Talk:Palestinians/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

02:42, 8 August 2012‎ Bali ultimate (talk | contribs)‎ . . (133,191 bytes) (-133)‎ . . (rvt edits that are designed to subtly push the proposition that there are no palestinians

I don't know what this means. Is there a "party line" on this page? I'm going to rearrange the lead so it is less confusing for the reader. The article can't jump into the past, it must first address the present. 171.8.66.113 (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead wasnt confusing, and with your multiple past accounts you should have realized that there is a revert restriction in effect. And as far as the claim that it must first address the present, the line you keep objecting to is addressing the present. You should be able to understand that the phrase are the modern descendants refers to the present, given that the word used is are. nableezy - 00:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Except for the line being vague and including people who are not Palestinian (any second generation Israeli is a "modern descendant people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries"). But I guess the people who want to push the POV that Palestinian is an ethnicity rather than a nationality with an ethnic component have a majority here, so there's not much that can be done. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP is the sock of a banned editor who is here to deny a people who have suffered plenty their very personhood itself. Repulsive. The language is clear and specific. That other people have lived in the area over various times is neither here nor there for this article. There are articles about them too -- hopefully that don't receive this degree of effort to "de-person" them.

talk

) 00:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The language is vague. What does "over the centuries" mean? Why is there a link to a region that was not well defined over most of its history? What percentage is "largely"? The Palestinians' personhood is linked to them being Arab[ized] and living in a specific place (British Mandate borders) at a specific time (early to mid 20th century). I have asked for examples of people who are Palestinian who do not share these 3 traits but nobody can come up with one. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, can you at least try to recognize that the edit that is continuously being reinstated by Lutrinae is garbage? The Palestinians are the majority of the people in the Palestinian territories and the Palestinian diaspora? Thats an improvement to you? nableezy - 01:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say or even imply I support those edits. I'm just pointing out there are problems with the current text. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't like the edit, than improve it. Blanket reverts don't seem productive, nor does attacking me personally. Trying to attach me to a banned user seems like Biting the New Guy. Contrary to an above biter, I'm not trying to deny Palestinian personhood or nationhood. The

Owners of this article are leading off with a shot in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This article has a neutrality banner for reasons like this. Instead of being a battleground, the article should be an article. 171.8.66.113 (talk

) 02:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

But you arent the new guy, now are you? You are in fact a multiple times banned editor (and that isnt attacking [you] personally, it is stating a fact), and the blanket revert was in fact productive and an improvement as it reverted the mess you made. nableezy - 02:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Who's making that mess? John Behind The Curve (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, I havent dismissed your concerns, and Id rather discuss this in another section, but youve asked somebody to give you a Palestinian who isnt a descendant of somebody who has [been] Arab[ized] and living in a specific place (British Mandate borders) at a specific time (early to mid 20th century). Sure, I can give you one. John E. Sununu. And throw in his father, John H. Sununu. nableezy - 03:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Which of those things don't they fit? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The third. Well, I guess that depends on when early 20th century starts. The NY Times gives the move from Palestine for H's father at the turn of the century nableezy - 04:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sununu Sr. was born in 1936, so unless his father left as a child he probably left in the 20th. But I'll give you late 19th if that helps. I think I said as much in one of the sections above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Since this pettifogging is not based on the construal of a sentence, but on nitpicking about a word or phrase, on each case taken out of its phrasal context, I'll repost it here. The whole sentence constitutes the definition, the phrases and adverbs nuance it. As it stands it is a fair an uncontroversial general definition of Palestinians today

the modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab.Nishidani (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick question: Why was it changed o "people" instead of "the peoples"? I don't remember having a discussion about that. Tiamut^talk 13:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. But I can't imagine anyone objecting to peoples being immediately restored. It is conceptually necessary, above all.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, what happened to Arabized?Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What does "over the centuries" mean? What does "largely" mean? Why use a link to an area that's not well defined? Just saying it's clear over and over doesn't make it clear. If these questions were petty as you also keep repeating, you'd be able to answer them by now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Over the centuries" means "Over the centuries" a period of time greater than 200 years. It reflects the evolution of culture, and is the most elegant way to give a time span for a long, complicated process (the precise particulars of which are not completely agreed upon by scholars). "Largely" means "largely" -- or "mostly," or, inelegantly "the vast majority but not the totality." The simple meaning of these words are in fact grasped by most adult native speakers of English.

talk

) 17:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone who reads or edits these articles is an "adult native speaker of English".

Not to mention that being a descendant of someone who lived in the area (again, which area exactly?) in a period of time greater than 200 years ago is not how most people would define a Palestinian today. It's a trait many of them have, but it's not the main trait that defines them, as I think we all know. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well ask jimbo if we can dumb the articles down to comic book vignettes, with balloons full of smart quips and plenty of global clichés so non-native anglophones can twig to all of the niceties, which you wish, in any case, to cancel. By the way, what is the 'main trait that defines them'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Arab[ized] people who were living in the area as defined by the British Mandate borders in the early to mid 20th century (plus perhaps late 19th, to make Nableezy happy), and their descendants. I'd think every person who considers himself Palestinian today would fit that definition, while a sizable number would not fit yours. For example, people who arrived with Ibrahim Pasha, or the descendents of Izz ad-Din al Qassam, and many others who can't trace their ancestry 200+ years back to the area. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second, over the centuries includes the past two centuries, doesnt it? nableezy - 20:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

NMMGG is simply trying to define Palestinians out of thin air. The definition we have comes from basically one source, and is corroborated by several others as reasonably well grounded. Editors don't define their subjects, RS do, and the refusal to actually accept what many sources affirm is getting rather tedious,

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATNishidani (talk

) 20:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not defining anything out of thin air, I provided several RS to support this definition, including the PLO charter. You simply dismissed the sources you don't like and are refusing to engage in a serious discussion about the matter. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are. Your sources mainly identified Palestinians as Arabs, that was the thing you insisted on. The one source you added which looked like an attempt at a broad definition(Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook, David Levinson, p.240, "Palestinians are Arabs who are indigenous to Palestine — the region that is now essentially Israel — and to the West Bank.") more or less confirms what our more precise definition says, despite the hapless POV and confusion that 'Arabs indigenous to Palestine' evokes (i.e. indigenous since the Arab invasion? or Arabized people indigenous to Palestine? The rest is just old 'Palestinians-are-Arab' equation which is meaningless. Invert it: 'Arabs are Palestinians', or vary it, 'Australians are immigrants/English'/'Israelis are Jews'/, etc.etc. It's looking everyone in the face, the fact that 'Palestinians are Arabs' is both empty and useless as a definition of a specific people. It's very useful as a POV, of course. Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine, which is what your formulation historically connotes. The PLO charter was written by an Egyptian (sorry Nab) Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The PLO Charter was adopted by the PNC which consisted of several hundred Palestinians. Not sure why you think Ahmad al-Shukeiri was Egyptian. He was born in Lebanon, but if you asked him I'm sure he'd say he was Palestinian. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The PLO Charter is no more a reliable guide to a definition of Palestinians than the Declaration of tyhe Establishment of the State of Israel is a reliable guide to the political, cultural and religious identity of the Jewish people. All political tracts play fast and loose with the truth, and no scholar would use them as anything other than self-serving declarations of political intents and purposes.

Yes, sorry about Shukeiri. I must have unconsciously deduced from the fact he served in the Egyptian diplomatic corps that he had adopted Egyptian nationality. My bad, as youngsters say.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A. That does not sound like a policy based reason not to include this POV (remember, NPOV requires we include all significant POVs, and one would think that a policy document by the representatives of the Palestinian people is quite significant).

B. You were strongly implying Shukeiri was Egyptian rather than Palestinian, not that he was a Palestinian who had adopted Egyptian nationality. Not nice, although not surprising at this point. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no policy based reason to include it, esp. since it was formulated in 1964, almost half a century ago. That there is a strong 'Arab' component to Palestinian identity is already in the definition. You want to hog it with an ambiguous definition defining them as 'Arabs' which would leave the reader perplexed as to whether we were talking of ethnic Arabs or peoples Arabized. No one doubts an Arab ethnic component. Pure descent or pure races don't exist anywhere, and priviliging one-line out of many, as is the fashion even in genetics, is just ethnic or nationalist chic, not science.Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The policy based reason to include it is called NPOV. Look it up. I have already agreed that it doesn't have to say they are Arab (which would not leave anyone "perplexed" about anything since the Palestinians themselves say they're Arab often enough). You are ignoring the rest of the problems I raised regarding the first sentence. Again, just in case you forgot, they are a. the area they're from as stated now is ambiguous and b. the timeframe now in the lead is also ambiguous. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

are the modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab

The reality is ambiguous. All major populations of the world, without exception, come from a variety of areas over a large time scale. In any case, we base our definitions (almost uniquely for wiki people pages) here on RS, and RS support the definition. In the meantime I could add several more that consolidate it, but will restrain myself from succumbing to the temptation. It's as fairly documented as any comparable page in wikipedia, and your objections are, in my view, pettifogging.Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The reality is not as ambiguous as you're trying to make it, and my objections are in no way insignificant. We know exactly what the area Palestinians come from is. It's the borders of the British Mandate. We have a more precise definition than "over the centuries" for the timeframe the Palestinians themselves (and others) use for when people who lived there are considered part of the Palestinian people. The PLO Charter and other sources can't be ignored just because you don't like them. This is an NPOV issue. You know, the same NPOV you insist on when it furthers your agenda. The same NPOV that is a pillar of wikipedia. Even Nableezy acknowledges there's a problem with the current text, although he probably won't go as far as changing it without your approval. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont require anybody's approval, thank you very much. I wont change it without consensus. Consensus is what I was waiting, even hoping, for. Not Nishidani's "approval". nableezy - 20:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

'It's the borders of the British Mandate.' Sure. The Irish come from the Irish Free State, they had no national identity or history before that, until they became Irishmen in 1922. I know many don't like being reminded of the obvious, but when the British drew the Mandate map, uh, a number of peoples, who just coincidentally happen to be the forefathers and foremothers of the present Palestinians, actually did inhabit the area, which they self-defined in their languages as Palestine. Deputies elected to the sancak of Jerusalem in 1912, 5 years before Balfour meddled with the place, signed themselves as representatives of all the land of Palestine (kul al-bilad al-Filistiniyya); in 1911 muftis, bishops and rabbis cosigned a petition signed also by the Mayor and members of the Jerusalem municipal council as "the elected body of the Palestinian population" against the murderous Italian assault on Libya, (Khalidi p.229 n.84) their presence predates their being defined Palestinians.

Precisely because Nableezy doesn't coordinate with me, or vice-versa you will find him here and elsewhere disagreeing with me, and vice-versa. If you go back you will see not infrequent differences of opinion re edits between me, him, or RolandR or Tiamut, and many others who are generally defined as 'pro-Palestinian'. I for one take pride in that, and if you think I call the shots here, you've misread Nableezy's character in implying he's a lapdog whose lolling tongue hangs on my every word. I could name editors on 'the other side' with whom I get on well because they have consistently shown independence of judgement from herd solidarity. So drop that please.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that paragraph of irrelevant information. Do Palestinians come from areas outside the borders of the Mandate? Or to put it in terms which might be more difficult for you to create a strawman argument out of, from the area that is now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza?

