linguistically Arab when there are millions of Palestinians who are culturally/linguistically Jewish alive today, according to this article's definition (i.e. geographical ancestry: the region of "Palestine"). VwM.Mwv (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait, how are you defining Palestinians here? Are you looking at it from the perspective of geography and a pre-British mandate position when the whole area was called Palestine and its people of all faiths were called Palestinian or the current meaning that applies to an Arabic speaking population of Muslim, Druze and Christian faiths that self identify as Palestinian? Because if its the first, the article is not about that but instead about a distinct self identifying ethnos called Palestians who are of Arabic speakers.Resnjari (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Resnjari: If this article is supposed to be about the latter, then why include the text "comprising the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, including Jews and Samaritans"? Most Jews alive today fit the description above. You can't have it both ways; you can't say this article should be about self-identification, yet still use that description. VwM.Mwv (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Because most of the modern Jewish population in modern Israel stems from Jews that had been relocated (often by force) during the Roman era after the destruction of the Herodian temple and until Bar Kokhba revolt to Europe and others that formed the Sephardi diaspora in the wider Middle East and North Africa. The Judaic elements of Jews and Samaritans that remained in considerable numbers underwent various linguistic, religious and identity changes due to various geopolitical factors over many centuries. From them a sizable part of the modern Arab speaking populace who self identify today as Palestinians descend from. The term Palestinians applies to this group. There is nothing wrong in noting what past populations contributed to their make up.Resnjari (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It can be mentioned that pretty much all of the Jewish population in Israel circa 1800 became Israeli and did not adopt a Palestinian identity, and many did play a pretty significant role in the Zionist movement -- Yaakov Meir being one example. Before the modern period, Palestinian was geographic so yes they were Palestinian Jews (who had mostly moved there in the 15th and 16th centuries from Spain). Within the Zionist movement they were on both the left and the right -- some like Ha-Herut aimed to convince the Arab-speaking Muslims that they could feel at home in a Jewish state [[4]] while on the other hand many were in Lehi and Irgun.--Calthinus (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Arabization

This section and related parts of the wider article are drafted very loosely re our use of the term “Arab”. Most of the time we are talking about the Arabic language (which developed locally, even if was codified in the Hijaz, and from which the Levantine dialect remains distinct) and the cultural influence of Islam. Yet occasionally we intersperse ethnic usage where we actually mean Hijazis. It makes for a hotch potch. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Locally? In the Syrian desert or Trans-Jordanian desert perhaps. The language shift to Arabic in urban and somewhat dense rural areas (in Palestine and Syria) was post 7th century. Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Almost all of the earliest Old Arabic inscriptions were found within a few dozen miles of the current borders of Israel / Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

There is an excellent and recent study on Palestinian Arabic by Mila Nieshtadt. Its a chapter called "The lexical component in the Aramaic substrate of Palestinian" [5] in a edited book titled "Semitic Languages in Contact" (2015) and published by Brill. As Palestinian topics are contentious this is a great RS source one devoid of problems. Its good for use to update the article on this topic area regarding Palestinians.Resnjari (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Germany

There are not only 80.000 Palestinians living in Germany. The number of Palestinians in Germany must be more than twice as many. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/palaestinenser-in-deutschland-da-kommt-etwas-hoch-a-190097-amp.html This is an article is from 2002 and the number of Palestinians were estimated at 200.000. Ok, I think 200.000 in 2002 is a little bit exaggerated, but referring to today it is not an unrealistic number so I would replace 80.000 with 200.000 and link the Spiegel article as the source Jnnc19 (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

In 2010, the number of all Palestinians living in Germany is estimated at ca. 200,000 people. Jnnc19 (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Requesting addition to bottom of section: DNA and genetic studies

The following paragraph:

According to a study published in June 2017 by Ranajit Das, Paul Wexler, Mehdi Pirooznia, and Eran Elhaik in Frontiers in Genetics, "in a principle component analysis (PCA) [of DNA], the ancient Levantines clustered predominantly with modern-day Palestinians and Bedouins..." Additionally, in a study published in August of the same year by Marc Haber et al. in The American Journal of Human Genetics, the authors concluded that "The overlap between the Bronze Age and present-day Levantines suggests a degree of genetic continuity in the region."

Seems fine to me. Prinsgezinde (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Wishful thinking but it's not the case, I had read over a 100 of genetic studies since that one which came out in 2000, all of them point that the "palestinians" (I won't ever let go of the quotation mark as it wasn't their name till 1964 and while the British Mandate of Palestine existed they claimed to be "southern syrians" - ask philip khury) - despite the current tone of the genetics section in this article - do not cluster with the Jews, Samaritans or even with most of the lebanese. this is because of the fact that they're just MUCH later migrants than the ones who did originate in the Bronze Age Levant.-User:Wolfman12405 10:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not even true. Also why would you try to refute a proper and concrete genetic study that uses ancient DNA samples as a reference by then comparing it to more vague studies that use DNA samples from modern-day populations? The study based on ancient DNA samples makes no assumptions meanwhile you are automatically assuming with no real basis that modern-day Jews and Samaritans are indigenous to the land going back to the period of the Bronze Age. Also the Lebanese have become mixed with many Armenians so modern-day DNA samples of Lebanese are also not as accurate. Seems like what you are saying is nothing but a desperate politically motivated attempt to forge history and facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.133.88.177 (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This is honestly provably false info .. you posed the DNA study that ties them to the LEVANT that was denied as good research by the majority of geneticists and other DNA researchers have come out and denied he knew what he was talking about and said he had an anti-Jewish bias. He also published papers saying Jews are really Khazars and Yiddish has ties to Turkish. He is also blasted by those in Linguistics ..... https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/05/16/israeli-researcher-challenges-jewish-dna-links-to-israel-calls-those-who-disagree-nazi-sympathizers/#2bb5c7b428bc "While Elhaik’s work has provided ideological support for those seeking the destruction of Israel, it’s fallen flat among established scientists, who peer reviewed his work and found it sloppy at best and political at worst.