I don't think you call the shots. I do think I've rarely seen any of the editors you mentioned above support an edit by "the other side" when the others disagreed. You may argue amongst yourselves about how far to push your POV, but you rarely break ranks. This discussion is a case in point. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, that really happens. If you would like to debate which "side" suffers more from groupthink, I invite you to my talk page. Here though, lets try to keep the discussion focused on the article. nableezy - 20:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, Let's do that. Please share your thoughts as to the arguments and sources I've provided in this and previous sections. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ive already told you what I think, but sure, Ill do it again. I, personally, have no problem saying in what is today Israel and the Palestinian territories after the word Palestine. I do have a problem with removing over the centuries as even you say that [i]t's a trait many of them have. To only say that they are the people who have descended from those in the 19th and 20th century pushes the POV, by omission, that the Palestinians are newcomers to the region, a la Joan Peters. I think that the Palestinians are an indigenous people to Palestine should be in the lead. I am not wedded to the phrasing over the centuries, but I dont see a problem with it. I do see a problem with restricting it to the late 19th/early 20th centuries. nableezy - 20:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Is someone who arrived in Palestine in, say, 1940 (let's assume he is Arab[ized]) and is now living in a refugee camp in Jordan a Palestinian? Are his children? Wouldn't you say that saying they are decedent from people who lived there "over the centuries" is somewhat misleading?

The fact is that to be a Palestinian a person does not need to trace his ancestry back "centuries", although many probably could (at least in theory), and there's really no reason this article should imply that kind of ancestry is a requirement. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldnt be opposed to a definition that would be more open, so long as it also includes that the indigenous people of Palestine who have been Arabized (over the centuries) are todays Palestinian. nableezy - 21:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you remember what percentage the genetic studies said were part of a "core population" that was there since prehistoric times? I don't have the time to look right now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No I do not. Sorry. nableezy - 03:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have the book by Dr. Tessler. He takes care to present both sides version of events, and then tries to find a middle point. The part that is quoted on the Palestinian article is an except of the "Palestinian side", not his own voice. The article is presenting it like it is his own opinion, which seems wrong. It isn't vandalism. 218.250.106.165 (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I'm going to move this to the article talk page, OK? I reverted my revert.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Should there be a section with anti-palestinian hate crimes done towards palestinians(yes, internationally aswell, such as in sweden, america,britain,east asia or in palestine) stereotypes that fuels hatreds against them like the anti-semitic canard that palestinians are:

1 suicide bombers 2 extremely violent immigrant (or extremely violent) 3 unable to function in other countries then their own 4 high loyalty to palestine and not said country they immigrated to However, these anti-semitic canards might be used mainly against arabs and those of middle eastern ethnic groups and other semitic looking people and not specificly against palestinians. I might be wrong though.

if so, some help finding sources for these would be most welcome79.138.2.52 (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No more than a page on the American people should host a list of the country's systematic blasting of a dozen countries and decimation of their populations to smithereens since Vietnam, Cambodia, etc., and the extensive stereotyping about yanks that these episodes have generated. Some pages should be above politics, as just as most people are not to be characterized by phases in their history that might include

American People, Han Chinese, etc.)Nishidani (talk

) 10:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Your argument made me wonder when an article deserves(or if any article deserves it) to have a section that talks about the persecution of said ethnic group.Here, I gave examples of palestinians being persecuted in different parts of the world, but I supose its true, some articles should be above politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.2.52 (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

from the discussion above, it seems that there are those who feel that a person who lived in palestine at point 'x' in history is a palestinian, but someone who lived in palestine at point 'y' in history is not. it is not clear to me how we can include one and not the other. nableezy insists (and i might be stating this wrong, so please, nableezy, let me know) that only arabs can be seen as palestinians. i had written (on this page, that all people living in israel before 1948 were called palestinians. the companies they created included 'the palestine brewery (today it is 'nesher beer'), the palestine post (today it is the 'jerusalem post'), etc. -- i feel that the title needs to be changed to the article (list of palestinians). my suggestion is, for that article, "list of arab palestinians", or "list of palestinian arabs". and then, to create another article "list of people associated with palestine" and include a link back as well. (oh, i am discussing it here because nableezy asked me to). Soosim (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean then that all of those who editwarred against classifying

Jesus Christ as Palestinians, though many academic RS do so qualify them, were wrong?--Nishidani (talk

) 10:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

not familiar with that edit war, but i think the overall issue can be dealt with (two lists) Soosim (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

First, I did not say only Arabs, I said only people that sources identify as being Palestinian, not just anybody who lived in Palestine. Nish, I'm sorry, but I think you need sources that dont just identify so and so as Palestinian but ones that actually associate them with the people known as Palestinians today. nableezy - 13:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

But the point of directing you here wasnt to have the same argument here. If you think that Palestinian is not accurate, then you should be arguing for this article to be changed to

Palestinian people then the child article (List of Palestinians) will use the same nomenclature. nableezy

- 13:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

nableezy - you are saying that it is 'black or white' - either someone is palestinian or not. and that palestinian is not someone born in palestine (regardless of year) and lived in palestine, but someone who is sourced as being palestinian. correct? and this would include the child of palestinians who was born in denmark, doesn't speak arabic, has never been to palestine, etc., correct? but not include a person who is jewish, let's say, was born in palestine and lived in palestine, correct? and lastly....the lede says "The Palestinian people, (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī) also referred to as Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون‎, al-Filasṭīniyyūn), are the modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab." well, the lede says 'lived in palestine', and doesn't all, but only 'largely', so that certainly opens the door to people who are not "culturally and linguistically arab", correct? Soosim (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

What I am saying is that a. on Wikipedia a Palestinian is somebody who reliable sources say is a Palestinian (in the modern sense of the word). And b. the term Palestinian, in current usage, does not require the adjective Arab to modify it, as you can see from any number of sources. nableezy - 14:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Nab. I made a rhetorical point, since the ingrained habit of POV-pushers is to work from article to article, taking mutually contradictory stances according to the perceived politics (no reference to Soosim in this regard). As to your objection, the Palestinian people article is anomalous, as I have exhaustively documented, because it is the only article which denies an historic past and continuity with the past for the people who live there. It does so because the premise has been established that, uniquely, Palestinians must be identified in terms of national consciousness. On that principle, no article about the Welsh, Irish, Basques, Albanians, Kurds etc, etc.etc. etc., should have (a) material before the 19th-20th century. They all do. The veto or censure here, or premise, is politically motivated, self-evidently. Israelis qua Israelis have a history that starts with the establishment of the state in 1948, and the Palestinians also must comply. It's dumb mirroring for specious parity. One day it will be fixed, when encyclopedic editors prevail, but I'm in no hurry.--Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I dont disagree with you on the faults of this article. My point is that if you want to say Jesus or Justin Martyr was a Palestinian in the modern sense of the word you need a source that doesn't just call them Palestinian but relates that to the modern people. nableezy - 14:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Which completely misses the point I made. Soosim's point is rather incoherent, but shares the same premise you have: i.e., that Palestinians are only people defined by others, ot themselves, first by the British and then by the state of Israel, (and only lastly by themselves). One does badly to jump on anomalies in order to make any definition impossible. No people on earth can be defined as some editors are asking Palestinians to be defined - as I have often noted the parallel article on Jewish people fails several tests of this kind, but no one wants to adjust it, and I certainly am not going to fuss. Attempts to jolt commonsense by latching onto two decades of political definitions should be seen for what they are, destabilizing of commonsense, with a POV fallout. --Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It may miss the point, but thats because of the rules of the website. I am not saying that the British or the Israelis define the Palestinians, I am saying that here the only thing that counts is reliable sources. But I think you miss the POV fallout of including anybody from Palestine. You end up with edits like this in which the term Palestinian is disassociated from the people. That these people are no longer Palestinians but rather simply people associated with Palestine, and the identity of the people is denied.

So whats the answer here? I think the only way to deal with this is to limit the term Palestinian, in current usage, to the people that reliable sources identify as Palestinians or who self-identify as Palestinian (eg Uri Davis). Not in a general sense as in from Palestine, but of members of what is now called the Palestinian people. nableezy - 15:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Don'ìt misunderstand me. I'm quite aware of the games played here, and the nonsensical compromises and salients and defensive trenches one is forced to set up to avoid the onset of pure idiocy in the I/P area. But precisely because of this articles here are utterly distorted. I think one should take particular care not to to allow the agenda of these articles to be dictated by defensiveness against faulty assumptions, usually coming from you know where. Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree on self-identify. I have often read of

Eretz Israel, and regarded the term 'Palestine' as a disturbance to his identity (Story of my Life, Warner Books 1976 pp.24-5). The example adequately disposes of the assumption made by editors that, since Jews born in or carrying a Palestinian passport 1919-1948, ipso facto implies one is (a)entitled to define them as Palestinians (b) then destabilize the definition here. One uses reliable source, as you say. One mustn't make deductions. I note Mo Yan got the nobel for literature today. Well Gao Xingjian got it 12 year ago, but he is classified as a French nobel Prize winner because birthplace doesn't count, the citizenship adopted permanently at some point in one's life does.--Nishidani (talk

) 15:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

On that point, Speaking of the mid-1980s, Rayek Rizek of the NeveShalom/Wahat as-Salaam community,

blockquote>‘Very quickly I found myself in confrontation with some of the Jewish members over the question of my identity as a Palestinian. In Israel the standard term for us is Israeli Arabs. The meaning is that ethnically we belong to the Arab nations outside of Israel, while we owe our citizenship and allegiance to Israel. There is no place in this definition for our Palestinian nationality and culture.’ Grace Feuerverger, Oasis of Dreams: Teaching and Learning Peace in a Jewish-Palestinian Village in Israel. Routledge.

ISBN 9780415929394

. p.135

-I also completely agree with both Oncenawhile and Nishidani on what they have said here, there is no reason the Palestinians deserve a page that does not follow suit with other Ethnicity pages such as those stated above.

-Also I am with Oncenawhile in the view that this article should not be named "Palestinian Arabs". As we have discussed on here before, Arab is a cultural-linguistic term and does indeed muddy the waters. Palestinians, like many people around the world have been ruled by different empires and have absorbed varying degrees from each. Upon the Islamic conquest, Palestinians were ruled by an Islamic Arab empire and through those times they became Arabized in a cultural and linguistic sense, and although some genetic influx has been noted into the Palestinian gene pool from these times, it is minor admix, and the Palestinians have remained as a whole a distinct identity who's closest relatives are other Levantine Ethnicities such as the Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians.

-For example, this would be like renaming the Irish ethnicity article to "Irish English" because the Irish have been Englishized (Anglicized) through history and predominately now speak English and have absorbed bits of English culture.