“He’s just wrong,” said Marcus Feldman of Stanford University, a leading researcher in Jewish genetics. “If you take all of the careful genetic population analysis that has been done over the last 15 years… there’s no doubt about the common Middle Eastern origin,” he said. He added that Elhaik’s paper “is sort of a one-off.”

“It’s an unrealistic premise,” said University of Arizona geneticist Michael Hammer, one of the world’s top Y-chromosomal researchers.

Discover’s Razib Khan did a textured critique in his Gene Expression blog, noting the study’s historical fuzziness and its selective use of data to come up with what seems like a pre-cooked conclusion. As Razib writes, it’s hardly surprising that we would find a small but sizable Khazarian contribution to the “Jewish gene pool”. In fact the male line of my own family traces to the Caucuses, suggesting I’m one of the 20 percent or so of Jews whose lineage traces to converted royal Khazarians. But that view is widely acknowledged by Ostrer, Hammer, Feldman, Michael Thomas and every major researcher in this area—as summarized in my book, Abraham’s Children: Race, Identity and the DNA of the Chosen People."

Seriously, it just shows how biased Wikipedia is that you lock a section only containing propaganda that has been found fraudulent around the world by known and respected scientists. The multiple research actually found Druze are the longest genetically uncompromised group in the Levant, and that Jews are their closest relations. (and you don't need me to site the source. It's on the wikipedia page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeogenetics_of_the_Near_East — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.77.248 (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

These objections to the scientific findings are futile. Going into the individual studies you can find the precise locations where the ancient samples were taken from and these samples are from locations throughout the land of Palestine and Southern Lebanon which is then more broadly described as the Levant. Also these scientific facts are completely independent from your opinions of the researchers or what they claim about the origins of Jews, whether those are accurate or not. What you are attempting here is to discredit the character rather than the objective scientific findings. 219.75.5.54 (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

"Israeli passport" for Muslim Arabs...

Is there an "Israeli passport" for Muslims who wish? ... for example with the note on professed religion so that even individuals of other religions can access it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.65.148 (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not the right place for such question. Try websites such as Reddit or Quora.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

False use of a citation

This section has a serious problem. I tried bringing this up previously, but the discussion got hijacked.

>Inscriptional evidence over a millennium from the peripheral areas of Palestine, such as the Golan and the Negev, show a prevalence of Arab names over Aramaic names from the Achaemenid period,550 -330 BCE onwards.[105]

However the text being cited "Palestine in Late Antiquity" covers the period of period 300-650 **CE** not BCE

This is a (probably) just a minor typographical mistake, but it has a large impact on people's understanding of the timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origninal Evade (talk • contribs) 12:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The underlying source says “Perhaps the most interesting conclusion of Zadok’s survey is the predominance of Arabic names over Aramaic names in ‘peripheral areas’ namely the Golan/Hermon and the Negev already from the Achaemenid period (p.22).” The Achaemenid period was BCE, not CE. So the article is right. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Someone falsely edited the Religions pie chart

Please revert back to a revision with a verified source. Cheers. LucyAyoubFan (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Bedouin Woman Picture Error Request to Change

The Picture of the Bedouin woman captioned "Bedouin woman in Jerusalem, 1898–1914" is actually a picture of a Bedouin woman from Kerak Jordan according to the Library of Congress Archive. Here is a Link to the Picture in the LOC website: https://www.loc.gov/item/2019694946/

/Thinktank9238327 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, this was updated in 2017 with info from a "researcher J. Sawalha" that this a was a woman from Kerak, See loc.gov. See also this

The info certainly wasn't there when this picture was added to the article. Was she from Jerusalem?? or Algeria??

Anyway, when doubts have been made about her identity: I agree, we should remove it, Huldra (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Source addition

I found this source, about Palestinian D.N.A. It should be added.

http://thekeyofknowledge.net/General/DL/palestinians.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.74.79.41 (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox edits

• Added flags to the infobox on this page to match articles like Jews and Kurds.

• Moved "State of Palestine" to the center with the attribute popplace
  • Made the fonts of "West Bank" and "Gaza Strip" <small> since their population properties are included as part of the "State of Palestine" population front and center.

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Dna and genetic studies

In a study conducted by Scarlett Marshall, Ranajit Das, and Eran Elhaik it states: “The Palestinians were also highly localised to North Israel, West Jordan and Syria” “both Syrians and Palestinians are highly localised to the Levant”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5111078/ PoliticalMan2050 (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2020

31.166.191.39 (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Palestine is an occupied country by Israel

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2020

In the DNA and genetic Studies section, under Between the Jews and Palestinians subtitle, I would like to add" according to a recent study published in the Cell journal, most Arabs and Jews in the Levant (including modern Palestinians) have a strong genetic connection to the Canaanites.(Here is the link of the study: https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30487-6 Tarekshah1 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the study doesn't state that. It concludes that:

We found that both Arabic-speaking and Jewish populations are compatible with having more than 50% Middle-Eastern-related ancestry. This does not mean that any these present-day groups bear direct ancestry from people who lived in the Middle-to-Late Bronze Age Levant or in Chalcolithic Zagros; rather, it indicates that they have ancestries from populations whose ancient proxy can be related to the Middle East.'

Primary sources, esp. on deeply technical issues, should be sourced via the scholarly literature which comments on them.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor Tarekshah1:  Not done: please provide additional reliable secondary sources that support the change you want to be made. That will help you garner a consensus for the addition. Thank you for your work on this! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Request change to article regarding genetics

Alright so in this wiki in the genetics in one part it states: Nebel proposed that "part, or perhaps the majority" of Muslim Palestinians descend from "local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD

However what it actually says is this: According to historical records part, or perhaps the majority, of the Muslim Arabs in this country descended from local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD (Shaban 1971; Mc Graw Donner 1981). These local inhabitants, in turn, were descendants of the core population that had lived in the area for several centuries, some even since prehistorical times (Gil 1992)... Thus, our findings are in good agreement with the historical record...