-Regarding the "Israeli-Arab" term, I find it odd that there is no Israeli-Palestinian term, it's almost as if the Israeli's do not recognize a distinct Palestinian ethnicity and culture, but would rather lump them into the blanket term Arab because that in the modern sense disassociates them with Palestine or Israel. Lazyfoxx Lazyfoxx 22:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

shall Palestine be admitted as a New in United Nation member? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.254.191 (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Few questions and comments:

1. As far as I understand from the article and the comments I read so far, not all people who are born and have ancestors in Palestine are identified as Palestinians. Palestinian, in this definition is a self-denominated ethnicity.
2. Is it not clear to you all that Palestine and Erets Yisrael are just two different names for the same piece of earth? That's why Israeli and Palestinian are geographically the same thing, but politically it's something altogether different.
3. That's why, the definition of the lede is not neutral, rather politically motivated.
4. The denomination "Arab" neither, is not ethnical rather cultural, unlike what Onceawhile says. Syrians, Jordanians etc. are called Arabs, however they aren't ethnically Arabs, only culturally.
5. So, the most neutral way of calling the people mentioned in this article is "Arabs of Palestine" and not Palestinian people. If you're going to call them Palestinian people, then you've to include the Jews, the Samaritans etc. as well. If not, this is means you're doing just politics and thus not neutral editorship.
6. Another contradiction in the leading paragraphs is that you're including the Druze in the Palestinian people, however they do not consider themselves to be such... --Universal Life (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
7. One more point I need to say. See this sentence. "According to Rashid Khalidi, the modern Palestinian people now understand their identity as encompassing the heritage of all ages from biblical times up to the Ottoman period." Such a sentence in the lead is so much misleading. Most of the Turkish people believe that they come from wolves and many historical things are thought differently in history, so most Turkish people have a different information about their own identity and history than the rest of the world. So, can we include any of these misleading infos in the leading paragraphs about the Turkish people? Analogy! --Universal Life (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My responses:

1. It is more that some people chose to "opt-out" - i.e.

anti-zionist Jews do not consider themselves ethnically Jewish, Pakistanis whose ancestors came from what is now India do not consider themselves Indian, Greeks whose ancestors came from what is now Turkey etc etc etc. Many more examples are on Population transfer

.

2. See previous answer

3. I suggest you read the sources in the article.

4. I think you've misunderstood me - I think we are saying the same thing. The only thing I would say is that the "linguistic" is the primary sense of the word Arab to refer to Palestinians. Cultural is correct to but less so - the diversity of culture through the Arab world is significant

5. Sorry but no - i think you have misunderstood, see my other comments.

6. Some of them do - please read the sources.

7. I suggest you go an read about nationalism and ethnicity. There seems to be much that you do not understand.

talk

) 09:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Some responses back (not in order):

1. You assume that there's much that I don't understand about the concepts of nationalism and ethnicity and through that assumption you're avoiding to properly answer the questions and creating a wrong image that my points are there due to an absence of knowledge. This is completely wrong. (Assuming good faith, I say, probably you're not doing this on purpose, so don't take it as a personal attack, I'm just pointing to the effect)
2. The examples you gave do not provide good examples for this case. Let me explain:
3. There's a distinction between
   ethnic identity. National identities change over time, in fact, they change a lot, whereas ethnic identities do not change so easily. An ethnically Greek person of Turkey - called Rum - is Greek
   (by ethnicity) and Turkish (by nationality). If this person, due to some reasons - can be population exchange or migration - starts to live in Greece and gets Greek citizenship or feels belonging to Greece, his/her national identity changes into Greek (by nationality). You see how easily one's national identity can change.
4. I have a friend who is born in a village X of what's Bangladesh today. He says, he has been living all of his life in that village X and he thought of himself always as an "X"ian (belonging to that village X). He said to me, that they were (the people of his village) first "Indians" (by nationality), and one day they were anounced that they had become "Pakistanis" (of course still by nationality), and still another day some years later, they were announced that they had become "Bangladeshis" (by nationality) now. However my friend remained the same person (perhaps matured a bit both physically & mentally) during all those years. As you see the change in the national identity does not change the other identities.
5. There're also other identities, such as "religious identity" and "identity by geography" or "geographical identity". Such identities sometimes play role in ethnogenesis.
6. "Palestinian" simply means "Belonging to Palestine" and Palestine is simply a geographical region. I'm not referring here to the PA, as this article also doesn't define Palestinians as citizens of the Palestinian Authorities.
7. So, Palestinian art should mean any art produced in Palestine, be it in Tel Aviv or Jenin.
8. And Palestinian people are any people that live on Palestine and accept that piece of land as their-own, whatever be their race, creed, language or ideology and by whatever appelations they call themselves. Appelations or self-denominations are not significant in geographical identities as such appelations can again swiftly change through the influence of media and different ideologies.
9. "Palestinian" is basically a geographical identity and should include everybody and everything in its territories.
10. Do we have an agreement until this point? If not, could anyone clearly mention what is it that they think is wrong in this?

--Universal Life (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi UL, you raise some interesting points. Your reference to ethnogenesis is excellent - I see I was wrong to suggest you haven't read enough.

Your analysis does hit a wrong turn though. Ethnogenesis can go in reverse, and people can have multiple overlapping ethnicities. Your friend from Bangladesh probably sees himself as e.g. both ethnically

talk

) 13:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello my friend, reading your answer gave a positive smile to my face and made me happy. Actually I was worried that I would get some kind of an argument war, with people who don't listen to the other side of the argument properly - something I didn't want at all. So, first of all, thank you for having listened to what I've said and for having written back humbly. I'm happy we can speak through logic and open-mindedness :)

You're also very right about overlapping ethnicities and about my Bengali friend, you were correct suggesting he is Sylheti. However he's so old, he was of Indian nationality in his youth :)) - I like to befriend people from all ages, ethnicities and creeds. I've been to Bengal 6 times until now & I can speak & read some Bengali.

Similarly, since 2006, I've been very curious to comprehend thorougly about what's going on in Israel/Palestine, so I've visited the area 3 times and have read many sources from both sides and from so-called neutral sources (I haven't found one, I hope I'll write one in the future), including personal diaries of people living there around 1920s etc. I've both visited Palestinian Arab villages and Jewish communities (both secular and religious), trying to understand all of the sides. I befriend all, as I do not believe that enmity is found in the people but I rather believe that enmity is artificial and created and sustained by the leaders. (I can honestly say that Palestinian Arab kids in the East Talpiyot region of Jerusalem are very very good at football indeed :)) )

I'm planning to visit the area soon again and this time, I definitely want to go to

Al-Ramla

, to meet with Dalia, one of the two heroes of the book "The Lemon Tree" and to interview her if possible. :)

Sorry for the off-the-hook chit-chat, I'm not of any conclusive decision yet about the subject, it is a very deep and complicated issue indeed. However, I'll ponder and go deeper about the "going in reverse of the ethnogenesis" of the Palestinian Jews. Even though, I know a bit about the subject, I've to research a little more in order to give any conclusive answer. So, I'll answer back, rather saying that, yes indeed they've completely withdrawn from their Palestinian identities or yes&no, they've only partially withdrawn from that identity...I'll look into it.

While, I'm at it, can I suggest you humbly and friendly to read one excerpt from Einstein's letters about Palestine written in 1946? I would be glad to hear what you think about it :)

I wish to explain why I believe difficulties in Palestine exist. First, difficulties between the Jews and Arabs are artificially created and are created by the English. I believe, if there would be a really honest government for the people there, that got the Arabs and the Jews together, there would be nothing to fear...

...the English had two interests. The first was to have raw materials for their industry, also the oil in those countries...Everywhere there are big landowners who are exploiters of the human race...The British are always in a passive alliance with those land-possessing owners...
It is my impression that Palestine is a kind of small model

India

...
...I am compelled to consider in Palestine the Mufti (Amin al-Husseini)...
The electors did not elect him. They refuted him. The separatists used their power to bring him to his important position...

Now how can I explain otherwise that national troublemaking is a British enterprise?

— Albert Einstein, January 11, 1946; In front of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine

--Universal Life (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And I want to add one letter from Einstein to a friend of him:)

Dear Michele,

The article you sent me is a rather accurate report of my statement before the Palestine Commission in Washington. If you had an idea of the perfidy with which the English act to apply their well-tried principle of "divide et impera" (divide and rule), you wouldn't have been as surprised by the brusqueness of my charge as has apparently been the case. My testimony relies on very reliable information and was also much more precise than the article reveals.
If you see my name brought up from time to time in connection with political excursions, you shouldn't think that I spend much time on such matters, since it would be sad to waste much energy for the skimpy soil of politics. From time to time, however, a moment arrives when I cannot help myself,...when one can draw public attention to the necessity of a world government, without which all our human grandeur will go to the dogs...
Yours with affectionate regards,

Albert

— Albert Einstein to his good friend Michele Besso in April 21, 1946

--Universal Life (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi UL, I am glad to see I guessed right! I'm going to reply to your post on your talk page at

Evildoer, there are a number of problems with your edits and an important issue with your editing. To begin with the editing issue, when you make an edit that is challenged it is incumbent upon you to go to the talk page to seek a consensus for your changes. Re-reverting to make the contested edit is not how things are supposed to be done here. As to the actual problems with the edits:

• Why were Levantines, Mediterraneans, Sea Peoples removed from related to?
• Why did you change European Jews to non-Jewish Europeans to Ashkenazi Jews to indigenous European groups?
• Why did you change Jewish immigrants to Jewish returnees in the wikilink aliyah? You'll notice the linked article begins with Aliyah is the immigration of Jews .... Are you under the impression that the Jewish immigrants to Palestine had been there before?

Please self-revert your changes and seek consensus for them here. nableezy - 22:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• I put Mediterraneans and Sea Peoples back just now. I replaced Levantines with Middle Eastern peoples, as it's more general.
• Because when someone says "European Jew", they usually mean "Ashkenazi Jew". However, it appears that I forgot to take Sephardic Jews into account when I made that edit. A minor error in judgment.
• Regarding "European Jews to non-Jewish Europeans", I thought the phrasing was confusing, so I tried to make it clearer. I also don't see how "indigenous Europeans" is inaccurate, unless you believe Jews are an aboriginal people of Europe.
• I don't know why it says "immigration of the Jews" on the Aliyah page. However, in most if not all other contexts, it means "return of the Jews from the diaspora". In that sense, the word "immigrant" directly implies that Jews have no ties to the region. Not only is that inaccurate, but POV pushing in its own right.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Before editing again and again and again - can we get you to read over Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle one of our basic conduct essays. We talk - come to a consensus - then edit after the conversation is concluded.Moxy (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the recurring problems I seem to have is that conversations between me and other editors never seem to go anywhere, especially when the other guy has a fairly strong POV. In most cases, they just quit midway through the conversation so as to keep the article the way it is, knowing that I will be accused of edit warring if I try to restore my edits. Do I have a strong POV myself? Yes. I am of Jewish descent myself and it's hard to remain calm when I see half-truths, if not outright lies, about my people being promulgated throughout the articles (such as that we are "colonists" and "ethnically European"). Manufactured realities are a familiar part of our history, and that's one of the reasons I am here, to make sure everything pertaining to the Jewish people remains strictly accurate and above all, neutral.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to monitor your own neutrality as well as other peoples'. There is nothing neutral about "Jewish returnees" in reference to persons who have never been there before. It is a political statement and not a neutral expression. People who move from one country to another are called emigrants and immigrants. Those are the neutral words for them. Even the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics uses those words in its English pages. Zero^talk 00:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps because those other guys dont believe it to be neutral to call European Jewish immigrants to Palestine returnees and that conversion among indigenous Europeans plays no role in the population of Ashkenazi Jews. That isnt a manufactured reality, and you would do well to understand that your view on a topic does not equate to what Wikipedia calls neutral. Academic sources routinely discuss Jewish immigration, including illegal immigration, to Palestine. It is no more neutral to call these immigrants returnees than it is to call them invaders. nableezy - 00:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, would a Native American family be considered immigrants if they moved to America after about 100 years or so? If your answer is yes, then I will concede.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The two cases are not analogous, so I dont see the point of responding. I dont need you to concede, but Im hoping that youll recognize that Wikipedia is not Zionist, and that it shouldn't adopt a Zionist narrative. The idea that this is a return is a POV, one whose opposing POV is that this is an invasion. You very obviously identify with one of those POVs and reject the other, but that does not mean that yours is "neutral". nableezy - 01:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Evildoer, I do not understand your consistent reverts and edits on this area, if you personally believe certain groups are not related to eachother, that's perfectly alright, you're entitled to your own views, but you cannot make edits like this based solely on your beliefs. Also there is no reason to remove Levantines from the list and replace it with the countries that make up the Levant, that just adds more words, when people can simply click on the Levant and see the countries that make it up. Regarding the Jewish section, why did you change it to Israeli's? That is not very informative considering Israel has Palestinians in it's population, and other ethnic groups that are not related to Palestinians as well. Keeping it set as Jews, while linking to Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrahi, shows the various specific Jewish groups related ethnically and genetically to the Palestinians. Lazyfoxx 06:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see much of a point in adding Sea Peoples, because they no longer exist as far as I know. Other than that, the list is fine as it is now, I guess. All I did was remove some parenthesis.Evildoer187 (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it's best to just include modern peoples labels in this area, that is fine with me, although the Sea People's make up an important part of Palestinians history. Regarding Jews however, it is not accurate to encompass Askenazi and Sephardic's in the Levantine label, these groups are modern immigrants from Central Europe and Other regions of Europe, while some Mizrahi Jews are indeed Levantine, others are from other countries in the near east and do not belong in the label. Lazyfoxx 12:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

As part of a larger Jewish diaspora, both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews trace their origins to the Levant. That's why I included them as part of the Levantine group. I still think they should be included there.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a personal opinion that discards the views of scholars (eg Shlomo Sand}. nableezy - 09:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sand's views are WP:FRINGE and contradicted by more numerous scholars (i.e. Josephus, Bartal, etc) with expertise in the field of antiquity and Jewish history, of which Sand has neither. That's without even mentioning numerous genetic studies which undermine his theory of Khazar origins. As it stands, consensus does not support Sand's arguments, so we can not lend any more weight to it than we would to any other fringe theory. Evildoer187 (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Evildoer187, if you cannot disagree with another editor without accusing that person of being an antisemite, you don't belong here. Period. Now retract what you've written, apologize to nableezy, and maybe you won't end up at

WP:A/E. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk

04:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. I will delete the offensive parts of my statement then. I apologize.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I didnt see much wrong with it. But you may want to reign in the somewhat absurd analogies so that you arent comparing the work of a Jewish university professor at an Israeli school to an antisemitic forgery. As far as the content argument, Ill leave it to others to argue about the specific sources, but I dont think Wikipedia can take the position that all Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jews trace their origin to the Levant by any means other than tradition. nableezy - 06:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The article has been restored to the version before the edit war - And so we are all clear on this let me make sure all read the talk page main note at the top The article Palestinian people, along with other articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies - Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning.Moxy (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see that one of the older versions of this article has been restored. However, there are several problems with it...

• "Other Levantines" is unnecessary, because they already fall under the bracket of Middle Eastern peoples, along with the Jewish diaspora, Arabs, etc.

• Travelers is spelled wrong.

• Bedouin is not capitalized.

• "In recent years, many genetic studies have demonstrated that, at least paternally, most of the various Jewish ethnic divisions and the Palestinians – and in many cases other Levantines – are genetically closer to each other than the Palestinians or the various Jewish groups to European groups." This is a much more accurate and complete statement than what is already there. The study in question was carried out on multiple Jewish diaspora groups, not just Ashkenazi and European Sephardi. I don't hold a strong opinion on this one in particular, but I would still recommend this revision.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Evildoer, actually there is no reason to remove Levantines from the related peoples, in fact other Levantines are the most related peoples to Palestinians so that is a null point to have it removed, same goes for the Jewish diaspora and Arabs, both equally related groups to the Palestinians in different lights of view, it is nice to let readers know just enough specifics, but also to link them to the broader range as well, as is done with the "other Middle eastern peoples" at the end. Also if you find spelling errors, feel free to fix them, you do not need to worry, in fact I believe edits such as the misspellings of Travelers and Bedouin would be considered minor edits, because there is not much to dispute with spelling unless we are dealing with multiple language interpretation. Lazyfoxx 16:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)

Done. What about the fourth proposed edit. You still haven't commented on that.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello?Evildoer187 (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked it over and revisited the study, and do not think that it should be worded that way, because although the study does include some non-european jews in its studies, it also does include many european jews, such as ashkenazi and sephardic jews, who are classified as european jews by definition. If you still feel it should, I encourage more editors to share their insight on this, besides myself. Lazyfoxx 00:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have the "ʻAl kanfei Yonah" book?Could you please scan the relevant pages that correspond with your edits?--

Hi Shrike, what specific part of that section are you concerned with? Feel free to propose a "citations needed' superscript. The Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, by David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, Astrid Biles Beck, as well as The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia by Roger D. Woodard support the edits I believe, the edits coincide with the general history in the region. Lazyfoxx 11:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I am speaking about this edit that your sourced to Greenfeeld please supply the source [1].Until that please don't restore it.--

WP:RX

06:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Before blatantly removing material from this article because a person doesn't agree with it, do you not think one should give the benefit of the doubt and read Wikipedia:Citation needed while consensus and sources are shown regarding the content in question? Lazyfoxx 07:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)

Please read

WP:RX

08:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, Shrike. Lazyfoxx 09:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)

Do you own the book or not?--

WP:RX

16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop avoiding, and answer my question Shrike. To answer your question, the book is available publicly thanks to Google, if you are interested look into it yourself, and understand it was not me who initially cited that book. Lazyfoxx 17:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

[[2] The edit] is in itself fairly innocuous, except that (a) 'some traces of Hebrew' is wrong. One doesn't speak traces of a language as a language, and Hebrew died out as a spoken language in that area by the 3rd century CE. (b) the Arabaic Nabataean stuff raises complex issues, and even were it a precise description of a complex field, not relevant to the article. I can't see that in Greenfield, however. Greenfield, googled, gives pages 156 and 159 for me, with no sign of an intervening gap. Rather odd. How does one describe the languages spoken in Palestine on the eve of the Islamic conquest, by ethnos (Jews spoke Judeo-Aramaic and

Judeo-Greek (not Yevanic). Christians in Judea spoke koiné Greek and Aramaic, often called Christian Palestinian Aramaic, which is quite close to the Amaraean dialects spoken by Jews and Samaritans at that period. It is improper for Shrike to ask if you own a book. You don't have to own books: you can google them, but any request, such as he has made, for a precise pagination and either transcription of the disputed content or a link to the page, is normal practice.Nishidani (talk

) 18:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The book is not available at Google books and any other sources hence I asked for scanned pages. Lazyfox ignored my request. --

WP:RX

18:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

To the contrary, Shrike. It's searchable. You should really do some homework if you ask others to do theirs. Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--

WP:RX

18:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that you provided sources but didn't provide page numbers.Please do so.--

WP:RX

18:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Who is that addressed to?Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

To this edit [3]--

WP:RX

18:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Nishidani, I agree about the some "some traces of hebrew", that can be reworded to something to the extent of "and up until the 3rd century, Hebrew."

Now Shrike, you have yet to answer my question above, I wish you would, as I have responded to you. Also I do not own the book, I have read through it online and I will be happy to link you to it as it seems it is hard to reach, do not say I have ignored you, because I haven't, that is not being fair to me. Here, Al Kanfei Yonah Click on a page number once there and you are sent to the full volume, it's a good read. Lazyfoxx 18:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)

Opps, just noticed Nishidani had already beaten me to linking the book, thanks! Now Shrike, which part of the edit do you disagree with or express concern? Lazyfoxx 18:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to edit these details in uncontroversially, write simply:'Before the Arab Conquest, the languages spoken in Palestine, among the predominantly Jewish and Christian communities, were Aramaic, Syriac and Greek. Arabic was also spoken in some areas.

and source this to the following

Cyril Mango Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome It is unlikely that the use of Greek should have been more widespread in Palestine than it was in northern Syria, except for an artificial phenomenon, namely the development of the 'holy places'. Starting in the reign of Constantine the Great, practically every site of biblical fame became, as we would say today, a tourist attraction. From every corner of the Christian world people poured into Palestine: some as transient pilgrims, others on a longer-term basis. Monasteries of every nationality sprang up like mushrooms in the desert next to the Dead Sea. Palestine was thus a babel of tongues, but the native population - and we must remember that it included two distinct ethnic groups, namely theJews and the Samaritans - spoke Aramaic as it had always done. The pilgrim Egeria, who witnessed the Easter services at Jerusalem about the year 400, has this to say:

"Seeing that in that country part of the people know both Greek and Syriac, another part only Greek and yet another part only Syriac, given also that the bishop, although he knows Syriac, always speaks in Greek and neer in Syriac, there is always by his side a priest who, while the bishop is speaking in Greek, translates his comments into Syriac so that everyone may understand them. Similarly for the lections that are read in church: since these must be read in Greek, there is always somebody there to translate them into Syriac for the benefit of the people, that they may receive instruction. As for the Latins who are there, i.e. those who know neither Syriac nor Greek, to them also is an interpretation given lest they be displeased; for there are some brethren and sisters, proficient in both Greek and Latin, who give explanations in Latin."

Another element of the population of-both Syria and Palestine consisted of Arabs who had spread as far north as Mesopotamia. Some of them, like the Nabataeans of Petra and the Palmyrenes, had become sedentary and lost their native language. Others roamed the deserts either as brigands or as vassals of the Empire whose duty it was to protect the settled areas and oversee the transhumance of the nomads. We should not, in any case, imagine that the Arab conquest of the seventh century introduced a foreign element into those provinces: the Arabs had been there all along, their numbers were increasing and, in Justinian's reign, they assumed more and more the role of keepers of the emperor's peace. When, for example, the Samaritans staged a bloody revolt in 529, it was an Arab chieftain, Abukarib, who put them down.