Nebel is confirming that the findings of the study agree with the historical record, Nebel never proposed anything here instead Nebel just states that historical records state that Israeli and Palestinian Arab Muslims descend from local inhabitants mainly Jews and Christians, these local inhabitants came from a core population that lives for several decades, some even pre historical times. PoliticalAsianGuy29288282838 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 I’m not sure if ur mod but pls check my comment above PoliticalAsianGuy29288282838 (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Pls update it and actually state how historical records state this and Nebel confirms that her/his findings confirm these historical records PoliticalAsianGuy29288282838 (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

That is probably true but where in Donner and Shaban’s work is that stated WikiPerson28828292929 (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Canaanism

The section on Canaanism should be updated to reflect the recent genetic studies (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05649-9#Fig1, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05649-9#Fig1, https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaax0061, and https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30487-6.pdf ) that show the DNA of modern Palestinians is closely related to the DNA of the Canaanites: the descent of the Palestinians from the Iron Age and Bronze Age inhabitants is not in any doubt.Mcdruid (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes please add this! PoliticalMan2050 (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The article from cell.com seems to be unavailable but the two other ones don't seem to suggest this, both the nature.com and the advances.sciencemag.org articles seem to talk only about the ancient iron age peoples and their DNA ancestry, not relating it to the modern Palestinians. Correct me if i'm wrong (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The link works now. Zero^talk 06:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The articles cited all place the Canaanite DNA onto the standard map of Genetic groupings and they overlay the current Palestinian population. In addition, https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30487-6.pdf in Figure S4 specifically measures the Palestinian DNA (and others) in comparison to more modern DNA. Mcdruid (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The study is already mentioned under the "DNA and genetic studies" section, under the subsection "Between the Jews and Palestinians". It mentions that Arabic-speaking Levantine groups, including Palestinians (as well as several Jewish groups), were found to derive a majority of their ancestry from the Bronze Age Canaanite genetic component. Skllagyook (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The region has not been Arabized after Islam

The area was not Arabized in any way after the Islamic conquest. Rather, it was Arab in origin. It was ruled by the Ghassanids, the Arab Christians allied with the Byzantines, and before the Ghassanids, it was ruled by the Nabataeans (for knowledge). The Romans used to refer Arabia petrea See before islam Ghassanid Kingdom Arabia Petraea Tanukhids Also read Muslim conquest of the Levant And not the Arab conquest of the Levant in the region. It was only Christian Arab before Islam Samlaxcs (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Arabization refers to the adoption of Arabic, forms of which had been current, especially in the south since the 5th century BCE. But it only became a nation wide lingua franca with the Arab conquest, replacing koine Greek and Aramaic. But that process, like the conversion of Christians and other groups to Islam, took some centuries.Nishidani (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The overwhelming academic consensus is that the area now being Israel and Palestine was Christian (religion) and Aramaic-speaking (with some Greek) prior to the arrival of Islam (and for some time after). Jeppiz (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The term "Arabization" refers only to a region that was not Arab, and after the Islamic conquest it became Arab and Palestine is not one of them but it was before islam rule by ghassanid Samlaxcs (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was a Christianity ruled by the Christian Arab Ghassanids and not another or different ethnicities Samlaxcs (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:RS both apply here. Unless you have academic sources in support, there's little point to this discussion and the article won't be changed. Jeppiz (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

DNA Jews and Palestinians

A 2020 study on remains from Canaanaite (Bronze Age southern Levantine) populations suggests a significant degree of genetic continuity in currently Arabic-speaking Levantine populations (including Palestinians, the Lebanese, Druze, and Syrians) as well as in several Jewish groups (including Sephardi Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, and Maghrebi Jews) from the populations of the Bronze Age Levant, suggesting that the aforementioned groups all derive over half of their entire atDNA ancestry from Canaanite/Bronze Age Levantine populations,[146] albeit with varying sources and degrees of admixture from differing host or invading populations depending on each group. The study concludes that this does not mean that any of these present-day groups bear direct ancestry from people who lived in the Middle-to-Late Bronze Age Levant or in Chalcolithic Zagros; rather, it indicates that they have ancestries from populations whose ancient proxy can be related to the Middle East.[147]"

False conclusions from flawed study with conflicts of interest. The origins of Jews, particularly Ashkenazi Jews, are converts from Iran (Zagros), corroborated by other studies and which is why Zagros was conveniently added to the study in question as a location of interest to obfuscate and lead to false conclusions. The scientific results of this study were that Jews (Ashkenazi) originate from the Levant OR Zagros (Iran) and we know it's the latter from other studies that confirm this. The authors then conveniently twisted the truth to imply that they originated from an population that settled in Palestine from Zagros (Iran) much earlier which is a blatant lie historically. 69.157.142.54 (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Newspapers as a source...

Jordan's population has grown so much by the influx of refugees and others so now the total population amounts to 11 million people. But the newspapers still write that Palestinians comprise half of the population! They also give a figure of 10 million people (sometimes they call them all for citizens) in Jordan while it is actually 11 million now according to the Jordanian Department of Statistics. Just saying it now here because I have noticed what the newspapers are writing (each source mirroring the other) and not because there is a problem in this article. It just shows why newspapers are not a good source for this - academic sources are the best ones. A good, newer study or other academic source would be good. In addition to this, after so many decades in Jordan of integration, the intermarriage rate between Jordanians and Palestinians must be pretty high so I am not so sure about this distinction but I am sure an academic source would look at that as well. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Correct Grammar.