(2) Joseph Yahalom ‘Piyyut in Byzantium: A Few Remarks,' in Robert Bonfil, Oded Irshai, Guy G. Stroumsa, Rina Talgam(eds.) Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures, BRILL, 2011 pp.317.335 p.320 Greek was spoken by the cosmopolitan Christian elite, Syriac by the local Christian Palestinian population p.320

(3) See Cyril Aslanov in Robert Bonfil, Oded Irshai, Guy G. Stroumsa, Rina Talgam(eds.) in the same book pp.390ff. I should add that some disagree with the general verdict that Hebrew had died out as a living language (Paul Wexler puts its extinction as a spoken language at that date). Odd varieties that write a creole of Hebrew and Greek are attested.

(4) Claudia Rapp, 'Hellenic Identity Romanitas,' in Katerina Zacharia (ed) Hellenisms: Culture, Identity, and Ethnicity from Antiquity to Modernity, Ashgate Publishing 2008.p.135

(5)Shrike like most editors on that side, dislikes the use of the epithet Palestinian. That appears to be his objection, though historians use it for the said period in writing of Palestinian Jews, Palestinian Patriarchate, Palestinian monks, Palestinian communities, Palestinian Talmud etc.

(6)The following passage should perhaps be registered on the page:

‘the most distinctive phenomena of Palestinian Christianity in the fourth century: the re-invention of Jerusalm as a Christian city, the emergence of Holy Land pilgrimage, and the establishment of monasticism.’ (Hillel I. Newman, 'Early Halakhic Literature,' in Robert Bonfil, Oded Irshai, Guy G. Stroumsa, Rina Talgam(eds.) Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures, BRILL, 2011 pp.629-642 p.631) Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani has made valid points here, while citing reliable sources concerning the linguistics of Palestinians, so I will work to reword the section and source it accordingly. Lazyfoxx 21:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)

Lazyfoxx could you please explain where does it say what you wrote in the article? Especially this " partial common ancestry or some recent ancestral influx from the Arabian peninsula. However it must be considered that these individuals may genetically cluster close due to geographical proximity rather than direct common ancestry, because some Bedouins, especially Negev Bedouins, have deep ancestral roots in Arabia and have lived in close proximity to Palestinians for hundreds of years.".As words partial and the last sentence in not in the source at all.--

I think it's called original research. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Shrike, I do express some concern with your edits as you have only included a small sentence from the study with no context and also failed to include other relevant information from the study concerning the Palestinian's genetics. First off, Autosomal Dna is noted to be similar with covergent populations, that is basic genetics, and this section about Palestinians is about their genetics, so accurate information should be expressed. Palestinians have lived in very close proximity to Negev bedouins, as they are and have been geographic neighbors. Also the rest of my addition, especially the bit comparing the Palestinians tested to various Jewish divisions is blatantly stated in the study, I suggest you read through again, the whole study in PDF rather than the abstract that is linked to in the reference. I believe the focus of the study was concerning Jewish populations and their relatedness to Palestinians and others if i'm not correct.

"According to a 2010 study by Behar at al titled "The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people," there is a close relationship between most contemporary Jews and non-Jewish populations from the Levant, such as Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, and Jordanians. Behar's explanation for these observations is a common genetic origin, which is consistent with an historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant. "

If you wish to insist that some Palestinians are related to Negev Bedouins and Jordanians, you must at least not cherry pick what you wish to include from the study and also include the information about the Jewish populations and their relatedness to the Palestinians. The study shows in autosomal comparison and y-dna comparison maps that only a portion of Palestinians cluster near the Bedouins, Jordanians, and Saudi's tested, not all of the Palestinians tested. Lazyfoxx 06:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The extended version still includes original research. Palestinians and Bedouins living in proximitry is no guarantee that they are intermingling (baby-making). Samaritans live in the Levant but many studies show that they don't baby-make much outside their communities. Bedouins, open and generous though they be, may not necessarily have been adding genetic material to their trade goods.

Also, it isn't cherry picking to discuss Palestinians without mentioning Jews. That argument, in this case, is self-defeating. Certainly you aren't suggesting that Palestinian identity is inexorably linked to Jews, right? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please show me relevant part of the source and how do you want to rephrase because your version doesn't appear to correspond to the source--

WP:RX

11:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Living in close proximity is no guarantee by itself that they intermingled, I agree with you Chicago Style. In the Behar study Shrike posted, it is shown that a few Palestinians cluster away from other Palestinians, more towards the Negev Bedouins in the study, this could, but does not positively indicate some geneflow between those individuals, however minute. Either way it would only apply to the small group of individuals in that cluster, not the group as a whole, and certainly not to the entire Palestinian population as a whole so I do not believe it can be applied in that context as Shrike intended with their edit.

But yes it is cherry picking in this context to only include a small sentence concerning Bedouins with no context from a study about "Jewish Genetics and the relationship of Jews to other peoples." Those actions show a considerable bias if the rest of the study is not considered and acknowledged. Let's say for example it was study on Irish people and their relatedness to other groups, and in the study the Irish are found to cluster closely to both some English individuals tested but also with some Scottish individuals tested. Now by your reasoning it is sufficient to just say that the Irish individuals are related to the English, without mentioning the Scottish? That would lead a reader to believe that the Irish are only related to the English. That is not accurate reasoning and in fact seems like there would be some agenda behind such actions.

Also, inexorably linked to Jews? Some of the early Palestinians were Jewish while some Gentile individuals, that much is fact, Chicago Style, do you have an issue with that? Jewish individuals like others in Palestine have been absorbed into the Palestinian people, when discussing genetics there's no reason to leave anyone out from an unbiased standpoint, especially the Jews. User:Lazyfoxx Lazyfoxx 07:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Your last paragraph really threw me. Do you have a sexxy-time viewing machine? Did Able make babies with Eve? Was Da Vinci gay? Is the milkman my dad? Genetics studies can be used to make inferences about the past. Only sexxy-time viewing machines can give you "facts" about past events. Please, enlighten me about how you know Canaanites = Jews = Palestinians and ≠ Arabs. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I really wasn't going to dignify you with a response after reading what you just wrote, what kind of response was that, honestly? You really threw me, Chicago Style. I try to assume good faith, but you show you are obviously quite an immature and agenda driven individual. Also, englighten me where have I said, and I quote you, "Canaanites = Jews = Palestinians and =/= Arabs"?

Rather than put words into my mouth with whatever agenda you are trying to fulfill, I suggest you draw your attention to articles you'd actually be able to improve rather than degrade articles like this with your behavioral nonsense.

My goal here is the improvement of this article and the protection of it from bias, especially from radical viewpoints but also from personalized viewpoints on the other sides and angles related to these topics, what is your purpose here? Lazyfoxx Lazyfoxx 11:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll agree it was on the immature side, but I've shown no agenda. You expressed the belief that the Israelites of yesteryear were absorbed into the Palestinian people. Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seemed like you were expressing the belief that Hebrews weren't a race, while Palestinians had an identity 2000 years ago. It's basically the Leila Khalid version of Golda Meir's "there are no Palestinians". Both are wrong. In the article, Rashid Khalili says that the Palestinian roots are deep, but the national consciousness is "relatively modern". So, my math equation was a question of why you said "Some of the early Palestinians were Jewish while some Gentile individuals, that much is fact, Chicago Style, do you have an issue with that?" That statement, besides being confrontational and accusatory, makes a claim of "fact" and I wanted to know how you came to learn this fact. I honestly thought you had a machine that could view people from the past having sex, because no geneticist would tell you facts about the past, only what modern DNA suggests. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how long you've been on wikipedia, but it has been discussed in this article countless times the history of the Palestinian people and what peoples contributed to their makeup, some of those peoples included Jews, others included Gentiles. Whether or not the ancient Hebrews were a separate race, I'd have to say no, as they were able to reproduce with other homosapiens. They were an ethnic group of people with a shared religion and customs, yes. And did some of those people become absorbed into the population in Palestine and become Palestinians along with the Roman gentiles and others? yes again. Lazyfoxx Lazyfoxx 14:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

So you know this fact because it is your interpretation of past talkpage dialogue. That is even more ridiculous than telling me you saw it on a sexxy-time machine viewer. By the way, (I assume you're a trained biologist because you were lecturing Shrike on genetics) a race is capable of mating with other races in the same species. We can observe this in a laboratory, and therefore know it as fact. You're historical knowledge, no matter how politically convenient, is not.Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

@Lazyfox:We should say only what the sources say we can't add anything from our head its called

No, Chicago Style, stop assuming, I know it's fact because through past dialogue discussions countless sources have been shown to indicate the facts about Palestinians in this article. Again, you are being immature and confrontational in your response towards me. It is not my personal historical knowledge, it is the knowledge from sources and history. Homo sapiens are a race, Chicago Style, there are subgroups of different ethnic groups within the race of homo sapiens, an ethnic group is not a separate race, if that were the case they would be a separate species and thus unable to produce viable offspring with other humans. Also, politically convenient? Who brought up politics besides you just now? If you wish to be a good wikipedian you should not be bringing up politics and focus on the sources and studies already found on the page. I think you have agendas on your mind other than the improvement of this article, and frankly I'm a bit annoyed. Also, it's spelled "your", unless you are implying that I myself am historical knowledge. Lazyfoxx 09:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)

I think pointing out petty grammar mistakes is immature and confrontational. So is trying to justify your unique definition of "race". Stop trying to score points and show me one, just one, source that proves a fact from 2000 years ago. An historian or anthropologist's assertion is not a fact. Also, was consensus achieved in these talk page recreations of ancient history? I perused the archives and see a lot of dispute and disagreement, even amongst editors with similar edit histories. This article should reflect the researched history of the Palestinian people, noting minority views when necessary, not Lazyfox and Saeb Erekat's Since Time Immemorial conjectures. Science and academics are quests for truth. Politics is trying to make others believe what you want. Which iz youz doin'? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, this article should reflect the researched history of Palestinians, which it does for the most part, editors have been working improve it throughout the years, although neutrality has been disputed concerning bias toward Israeli/Zionist views as well as Palestinian bias, the article cites many sources and provides researched history of Palestinians, so I do not understand what you are asking, besides talking in circles. If you wish to claim that we must not post information in this article about Palestinians because you believe facts from thousands of years ago need proving beyond anthropological evidence and researcher works, then I suggest you take a look at the articles relating to many more ethnic groups of people on Wikipedia, including Jewish divisions, I believe that the major Jewish claim to the land of Israel is that "God promised the land of Israel to Abraham thousands of years ago." I believe Israel and Zionists have defended this "fact" with that of the writings in the Bible, what do you think about that? Lazyfoxx 02:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Trying to pigeonhole me, eh? You had an issue with Shrike's edit, which was sourced. You changed the edit, making it about Jews, oh the Jews. Then you went on an orgy of edits, including claims as ridiculous as Canaanite origins (even though they are only mentioned in the Bible) and something called "Palestinian Ottoman". Please take a look in the mirror and see you are POV pushing. For example, you added speculation about what languages people in Palestine spoke based on literature. Doncha know that writing is different than speaking? In modern Morocco, the people are more literate in French than Arabic, their spoken tongue. Additionally, finding some stuff written down in Petra (a trader city with no singular identity) doesn't let you speculate on what they spoke. You should restrict yourself to commentary on modern-day Palestinians, since your grasp of history is guided by political convenience. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you don't have a response aimed at the question you asked me, seeing as how you are "pigeon holed" according to you. You don't know what you are talking about here Chicago Style, if you look again my initial edit of Shrike's edit did not "make it about the Jews" it simply included more information regarding the rest of the information from the study to convey Neutrality in this article. I am laughing at your accusation that my recent edits are POV pushed, all of my edits on this article are for the improvement of this article and I convey neutrality on the Israeli/Palestinian topic. When you say "including claims as ridiculous as Canaanite origins (even though they are only mentioned in the Bible) and something called "Palestinian Ottoman"." What does that even mean and how does it relate to my edit? You are rambling. And your edits, notably your most recent are clearly POV pushed, you are personally denying Palestinian history, which is cited in literature and sources throughout scholars, your recent edit on the article is nothing more than vandalism, not improvement of this article, and you should revert them. If you are concerned that something inserted in the article needs validation I suggest you read Wikipedia:Citation needed, before you go on a tirade of deleting informative content. Lazyfoxx 07:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"Denying Palestinian history"? So if I suggest that Palestinian national identity is less than 2000 years old, I'm a racist? Extremists from opposite sides of an issue are identical. You just pulled the "dont support Israel (unconditionally)? Must be an anti-Semite" card. Your last comment makes it seem that you see anything putting Palestnians in a bad light to be an indication of Zionism. Your black and white world must make you feel very righteous.

Upon rereading my comment, I noticed I misspelled "Palestinian". Betcha caught it and think Imma racist. But seriously, all narratives of history deserve a grain of salt. You seem to do what Creationists do, start with your beliefs and look for evidence that backs it up. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Who called you a racist? I simply stated you are denying the history of Palestinians, which is clearly what you're doing. And how did I "just pull" the "dont support Israel (unconditionally)? must be an anti-semite card"? Explain yourself clearly. And no Chicago Style, I do not start with my beliefs and look for evidence of it, but thanks for another accusation yet again. I use information I have researched and found to be both informative and educational regarding the Palestinians and their history. You on the other hand do quite the opposite, it seems most of your edits since you have joined wikipedia have been deleting content from articles that you find offensive or do not fit your viewpoint. Lazyfoxx 16:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You implied I was both a racist and a fundamentalist. Now since you cant explain how you know historical facts you cant possibly know, ill explain how you use Creationist logic. Now, this game only works if you are honest with yourself. Do you read scholarly material and then think, "hmm, should be on Wiki", or do you use google books searches to find phrases you want to back up your opinions? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that I implied things about you is not the same as me actually saying things about you Chicago Style, do not put words in my mouth, that is childish, the only one calling you a racist and fundamentalist is yourself. I know history on this subject, the Palestinians, by books on the subject, lots of reading, something I suggest you do in relation to this and every article you intend to edit, I also suggest you read Wikipedia's policies regarding vandalism, and also material regarding "citations needed", if you personally disagree with something on the article you are welcome to voice your opinion, do not go around deleting content left and right without discussing it. The goal here is to improve the article through understanding and consensus, not removing things you don't personally agree with. Lazyfoxx 19:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

So this is what it comes to when you can't respond? Personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. I say "assume" because I can't read your mind. But you said,"I believe Israel and Zionists have defended this "fact" with that of the writings in the Bible, what do you think about that?" What does the little quib on the end there mean? I assume it means you are lumping me in with "Israel" and "Zionists", which you seem to think are the same thing. Again, you are mimicking the extreme of the other side. Extremists lump "Palestinian" together with "terrorist" and you are doing the same thing in reverse.

You also said I am "denying Palestinian history". So if someone disagrees with your views, they are a "denier" or "in denial". Again, you think your opinions are facts. I assume you have good faith. You, in good faith, are trying to support the extremist view of Saeb Erekat and Leila Khaled. That's great, passion is a good thing. But maybe you should find a different website that lets you use your opinions, like Reddit, instead of something factual, like Wikipedia. Finally, I haven't removed material, I've rephrased it to be more neutral. It may be shorter, it may be longer, but it was never a hatch job. For example, I corrected the naming of Palestinian Arabic as a dialect to a sub-group. You changed it back. Why? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

<ref>'the surviving mass of of the population, overwhelmingly rural, remained in place. The Romans did not have the means for deporting hundreds of thousands of peasants. Nor was it in their interest to depopulate the countryide: the peasant population was a valuable source of revenue for Rome. . . Ironically, the Palestinian peasants have a great claim than today's Jews to be descendants of the ancient Israelites'. [[Moshé Machover]],''Israelis and Palestinians: Conflict and Resolution,'' Haymarket Books 2012 p.259.</ref>

What makes Machover RS for this? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Haymarket isnt the greatest publisher for this, so I dont object to it being removed. I dont object to it being restored either as it probably still meets WP:RS. nableezy - 22:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

How do you figure it probably still meets WP:RS when Machover is not a historian? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

See below, Im basing it on the reputation of the publisher. nableezy - 22:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

See below, I seriously doubt that's enough. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Source 21, Michael Prior's, says "While population transfers were effected in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian periods, most of the indigenous population remained in place."

Source 18, Encyclopedia Britannica, says "These conversions to Islam, together with a steady tribal inflow from the desert, changed the religious character of Palestine’s inhabitants."

So my edit was not "WP:OR deductions that fail to follow the cited sources" I read the sources, then used what the sources said. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There also Behar at al study that tell about common origin from Arabian Peninsula .--

WP:RX

11:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

These are not actually incompatible, since different time periods are involved. Zero^talk 11:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Behar study is a primary source. We need a secondary source to show how genetic research into the genome-wide structure of the Jewish people relates to the topic of this article, Palestinian people. Dlv999 (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well Nebel at al is too primary source, so lets remove it too?--

WP:RX

12:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As Zero says, there is nothing incompatible in those two sources, if they are read intelligently. Secondly 'multi-ethnic' is true of almost all populations, and, in any case, the sources adduced to support the sentence speak of the local Palestinian population, not the multi-ethnic character of that population. Thirdly, the recent trend to resolve all questions by rewriting general pages according to provisory genetic theories is not acceptable. Genetics is one of several discourses bearing on these issues, and cannot trump or fly in the face of what historical and linguistic research may argue. Most of these genetic papers are appallingly bad on historical questions, for example. It was

WP:OR to construct a multi-ethnicity label for the Palestinians from the sources given. Nishidani (talk

) 12:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the Behar study doesn't have any bearing in the lead sentence. But the additions that I made all came from sources that were already sourced and quoted in the article. The two quotes above I paraphrased. I changed "desert" to "area" because the modern states of Syria and Jordan, the Northern Saudi, and the Sinai Penninsula are all largely desert. The multi-ethnic label came from the already quoted Prior source. He says "Palestine has been multi-cultural and multi ethnic from the beginning." I agree with Nishidani that many current populations of the world are multi-ethnic. This is largely from globalization, I would think. Palestine, being at the crossroads of Asia and Africa, not to mention on the Mediterranian, means it was probably globalized before globalization was cool. Not to mention the sight of numerous wars. Wars tend to cause dessertion and other "war baby" phenomenon. But this is all OR.

Since I'm using present sources, I think my edit was helpful. Even how I changed "people" to "peoples" follows the sources better as well as better reflects the body of the article. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think multi-ethnic is warranted because most definitions of modern Palestinians includes Samaritans, Druze, Bedouin, and others. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What you or I think is irrelevant. We stick to sources, and write under the non-alcoholic influence of the language used in sources. I am opposed to 'special treatment' for Palestinians or anyone else. The next thing we will have is the sister page on Jewish people being re-edited to assert they are multi-ethnic because they have admixtures. It's irrelevant. Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you read my post? Did you read the sources? I've added nothing from my brain. It is all in the sources. If you don't like multi-ethnic, then rephrase it. Your flat-out reverts, not to mention your use of language in your edit summaries, is not condusive to good editting. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

the multi-ethnic peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, in addition to various population transfers from conquering powers and tribal inflow from the area.

'Population transfers from conquering powers' refers to Prior. The Assyrian population transfer was of a small administrative and sacerdotal elite from Jerusalem to Babylon, out of Palestine, except for the argument that the Samaritans were imported Cushites, a theory reflecting according to much scholarship reflecting post-exilic Judean enmity for the peasant class that remained rooted in idolatry, or another form of Judaism, Torah-worship, to the north. The section then adds 'most of the indigenous population remained in place'

I compiled nearly all of the sources, so it's fatuous asking me if I read them. Multi ethnic is used in one, Michael Prior again, who refers to the many tribes and groups who since Biblical times have had residence there. All of the other sources assert the indigineity of the people of Palestine, the fact that Jews (multiethnic) became Christians became Muslims i.e. relative population stability as opposed to credal instability and, territorially considered as a modern nationality, became 'Palestinians'. Your edit is designedly POV because it ignores some sources say an indigenous people, others people, several emphasize the continuity of one population base for the fellahin, several note that the influx from the east were of other semites throughout history, all related to one 'ethnic' complex, etc.etc. The sources conflict on mnany details, Parkes asserting the majority of Palestinians aren't Arabs, for example. You have, in other words, privileged one word in one citation of several to recast the content in a way that cancels out what several other sources are affirming, continuity of descent in the basso ostinato of a Palestinian people. What you did was look at Prior to find stuff you liked, and then use it against all of the other sources. The sentence was crafted to reflect all sources, not through just a part of one of them into highbeam relief. That The sentence was worked out by a dozen editors and has remained stable. Bad spelling is not 'conducive' to 'good editing'. The Chicago Manual of Style is not particularly strong on orthography.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Two of the sources clearly point to a small admixture. You seem to be overwhelming these two RS to say that the Palestinian People are a monolithic entity. I wasn't adding POV, and it is against AGF for you to imply that I was for the simple act of adding a more rounded story, straight from a pair of RS. The body also supports my contributions. For example, a genetic study finds the Palestinians to be related to peoples from the Levant (not the modern borders of Palestine). Additionally, only a "core" reaches back to pre-historic times, suggesting an arm or leg is from admixture. Rashid Khalidi agrees, saying Palestinians concider all the newcomers to be part of their heritage. Qleibo says (in the article) "Throughout history a great diversity of peoples has moved into the region and made Palestine their homeland:Canaanites, Jebusites, Philistines from Crete, Anatolian and Lydian Greeks, Hebrews, Amorites, Edomites, Nabataeans, Arameans, Romans, Arabs, and Western European Crusaders..." I've added a brief description of how these peoples influenced them, culturally and otherwise. Another thing from the body, "One DNA study by Nebel found genetic evidence in support of historical records 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". Notice the "part, or perhaps the majority". This corresponds with how Prior says "most" stayed in place. Most implies there is a statistically signifigant part that didn't.