There are various grammatical errors. For example, the first paragraph has a semicolon where there should be a comma. Unable to edit due to restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalfnzo (talk • contribs) 01:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixed! Are there any other errors you'd like corrected? Also, please remember to sign your messages using four tildes (~~~~). -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 01:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Grammatical errors make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. I'll review the entire article and let you know if I find anything else. Peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalfnzo (talk • contribs) 05:53 (UTC)

Stalfnzo, punctuation is not grammar. That semi-colon to separate independent clauses, that's style. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Found a missing space after comma in the subsection "Arabization of Palestine": "...show a prevalence of Arab names over Aramaic names from the Achaemenid period,550 -330 BCE onwards.[94][95]" Jude P. (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Think I forgot to sign Jude P. (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Dhavendra Kumar, citation #39 spelling correction

The editor's surname is Kumar [6], need spelling correction from "Kuma" typo.Horacebaldwin (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Done (please check). Zero^talk 02:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2021

For footnote number 39: The Oxford monograph's editor's surname is Kumar, "Kuma" is a clear typo. Here also is a URL that can be posted with this footnote (#39) [7] I would post it myself but see that this page has edit protection on it. Thank you. Horacebaldwin (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Zero^talk 02:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Documentation that most Arabs today in Palestine who identify as "Palestinians" likely have no ancestry to Palestine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Innocents Abroad" by Mark Twain, published 1869, is a very well known classic of a detailed account of a border to border expedition of Palestine journeyed by Mark Twain & colleagues. It documents that for centuries Palestine was a "very unpopulated vast wasteland". There were no people groups occupying the land. You could journey for 3 days before meeting one person. The population today claiming to be Palestinian are very unlikely to have ancestral ties before the increase in non Jewish peoples that happened in the 1950's, hence, they are not from Palestine, & whose ancestors have not been there for even a century. IN PERSON INTERVIEW WITH THOSE CLAIMING TO BE PALESTINIAN, which anyone can do as I have done, will reveal these people are from Jordan and have little if no history in Palestine.

There are many historical sources that show Palestine had been a unpopulated vast wasteland for years from around 300 A.D. till 1948, you can search for these yourself on search engines, ( I attempt to post one here http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/depopulated.html ) ````

Also, for proof the Jews had been in Palestine for about 2000 years & before any people group living today see the writings of first century historian Josephus & other historians some mentioned in early Christian writings, see A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs compiled by David W. Bercot, as well as the Old & New Testaments of the Bible, of which the aforementioned writings corroborate. ````

TO THE DUMBFOUNDED BELOW: I did not get this from Joan Peters, I got this from reading the book for myself, since the first publication of Innocents Abroad in 1896, it has not been disproven of the facts it states nor of its authenticity, & it has been unanimously accepted as authentically Twain's work. To the comment below "I never thought I'd see Mark Twain cited as evidence" just shows how ignorant that person is, any person who has done a in person expedition is valid to publish what they have seen EVEN IF IT DISPROVES YOUR POINT OF VIEW. There is no evidence from any University that disproves of what Twain says here. Also, Twain does not have a bad reputation for getting his facts wrong, some, such as Chritison below, have tried to defame him with baseless claims not even able to cite any examples of their claims. BUT HOW ABOUT THIS? WHY DON'T YOU FIND SOMEONE, LIKE I HAVE DONE WITH SEVERAL, WHO SAYS THEY ARE "PALESTINIAN" & ASK THEM YOURSELF HOW FAR BACK DOES THEIR FAMILY TREE GO BACK TO PALESTINE? YOU WILL FIND IT DOESNT EVEN GO BACK 100 YEARS...AND CURRENTLY & BEFORE THIS, THEIR FAMILY TREE IS FROM JORDAN. SORRY TO DISPROVE YOUR DECEPTIONS.

Had you read Twain's book you would have picked up the fact that he never writes 'it's' for 'its', as you do above ('it's authenticity'). 99% of Jewish Israelis' family trees go back a couple of generation s to Poland, Russia, Yemen, Ethiopia, Morocco, Iraq etc.etc., by the same token. This is not a forum and more nonsense about your personal reading of primary sources and fieldwork interviewing in Arabic, no doubt, most of the Palestinian population will be reverted. Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

JoeFerrari (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC) "Innocents Abroad" by Mark Twain

Yes, you got that from Joan Peters's probably ghostwritten piece of historical fiction,From Time Immemorial. Go read Norman G. Finkelstein's review. But if you are really interested in the topic, attend any history course taught in any Israeli university of international standing, where the stupidity of that meme doesn't circulate.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

User:JoeFerrari Using that source to support the claim you are making would seem to be a fairly clear case of WP:OR, which is against Wikipedia policies. Skllagyook (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like this editor has dived into the propaganda pool. .....Nothing that Christison writes below can be verified, there are no citations or examples to her claims, it is just her bias & propaganda, which means you are being hypocritical & censoring others who disagree with you. ````

Here is some actual information:

• Travelogues_of_Palestine#Debate_over_mid-nineteenth_century_depictions.
• Christison, Kathleen (28 November 2001). Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-92236-5. [Twain's] jaundiced observations of Palestine and Palestinians, publicized in his 1869 account of travels through Europe and the Holy Land, The Innocents Abroad, have made him a favorite with proponents of Israel ever since... In modern times, Twain's exaggerations have become grist for the mills of those who propagate the line that Palestine was a desolate land until settled and cultivated by Jewish pioneers. Twain's descriptions are highlighted in Israeli government press handouts that present a case for Israel's redemption of a land that had previously been empty and barren. His gross characterizations of the land and the people in the time before mass Jewish immigration are also often used by U.S. propagandists for Israel. Mark Twain's was only one of literally hundreds of travel books about the Middle East published in Europe and the United States throughout the nineteenth century that conveyed an image of Palestine and its Arabs; the image was almost without exception derogatory, although often less dramatically drawn than Twain's.
• Orientalism (book)