If you don't like my wording, then rephrase it to something that doesn't make your knee jerk. But balance, and RS, don't allow for a description of Palestinians as an island. On a personal note, it's self-defeating to mock my spelling after two poorly worded sentences with typos of your own. Do the birds smack the walls of your glass house? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

NO. To simplify, since you don't grasp the point. You took one quote, of several, and prioritized Prior's slant in a way that cancelled out what the other sources for that sentence were saying. Those sources, parsed against each other, contradict each other in many nuances. The sentence must adequately sum up all the sources, not just one, and the essential point made by nearly all adduced sources was that the basic stratum of the population over time, millenia, has been stable, though enriched (as all populations are) by desultory immigration. No people is a 'monolithic entity'. In other words, 'races' or 'ethnoi' in a sense of uniquely uncontaminated descent from a Stamm don't exist. Excptionalizing them as your edit does, makes an anomaly of a people whose complex descent is within the norm of human populations which, on other pages, are simply described as 'Welsh', 'Kurds', 'Egyptians', 'Jews', 'Japanese' associated with a territory, a common culture and language. That's where you show a distinctly flaunted attempt to tilt in a POV. Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point. But Prior and the Encyclopedia Britannica aren't contradicted by the other sources in the lead off. They mention things that the others don't touch on and don't contradict. In addition, Prior and Encyclopedia Britannica are backed up by Khalidi and Qleibo from the body. My edit doesn't make the case that the people haven't been stable over time. You admit that Palestinians have had admixture, like all people. My edit shows the sources of that admixture, conquest (that spot of land so many have coveted for religious, economic, and geographic reasons) and migration (a fact of life where Africa meets Asia meets the Med). Saying that conquest and migration has happened does not mean that the area hasn't had a stable population base that expresses itself through a stable culture. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop trying to force your proposed change through. The 1RR is not an entitlement to revert once a day. A number of people have objected to the

WP:UNDUE weight that you give to a single quote. nableezy

- 18:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't from one quote. There are two sources cited in the sentence that support the edit, along with numerous sources from the body. Please read my above post. Additionally, Shrike supported the edit, while all the others except Nishidani only opposed the Behar study. So right now it is two vs two. But more importantly, I am directly citing sources. If you feel it is undue weight, then please edit the material instead of removing sourced material that you don't like. I've reverted on average 36 hours later after posting a reasoned response on the talk page. So let's all try to be civil and stick to RS. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't support the edit. Prior emphasizes the continuity of the indigenous population: "the Palestinian Arabs are likely to have been descendants of the inhabitants of the region from the earliest times" (pp 200); "While population transfers were effected in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian periods, most of the indigenous population remained in place. Moreover, after Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 the population by and large remained in situ, and did so again after Bar Kochba’s revolt in AD 135. When the vast majority of the population became Christian during the Byzantine period, no vast numbers were driven out, and similarly, in the seventh century, when the vast majority became Muslim, few were driven from the land"(pp 201). While your edit seems to overemphasize the "population transfers" and "tribal inflow", especially when you consider you are trying to introduce this into the first sentence of the lead. The EB citation is a History of a specific period of Palestine. I'm not convinced as to why one particular historic detail in thousands of years of recorded history should be cherry picked and inserted into the lead of this article. The source certainly does not indicate the importance of this detail to the topic of the article: the Palestinian People. Dlv999 (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

As per Dlv. One might add that the trick here has been to take one several sources, take out two key phrases from one depicting one small event two and a half millenia ago 'population transfer' (an unfortunate lapse by Prior since it is a modern term of post WW2 vintage referring to Nazi projects, the Indo-Pakistan events 1947-8, the Zionist proposals that the nakba was a normative 'population transfer' opportunity (not yet, according to many tracts and positions cf.

Babylonian exile. It refers to Israelites,(themselves a huge ethnic mix of tribal peoples) and is an outflow. The 'tribal inflow' more or less could refer to anything in the history of Canaan-Judea-Palestine from the late Bronze Age to the 20th century, but to careful eyes, hints at the Islamic conquest of 630s CE. (Aside from the fact that coming fresh to wikipedia and to an article like this, suffering an immediate suspension for edit-warring, and then coming off it to edit war without an eye to consensus, does not inspire confidence).Nishidani (talk

) 10:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I was banned 48 hours for being a bit short of the 1rr rule. I've been civil this whole discussion and have come with RS and copious support from the body. When the article leads off with a history lesson instead of a definition, it should be a weighted history lesson. We can't interpet away what RS says. It says there was admixture. As DLV points out, only the majority stayed put. A minority that is mentioned by multiple RS is signifigant. Therefore the Wiki policy on weight requires that it be mentioned. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What's interpet mean? Smooching with or grooming each other?

'are the modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries.' Let me construe that for you. That sentence is not a history lesson, it is a commonsensical definition paralleled by almost every definition of peoples on wiki, (and you want to make, by your edits, Palestinians look exceptional, definitionally). It is neutral as to these polemics. It does not say a people, implying a unified population. Without the definite aricle it is a plural, meaning any number of peoples/ethnoi. Since the place was a melting pot in the past, and since we are talking of the present politically constituted people called 'Palestinians' in the definition, what you are trying to overegg is already present in the carefully phrased, and much discussed sentence. You did not reply to the objections. Nishidani (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

As you recently said on the Hebron Massacre page "go with the sources and to heck with everything else." If I misquoted you or misspell something, be sure to ding me on it, because you're running out of ammo. Look at other "peoples" pages, they are defined by what they are, not what they were. The French people page doesn't mention their Celtic, Latin, and Germanic descent until the end of the paragraph. If you object to the edit, please explain what Rashid Khalidi was talking about. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edit summary is meaningless. 'Bounties from the body' sounds like a sheriff paying cash for a body of an outlaw'. You have a majority identifying your editing here as against consensus. You refuse to do anything more than reassert your convictions on the page, and ignore arguments that show their flimsiness. etc.etc. Seven sources are to be summarized, not the only one that supports your POV.'The French people page doesn't mention their Celtic, Latin, and Germanic descent.' Precisely. Neither should this page mention 'multi ethnic descent'. It merely states what all sources say, that they are mostly descendents of people who have lived in that territory for ages. Nishidani (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You just misquoted me and continue to ignore the multiple sources that support my edit. I won't revert but will make small changes in an effort to improve clarity. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the following ref from the first sentence of the article:

<ref>'Palestinians are an indigenous people who either live in, or originate from, historical Palestine. .Although the Muslims guaranteed security and allowed religious freedom to all inhabitants of the region, the majority converted to Islam and adopted Arab culture.' Bassam Abu-Libdeh, Peter D. Turnpenny, and Ahmed Teebi, ‘Genetic Disease in Palestine and Palestinians,’ in Dhavendra Kuma (ed.) ''Genomics and Health in the Developing World,'' OUP 2012 pp.700-711, p.700.</ref>

This is from a medical paper, so doesn't seem to be RS for history. Thoughts? Some people are "completely indifferent to whatever geneticists say about history, unless they are practiced historians" [4]. I'd assume this goes for medical doctors as well and not only when relating to specific religions. I wonder who added this ref to this article? Oh dear [5]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldnt be used here because the paper is only tangentially related, but thats the only one of the three where you have a strong case to remove. nableezy - 22:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, reading the source, I take that back. But I would drop the Although the Muslims guaranteed security and allowed religious freedom to all inhabitants of the region, the majority converted to Islam and adopted Arab culture from the quote in the ref. nableezy - 07:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

For reference, here is the source on google books. nableezy - 07:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Read the first 3-4 paragraphs and tell me this source should be used for anything that touches on history. It looks like something a 10th grader did fact checking for. I mean, can I use it as a source to state as fact that "Moses led his people out of serfdom in Egypt", "the Philistines controlled Jerusalem", "Palestine was the first qabla[sic]" etc? Come on. I'm sure they're great doctors, but this is ridiculous. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldnt use it for specifics on history, but on genetic makeup or on being indigenous to the region I think its fine. I might be wrong. nableezy - 07:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is important that we have a broad range of experts in diverse academic disciplines as sources for the first statement, which is the definition of the topic Palestinian people. This would include geneticists who have published on Palestine and the Palestinians. We don't need to use this source for the historic details, but the definition of Palestinian People is not a historical question so we do not need only site historians for the first sentence. Dlv999 (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, according to you (and so far one other person who bothered to respond to the question at RS/N) this information can be used in any article since this paper was published by a high quality academic press. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think youre taking the argument a bit further than I, or anybody else for that matter, did. Something published in a high quality academic press is prima facie reliable, but only for its subject. I couldnt for example take an astrophysicist's paper published in a journal on astronomy published by OUP that contains a throw-away line on an unrelated topic as a reliable source for that unrelated topic. But if OUP published a book by him that was actually focused on that topic, yes it would on its face be a reliable source. nableezy - 17:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

But that's exactly what's going on here. It's one throwaway line from an error filled introduction about the history of the region. The paper doesn't deal with the indigenousness of the Palestinians other than this one line, as far as I could tell.

Anyway, this is not the argument you made below. "Only for its subject" doesn't appear there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I dont think its a throwaway line. But I already said I might be wrong about this one, and by all means take this one to RS/N as well. But this is actually the argument Im making below, see where, in response to you writing I seriously doubt the policy is that anything and everything published by an academic press is considered reliable, I wrote If it's on-topic then yes it is. It was not meant to be a reference to an individual sentence in a book on another topic, it was meant to reference the work as a whole, or at least a substantial portion of it (a chapter for example). And also see my earlier question to you about a book published by a publisher specializing in academic works and, very obviously, directly related to the topic of the article. I included directly related to the topic of the article for a reason. nableezy - 17:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. At RS/N Judith seems to be saying that being published by an academic press makes something prima facie RS. That was the question I asked there based on the conversation we had here. The topic of the work wasn't an issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

She also said that being prima facie reliable still leaves a lot of room for debate. nableezy - 19:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

<ref>'While population transfers were effected in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian periods, most of the indigenous population remained in place. Moreover, after Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 the population by and large remained ''in situ,'' and did so again after Bar Kochba's revolt in AD 135. When the vast majority of the population became Christian during the Byzantine period, no vast number were driven out, and similarly in the seventh century, when the vast majority became Muslim, few were driven from the land. Palestine has been multi-cultural and multi ethnic from the beginning, as one can read between the lines even in the biblical narrative. Many Palestinian Jews became Christians, and in turn Muslims. Ironically, many of the forebears of Palestinian Arab refugees may well have been Jewish.'[[Michael Prior (theologian)|Michael Prior]],''Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry,'' Psychology Press 1999 p.201</ref>

Another person whose main credentials seem to be being an anti-Zionist. What makes him RS for this? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Psychology Press is an academic publisher, a part of Taylor & Francis. That is, on its face, a reliable source. That the author is not a fan of the greatest movement the world has ever known is not a valid reason for removing it. What basis do you have for challenging a book published by a publisher specializing in academic works and, very obviously, directly related to the topic of the article? nableezy - 21:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Mr Prior is not a historian? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Read