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani, can't you just go ahead and archive this nonsense? I never thought I'd see Mark Twain cited as an authority of some kind in an ARBPIA article. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I never archive things. Don't know how to. Then, one never knows. Some people out there may be the victims of memes like this rubbish and sincerely trust in them, and if they can get a little advice from editors on wiki, all the better. Of course, this should stop here and not develop into a thread, which would be time-attrition when much work is needed elsewhere. Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As far back as 1299 artifacts show a sizable population of Jews in Jerusalem

According to artifacts of an Ottoman Empire Censes of Jerusalem, note: a Muslim Empire, there was a sizable population of Maghrebi Jews & Sephardi Jews in Jerusalem. See citation 70.113.124.145 (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC) See page 27 for comprehensive. 70.113.124.145 (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Campos, Michelle U. “Placing Jerusalemites in the History of Jerusalem: The Ottoman Census (Sicil-i Nüfūs) as a Historical Source.” Ordinary Jerusalem, 1840-1940: Opening New Archives, Revisiting a Global City, edited by Angelos Dalachanis and Vincent Lemire, vol. 1, Brill, LEIDEN; BOSTON, 2018, pp. 15–28. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctvbqs2zk.9. Accessed 16 July 2021.

I cannot see anything about 1299 on p. 27? What am I missing? Also, I did not expect much about the year 1299 in a book called "Ordinary Jerusalem, 1840-1940: Opening New Archives, Revisiting a Global City", The "1299 census" (AH) though, refers to a census taken in 1883–84 (CE). cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Including Jews as Palestinians

The intro says that the Palestinian people "include ethnic Jews and Samaritans" without citing a reference. Do we have a source for this? Presumably this is a reference to the Jews of the Old Yishuv, particularly those whose ancestors lived in the land for centuries, including those who have a family line which never went into the diaspora. The descendants of these Jews are mostly Israeli citizens today and I find it unlikely they'd identify as such. From what I've seen (this is purely anecdotal so take of it what you will), those claiming to be Old Yishuv Jews are not receptive to being called Palestinians and even hostile to being called that if anything. Is anyone here seriously going to argue that Yossi Cohen, former Mossad director who has roots going back generations in Jerusalem and Hebron, is a Palestinian? I'd be extremely wary of including them as Palestinians unless a solid reference can be found to substantiate that.--RM (Be my friend) 11:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

All Jews under the Mandate were 'Palestinian Jews'. The PLO official view is that all Jews resident in Palestine before 1917 are entitled to be, and have rights as 'Palestinians'. Uri Davis, for one, sees himself as a 'Palestinian Jew' as does Daniel Barenboim (along with his several other national identifications). As to self-identification, Yossi Cohen etc., well by all the anecdotal evidence the 8th generation Hebronite Ya'akov Ezra, god bless him, wouldn't have had trouble thinking himself as 'Palestinian' as his Arab neighbours. Most of the Sephardim there were and remained after 67 at odds with the immigrant settler Zionist community, and still have claims to Avraham Avinu (I don't know if their court actions have been preempted by some agreement by Yossi Ezra and his family). It is a political curse that makes 'being Palestinian' incompatible with being Jewish, something that is historical nonsense. There is nothing misleading or offensive in the designation. To the contrary, it is further evidence of native entitlement, as the PLO recognizes.Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed that part from the lead. The Demographics section says that Palestinian Jews – considered Palestinian by the Palestinian National Charter adopted by the PLO which defined them as those "Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion" – today identify as Israelis (with the exception of a very few individuals). Palestinian Jews almost universally abandoned any such identity after the establishment of Israel and their incorporation into the Israeli Jewish population, largely composed of Jewish immigrants from around the world.. It further says that Jews who identify as Palestinian Jews are few, but include Israeli Jews who are part of the Neturei Karta group, and Uri Davis, an Israeli citizen and self-described Palestinian Jew (who converted to Islam in 2008 in order to marry Miyassar Abu Ali) who serves as an observer member in the Palestine National Council. The article in overall treats as Palestinian only Arabs. For example, the infobox does not list Judasim as a religion of Palestinians. In reliable sources and in the media, the Palestinians are Arabs. In this context, it is frivolous to include in the lede "Palestinians are an ethnonational group comprising the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine continuously over the centuries and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab, including those ethnic Jews and Samaritans who fit this definition and identify as such". If a few individuals from all ethic Jews consider themselves to be Palestinian, or the PLO considers Jews who lived in the area to be Palestinians, one can not add to the lede a sentence that gives the POV and UNDUE impression that a considerable - or rather large number- of Jews self-identify as Palestinian. I think caution is needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Genetics

Why is there such a focus on genetics of Jews in this article? This is not an article about Jews. It's just unnecessarily cluttering the article.

If I was to be malicious I would claim some conspiracy, but better to assume ignorance than maliciousness and as such I must agree, the article should focus on the Palestinians, which as it has been established in the previous discussions, in general does not include Jews Notumengi (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Genetics and Canaanite sections needs rewrite

It is now 2021 and the fact that the Palestinians are descended from the Canaanites is well established. Numerous studies on Canaanite DNA all point to the same conclusion: that Palestinians are closely related to the Canaanites (and that Jews are more distantly related – since, for some reason, people keep trying to insert Jews into this subject. For example: https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(17)30276-8#secsectitle0035, https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19310, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05649-9#Fig1, https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaax0061, https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30487-6.pdf. In addition, there are original ethnographic observations:

Conder, Tent Work in Palestine 1885. "Now these peculiarities, in almost every case, serve to connect the peasant dialect with the old Aramaic,… Thus, for instance, in the modern Idhen we should scarcely recognise the Hebrew Uzen, “an ear,” but when this word is pronounced by a peasant in Palestine it resumes its old sound of Uzen. There are also words apparently peculiar to the peasant dialect, such as ’Arâk, for a “cavern” or “cliff,” which is not found in any dictionary. Space will not allow of a further disquisition on this subject, but it might easily be shown how simple an explanation of local names is often afforded by translating them, when not otherwise intelligible, as though of Aramaic origin. On the whole, the language appears to bear so strong an affinity to that which we know to have been commonly spoken in the country as{303} late as the fourth century, that the peasantry may, without exaggeration, be said to speak Aramaic rather than Arabic, or at least a dialect formed by the influence of the language of their Arab conquerors on the original Aramaic tongue. If we may judge the origin of any people by language, then by their dialect, the descent of the Fellahîn, or “tillers,” may be traced from older inhabitants of Palestine, and perhaps from the pre-Israelite population."

Pierotti ,Customs and Traditions of Palestine; 1864. From the forward: The “chief aim throughout the work has been to give as faithful a picture as possible of Arab life in Palestine among both the Fellahin, or inhabitants of the settled districts, and the Bedawin, or nomad races, and to point out more especially the numerous coincidences in manners, customs, traditions and laws, between them and the Hebrews.” (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015063900495&view=1up&seq=13)

Peasant life in the Holy Land 1906 https://archive.org/details/peasantlifeinhol00wilsrich/page/296/mode/2up/search/palestinian The Rev. C.T. Wilson Pg. 3 “To the Fellahin (or peasants) of Palestine it is to whom we must chiefly go to-day to elucidate those manners and customs, and not to the Jews. The latter are, for the most part, strangers in their own land, immigrants from Europe or other continents, who bring with them the tongue, garb, and ideas of the countries where they have been so long domiciled. The Fellahin, on the contrary, are probably to a large extent the descendants of the various Gentile tribes, who were never exterminated by the Israelites,"

At this point, denying the linkage is more indicative of one's political stance rather than reality. Mcdruid (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

edit warring again

The latest again shows your disattentivess. After I corrected the corrupt tense (aside from the vacuous terminological contrast between classical period/late antiquity borrowed from Graeco-Roman historiography) as it stood in your previous you have restored the solecism, which once more reads.

During late antiquity, the Jews, who had constituted the majority of Palestine during the classical period, have become a minority

But that is not the gravamen of my complaint. You introduced this, which I called 'Zionist' pastiche.

Many Jews were killed, exiled, or sold into slavery during the Jewish–Roman wars (66-135 CE).

The Zionist narrative reflected below focuses wholly on the centrality for that period of two events in Judea, marking it from the history of the Jews of that period as exceptional. Ask off-the-cuff your average history student about the Kitos War, in which the same historian Dio Cassius, mentions (improbably) that a quarter of million Cypriotes were killed by Jews in 115-117, and overall a half a million Roman subjects elsewhere and it usually doesn’t ring a bell. There are three moments all bundled up in a focus on ‘Jews’ 67-71,115-117, and 130-135 in Judea, excerpted from comparative analysis, all to the purpose of insisting on why Palestine was putatively depopulated of its Jewish component in a continuum of persecution extending from 67 to 135 (Ist source) vs the correction in the second. The figures of slaughter are similar to those we find with other populations challenging the Roman imperium, such as the Gauls. Palestine has a carrying weight of 1 to 1.5 million at the time, certainly half of which was not ‘Jewish’ (the very sizable Samaritan community is always ignored in the calculations. Demographical Dio's figures would mean all Jews in Palestine were killed, as Josephus's would suggest all inhabitants of that country were killed). The ‘exile’ is explained as an expulsion order for Palestine, whereas it was a restriction on Jerusalem. The majority of Jews by the first century were spread all over the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern world, outside of Palestine, by choice not by exile. The two sources don’t even concur (aside from the uselessness of citing the Getty Museum source) in their narratives. Precisely because there is such a long tradition of sloppy generalization and emotive doctrinal rehearsal ovcer this period, together with the fact that the historical details are very complex, with many theories vying for ascendency (climate changes may account for notable emigration from the 2nd to 3rd century) we should rely for this kind of material only on the latest or most solid modern scholarship that shows an awareness of the difficulties and the narrative confusion. Your edit trod the usual lachrymose road and that is why I reverted it. (don’t cite the Britannica either. It’s useless given the excellence and depth of scholarly coverage).Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Smart analysis. I like that. I hope you do agree that the Bar Kokhba revolt was particularly a notable event for that matter. How do you suggest portraying the demographic change that took place in the first centuries in a short, but precise way? Tombah (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2022

Change the number of Palestines in the state of Israel and the reference from 1,890,000 to 2,007,000; and change the reference accordingly to the most updated: A publish by Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics. Link: https://www.cbs.gov.il/en/mediarelease/Pages/2022/Israels-Independence-Day-2022.aspx אמן התענית (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

There is some discussion going on about this somewhere, I can't remember where. Anyway, it has to do with CBS including East Jerusalem Palestinians in the count as citizens of Israel which they obviously aren't. I will look around for the discussion but best leave this for time being. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Jerusalem isnt in Israel. nableezy - 13:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

How not? Thepanthersfan201 (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Depends on how one regards the Status of Jerusalem.Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

2020 figures from this source gives Israeli pop as 6.87 million Jews, 1.96 million Arabs (Muslims (1.67 million) Druze and Christian Arabs) and 0.46 million others for a total of 9.29 million. The Muslim 1.67 million includes the Muslim Arabs living in East Jerusalem, who are not Israeli citizens. "It can therefore be concluded that there are 1.3 million Muslim citizens of Israel (author’s calculation based on the Central Bureau of Statistics, 2020c)." (For "Muslim", you can read "Palestinian"). Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Who says all Muslims in Israel are Palestinians? Tombah (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

From the source "the assumption is that the group identifying as Palestinian nationals among Arabs in Israel is identical to the size of the Muslim group". Selfstudier (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Assumption is faulty, as many Christians identify as Palestinians as well. Im sure some Muslims do not too, but would guess that be less of a percentage than the Christians who do. nableezy - 14:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It is an assumption they are making for the purposes of the calculation. At the moment I have not been able to locate a better analysis overall of the situation than this one. It will be better to wait until the article Palestinian citizens of Israel is done and then transfer the information from there to here. See here as well. Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2022

Hello, According to the Colombian government, in Colombia there are between 100,000-120,000 Palestinians, first, second, third and fourth generation. Chauxlemount (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Note: A review of talk page archives suggests this may be a controversial edit and a consensus should be reached before making this update. The currently listed statistic from 7 years ago is an order of magnitude smaller than what this source proposes. It seems clear that the methodology of the new source is significantly different from the current information in the article. --N8_wilson 🔔 20:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Could the OP say whether they obtained this information + ref from Arab Colombians (end of first para of lead). Having contradictory info in the encyclopedia is a bad thing so we should try to sort it out. Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Grammatical error

The first sentence of the second paragraph under the heading "Origins" reads as follows: "Palestine has underwent many demographic and religious upheavals throughout history." This is ungrammatical. To express the present perfect tense, the past participle ("undergone") should be used, never the simple past ("underwent"). The sentence should be corrected to the following: "Palestine has undergone many demographic and religious upheaveals throughout history."

ksulli (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done Lemonaka (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

descended from Jews

Although this theory deserves a mention, there is far too much and most of it is the ideas of Zionist leaders who had no actual expertise in the subject. And why should we care what Tsvi Misinai thinks? Zero^talk 13:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Didn't we already discuss the Yitzhak Ben Zvi stuff in some other article, concluding it was worthless? Or am I mixing that up with something else? Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I found it at Talk:Bayt 'Itab#RS and AGEMATTERS where I wrote:

https://www.academia.edu/2021830/Traveling_Zion_Hiking_and_Settler_Nationalism_in_pre_1948_Palestine

In the writings of Ben Zvi, one sees frequent recourse to a more subtle strategy of obscuring the Arab fabric of the Palestinian landscape through recourse to a Jewish historical overlay. The following account of a 1908 voyage to Hebron is one instance of this representational practice:" plus other criticism in similar vein. Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Worthless? I don't think so. Ben Zvi was a historian who, while perhaps not free from ideology, did base his work on both contemporary scholarship and his own research, and was famously close to the Samaritan community in Nablus and familiar with its long-standing traditions. This chapter is on the pre-Arab and pre-Islamic origins of Palestinians, so it only makes sense they wouldn't be totally Arab. Therefore, the whole "obscuring the Arab fabric of the Palestinian landscape" thing is useless in this context.

For some reason, contemporary scholars tend to write little about this topic. And after all, perhaps there is some historical basis for Ben Zvi's claims as well as the other writers mentioned there. According to our own introduction to the whole origin chapter, locals were converted in some degree throughout Late Antiquity, primarily pagans but also to some amount Samaritans and Jews. This converted population may have been, in part, the forefathers of the later modern period (18th-20th centuries) fellahin.

If we feel that this origins section is getting too long, we can trim some of it down and consider about moving some of the content to a different, in-depth article that will examine the various hypotheses for the origins of the Palestinians/fellahin. Tombah (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

All of this is premised on the generic assumption that the starting point is an overwhelming 'Jewish' population in Palestine, that then gets add-ons, or converts, or is withered by expulsion and forced displacement. Any number of RS repeat that topical viewpoint. It was a mixed society from the beginning, and never ceased to be, even under the thrust of various political developments towards an 'Israelite' and, more ethnically, 'Jewish' polity. It was a great crossroads for empires, with a constant influx and efflux of peoples, basically semitic. The area around and south/southwest of Hebron had a significant inflow of 'Arabs' from as early as the 5th century BCE. The non-Jewish Samaritans were very sizable, and Jews themselves were riven by sectarianism, of which Christianity is one hangover - Jews who followed a different dispensation than that being constructed by 'pharisees'. Early Christians did not necessarily 'convert'. Most of them began as Jews who adopted the particular variation on Jewish religious identity formulated by Paul, which allowed, for example, intermarriage. Pagans, well before the Common Era were also a significant minority. We are still entangled in a Biblical worldview. You can retrieve this from any number of specific scholarly works which, however, despite their growing recognition of these complexities that compromise our simplistic traditional story-telling, rarely inflect the general popular or nationalist narratives. Trying to render an identity 'authentic' by asserting some ethnic continuity with an area's population thousands of years ago is jejune, whether we speak of 'Jews' or 'Palestinians', since this is all guesswork and inference from scarce data. We have what we have because the dominant 'Jewish' narrative insists on descent, and refuses to acknowledge that the principle adopted applies to any other indigenous claimant, esp. Palestinians. It is probable, nonetheless, that a substantial part of the Palestinian population descends from groups resident there and in proximate areas neighbouring Palestine in antiquity, and has certainly stronger claims to historical verisimilitude than the competing and hegemonic Zionist narrative concerning, especially, the roots of the Ashkenazim.Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's avoid discussing politics and genetics at this time. The subject of Ashkenazi origins is not relevant at this time (putting aside the fact that when looking on their Y haplogroups, they are almost identical with those of Lebanese and Palestinians, especially Christians). The story here is much simpler. Around year 0, we have a Jewish polity with an ethnic Jewish majority, a significant Samaritan minority, and a smaller pagan minority (including various Semitic populations, Arabs and Greeks). The region is well-known for having a Jewish majority during the same period, in great part because of the Bible. Yes, even if there were several groups and approaches to Jewish faith and tradition, they still constituted a majority which probably saw themselves as Jews and were Jewish in their culture. 1900 years later, the region has a much smaller population, the most of whom practice Islam and are of Arab culture. People are probably wondering, "Well, what actually happened here?" and the "Origins" section tells this story from various angles. Tombah (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Just on the topic of "Around year 0, we have a Jewish polity with an ethnic Jewish majority", don't forget that per the term Ioudaios, by ethnic Jewish you are presumably referring simply to "people from [greater] Judea". So your sentence could be re-written "Around year 0, we have the polity of Judea, in which people from Judea were the majority", which would not surprise anyone.

No, I didn't intend it exactly like that. I refer to those who were Jews in an ethnoreligious sense, made pilgrimages to the Temple in Jerusalem, went to ritual baths, and observed the ancestral Jewish traditions - Although not all residents of Judaea belonged to this ethnic-religious group, the majority did. Tombah (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, in that case, you'll find there is no evidence at all supporting your assessment that the majority were ethno-religious Jews. It is an imagined truth. Read the article Ioudaios and its sources and you will understand what I mean. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally I find the question Tombah is raising to be very interesting. I think a new article on "Zionist views of Palestinian-Jewish heritage" would be interesting. Or the new article could be focused on the case of Jews called “Canaanites” by their adversaries, who then retained the name as a self-designation,[8] as the debate around that topic generated much of this discussion. If I remember right, this exact topic was covered in a chapter in The Invention of the Jewish People. It is also covered in The Israeli Identity and the Canaanite Option, and other articles.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, it might make for a really fascinating article. Maybe a more expansive "Theories on the Origins of the Palestinians" should be created to cover the various hypotheses put forth by both Palestinians and Jews. Tombah (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

So long as it is balanced, and well supported by proper research, there is no reason not to create an article that will fit into Category:Origin hypotheses of ethnic groups. Reviewing that category, it surprises me that there is no article called Origin of the Ashkenazi Jews, as about 100x more ink has been spilled on that topic than on the Palestinians' origins. There is of course Genetic studies on Jews which attempts to address the same question in a different way.

This is not a topic I currently intend to spend much time on personally. To me it is obvious that Palestinians descend partly from ancient Canaanites/Israelites/Judeans, and partly from all the other peoples that have lived in / moved through the "crossroads" of Palestine over the subsequent two millennia. And the same is true for Jews, most of whom will descend partly from converts in all the places their ancestors lived over the millennia, and partly from Canaanites/Israelites/Judeans who founded or joined those communities. And in our lifetimes we will get no-where near being able to scientifically assess how much each of these buckets contributed. That won't stop some people trying to "prove" Jewish DNA by connecting it to Palestinian DNA, whilst simultaneously claiming Palestinians are "immigrants". Onceinawhile (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Just returning to my proposal "Zionist views of Palestinian-Jewish heritage" or perhaps "Canaanite Zionism", I think it would make for a more interesting article. The fact is that most of the interest in the "Origin of the Palestinians" has come from the pre-state Zionist or modern Israeli perspective, with the objective of connecting Palestinian and Jewish identity. Any article written on the subject should be open about that. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tombah: Less elegantly put than others in this page, addressing genetic studies that corroborate genetic connections to specific populations, seek and you shall truly find! (Especially as there is a reward for doing so... that only works one way.) But seriously, until the Palestinian can share more than a genetic connection sequestered away somewhere in the genome, the ethnic kin on the otherside of the barbed wire fence is nothing more than a human being with bad intentions. Such is the one-sided affair of the matter. Kind regards JJNito197 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd be very cautious about adding new articles on ethnogenesis. Those we have are a terrible mess, esp. in genetics, with one paper piled onto another over decades, many of them contradicting each other, while the general conclusions of the summary lead etc., restate the same stale memes/myths preexisting genetic studies (the 2000 paper that Jews and Palestinians are genetically close (despite one conclusion, in 2017, which concluded that:'Ashkenazi Jews exhibit a dominant Iranian (88%) and residual Levantine (3%) ancestries, as opposed to Bedouins (14% and 68%, respectively) and Palestinians (18% and 58% respectively') is a notable case. When you get a new science arriving, by different sampling and different approaches, at results that vary from 3% to 40% to 60% of cpmmon ME genetic origin, the range leeway is too large to underwrite conclusions. We are dealing with minute variations in the 0.1% of the genome that shows ostensibly significant traces of infra-ethnic differences, which leads to massive inferences to shore up the given (gendered) assumptions (Religiously a Jew is such in terms of matrilineal descent, which reverberates in civil law. Since AJs are matrilineally European, you switch the criterion, and revive the Tanakh concept of patrilineality etc.) The existing articles require a serious overhaul and that should be the priority.Nishidani (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The “national genetics” articles are an embarrassment to our project. Mostly because they are almost certainly mainly written by editors interested in nationalism rather than science. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm a thumbless drongo at this kind of edit. We realter the pop1 sequence by first dealing with the population in the I/P area, which means making a separate voice for East Jerusalem =pop3 and then Israel = pop4, and then changing the subsequent numbers for the diaspora, pop5 Jordan etc. There are too many dated sources there. This the data base

• ’Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) Presents the Conditions of Palestinian Populations on the Occasion of the International Population Day, 11/07/2022,’ Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) 07/07/2022

14.3 million Palestinians in the world in mid-2022

5.35 million in the State of Palestine West Bank was 3.19 million Gaza Strip was 2.17 million

• East Jerusalem 362,000 Palestinians refKali Robinson , [https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-know-about-arab-citizens-israel What to Know About the Arab Citizens of Israel Council on Foreign Relations 28 October 2022 ref

• Israel 2,037,000 ( 21.1%) ref‘Israel’s population approaches 9.7 million as 2022 comes to an end,’ Times of Israel 10 December 2022 ref

Can anyone fix this? Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Usually the only thing to watch is that the Israeli stats includes East Jerusalem Palestinians. The SoP figures should include them, idk if they do though or whether by WB they mean what we mean ie inclusive EJ. Selfstudier (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)