WP:RS for why that isnt an answer. Matter of fact, to save you the trouble, Ill quote the relevant portion: Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. You see that word or right? nableezy

- 22:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I do see the word "or", but believe you are misinterpreting it. A "reliable publication process" would be for example, a newspaper known for fact checking, not a daughter company of an academic press that does not have a reputation for checking the reliability of what it prints. We can take this to RS/N if you like. But if Nishidani doesn't revert his restoration of these without allowing even an hour for discussion, I'm going to have to seek admin intervention. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Im not. And I know this because Ive read the rest of that page. Here's another quote for you: Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars. You see well-regarded academic presses? You want to argue that Psychology Press, or Taylor & Francis, is not a well-regarded academic press? nableezy - 22:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the policy is that anything and everything published by an academic press is considered reliable, but we can take this to RS/N and find out. I'll be glad to learn something new. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

RS/N No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's on-topic then yes it is. But Ill comment there. And you can use a wikilink to link to a section, as in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliable_press.2C_outside_area_of_expertise nableezy - 22:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And for some reason I doubt youll get the reception youre looking for with admins if you complain that a person reverted your removal of sources that had been present for 7 months. But you can certainly try. nableezy - 22:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

We'll see about that if he doesn't self-revert. I'm tired of this crap. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Which crap? That your removal of material that has been untouched for 7 months is reverted? In that case, I suggest reading the first several sentences at

Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Reaching_consensus_through_editing. Material that has been untouched for months has implicit consensus. You made an edit, it was reverted. Thats how it goes. nableezy

- 22:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Machover ref was added yesterday. Not a year ago like Nishidani said in his edit summary, or 7 months ago like you say above. The two other refs were added less than 6 months ago. I deliberately made a seperate edit for each ref so if someone has a specific problem they can deal with each on its own merits. Then Nishidani reverted all 3 with a false edit summary. But seriously how can you claim "implicit" consensus when you participated in the explicit discussion which wasn't allowed to go on for 20 minutes before the revert? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Then Nish should remove the Machover ref. Prior was added 30 July 2012, sorry for the math error. But six months or seven, it had consensus by virtue of not being challenged. You are now challenging that, which is fine. But its your change that requires a new consensus, not the other way around. Otherwise users can remove anything they wish and demand a new consensus be established to reinsert the material. Im fairly certain that that isnt how things work here, otherwise there are a number of edits that reinserted a certain line that certainly doesnt have consensus now at Jerusalem that should be looked at as well. The only circumstance, that Im aware of at least, that allows for such behavior is a claim of a BLP violation, and what is needed is consensus that the material is not a BLP violation before the material is restored. Are you claiming a BLP violation here? Because if not, you have no right to demand that Nishidani not restore references that have been in this article for months. nableezy - 04:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The difference here is that there was no prior discussion about these sources. So, how long after an edit is made and nobody notices does it have "implicit consensus"? Could you point me to the relevant policy/guideline that defines this timeframe? Does "implicit consensus" allow an editor to just revert rather than participate in an open discussion? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In reverse order, that was the last edit he's made. I suspect among the next ones will be one to this page. Chill. No I cant. But I think its safe to assume that about 6 months is plenty. As far as no prior discussion, I think thats what makes it implicit. nableezy - 07:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The sudden removal of sourced content by Mr_Nice_Guy falls under, WP:vandalism. Silvertrail (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No it doesnt. nableezy - 22:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Sock. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not call me names because I pointed out what I thought was a violation of policy, Nableezy can you please explain to me why it is not vandalism, I am a new user. Silvertrail (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

See

WP:VANDAL. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". I'm quite ready to believe that Mr Nice Guy believes the material to be unreliable. He's wrong in that, but I see no evidence that he acts in bad faith. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 00:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Stephan, my interpretation is that Mr_Nice_Guy removed the content before discussing it on the talk page, if he was concerned about contents reliability, I thought I read that editors are supposed to bring it up in discussion first and reach a consensus instead of deleting sourced material. Silvertrail (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I agree that his action was not optimal. But this is not a dichotomy. There is plenty of room between "perfect" and "vandalism". Also see

WP:BRD. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 00:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I just wasn't sure on how or how not dichotomous the policies were on Wikipedia. I just think people should wait and discuss things before they delete them, if people go around deleting content on Wikipedia before discussing, eventually this website will be blank. Silvertrail (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Moshé Machover is under any case not a WP:RS for any historical claim. He is mathematician and anti-Zionist political activist. Also the article "Genetic Disease in Palestine and Palestinians,’" from "Genomics and Health in the Developing World" can not be used as WP:RS for assertions regarding religious freedoms in Islamic Palestine. The third obvious problem is that Michael Prior a priest and an Anti-Zionist political activist who is obviously not a WP:RS for historical assertions regarding demographic trends in Palestine after 70 CE. This are very clear facts and indisputably unusable sources. --Tritomex (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Im sorry if you are under the impression that only Zionists are reliable sources, but you are mistaken. nableezy - 07:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't his politics that make him not RS, it is his lack of credentials in history. A linguistics paper by Chomsky is RS. A political essay by Chomsky is not. Machover is no Chomsky. Prior is ok, but only if we accept him as a viewpoint, not a seer. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Machover apart from his mathematical gifts, has long been a public intellectual, certainly in Israel. Einstein, a few ratchets up the ladder, was a public intellectual, as was Russell. Dying breed, but it usually refers to someone who comments on key social issues and cultural topics which, though outside of his strict professional area, form part of a nation's life, and the type is usually respected because of a reputation for quality of knowledge and seriousness of purpose. So your categories don't fit here. Chomsky actually knows more about the history of American foreign policy than the people who make it. In any case I removed him. The other complaints are just the usual bluster. Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on this criteria, any political activist can be considered "public intellectual" although being public intellectual does not qualify anyone for reliability regarding history . More so he has evidently an agenda here to push, while ha has no any credentials from history or demography. This is not about Zionist or Anti-Zionists, but about simple fact that a personal views of political activists or public intellectuals are not WP:RS for history.Considering "Genetic Disease in Palestine and Palestinians" paper,it is also not written by any historian and can not be used as historic source. This are clear and obvious facts applied on every Wikipedia page. --Tritomex (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Also what are the credentials of priest and political activist named Michael Prior as historian? Based on what he is assumed to be WP:RS for history?--Tritomex (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, being an activist does not qualify one as a 'public intellectual'. It's considered normal in democracies for citizens to take an active interest in their politics. Machover's position as an academic mathematician, a citizen of Israel, a writer, scholar and commentator, qualifies him as a public intellectual of standing. FP Top 100 Global Thinkers. Cf. Intellectual Regardless of the field of expertise, as a public intellectual, one is addressing and responding to the problems of his or her society and thus such an individual is expected to "rise above the partial preoccupation of one’s own profession... and engage with the global issues of truth, judgement, and taste of the time." Concretely, Prior, an expert in the biblical history that has underwritten the whole I/P conflict from go to woe, was well placed, given his familiarity with both ancient and modern history, to write what he wrote. On the genetics paper, you are contradicting yourself. You edit intensely the article on Ashkenazi Jews, which has the following lead definition.

an ethnoreligious group who trace their origins to the indigenous Hebrew speaking peoples of Canaan in the Middle East, and settled along the Rhine in Germany from Alsace in the south to the Rhineland in the north, probably during the early Middle Ages

Its source is Anne Hart; Anne Hart M a (30 April 2004). How To Interpret Family History And Ancestry Dna Test Results For Beginners: The Geography And History Of Your Relatives. iUniverse. pp. 51–.

ISBN 978-0-595-31684-7. http://books.google.com/books?id=7-Jg8CjzENMC&pg=PA51

. Retrieved 6 November 2012.

Since you have never questioned this, why have you come here to make a fuss about one similar source, among many (giving a geneticist's support for what many historians, area experts etc say) when a similar statement is made of Palestinians?Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who's contradicting himself. In the Ashkenazi Jews article you repeatedly argued that geneticists shouldn't be used for history while in this article you used a geneticist and two pediatricians (who think Jerusalem was controlled by the Philistines) as a source for history. Not that I think anyone is surprised at this point. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No more than they would be surprised at the hypocrisy of someone (guess who, everybody?) making this edit, sourcing the above (un)historical claim to a work by a nutritional journalist and popular novelist, Anne Hart, who has an M.A. in English/writing, self-published at iUniverse and citing arbitrarily pp.51ff., where no such claim is made, the remark is absurd (Hebrew-speakers in Canaan? All Ashkenazi trace their origins to such? No, some geneticists trace Ashkenazi origins to the Middle East, and the Rhineland theory is passed off as a fact etc). Your edit summary was 'restore previous wording and add source. there are probably better ones, but this will do for now'.!!!! But, if it's Palestinians, waaal, we have to fine-toothcomb policy and kick out everything, no matter how multireferencing shows, from geneticists, to historians, to biblical scholars, to informed critics, all notable scholars and reliably published, concur in affirming. What's your game, in this sudden conversion from slapdash sourcing for a stupid remark, to excisions of good material on the basis of a wikilawyering insistance on RS rigour.Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was this Anne Hart, but you're right, I did mistakenly do something you did deliberately and for that I am quite ashamed. I'll go take a shower. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if it was that Anne Hart, the argument that youve been making is that somebody in an unrelated field, lets go with a neurobiologist, who may be eminently qualified in his or her field, lets say neurodegenerative disease and nervous system function, is not suitable for a line on history. So even if the author was the person you thought it was, how does your argument here not apply there? nableezy - 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been making that argument after seeing Nishidani make it (see one of many quotes in the section above). As you may recall, I follow you guys on the rules here. As long as they're applied evenly, I don't really care what they are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

All right, whatever you say. Is there anything else? I find myself waffling on the source two sections up, and would be interested in RS/N's take on it, but I think youll agree that there is a consensus for this source (the one in this section) as being reliable. Other than you and Nish continuing whatever it is that yall are doing with each other, is there anything else to talk about here? nableezy - 21:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This looks as simple medical paper about genetic disorders among Palestinians, while the claim written based on this source does not even mention genetics, but history and linguistics. How a priest, Rabbi or Imam can be used as reliable source for any historic theory?

What makes any religious authority WP:RS for this claim "Moreover, after Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 the population by and large remained in situ, and did so again after Bar Kochba's revolt in AD 135. When the vast majority of the population became Christian during the Byzantine period, no vast number were driven out, and similarly in the seventh century, when the vast majority became Muslim, few were driven from the land." and this is even written without any attribution, as if the view of this priest, represent historic consensus. The view of this or any other priest is not WP:RS, even regarding the Bible, not to mention historic facts. Machover's position as an academic mathematician, a citizen of Israel, a writer and Anti-Zionist political activist does not qualify him for historic assertions as he is not historian and clearly not a WP:RS for historic subjects. --Tritomex (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a fairly convincing consensus on RS/N that this source is a reliable source, despite your view that it is clear that it is not. nableezy - 17:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nableezy Where is this historic assertion from Michael Prior discussed on RS/N, as I am not aware about such discussion, please provide me the link. Concerning Nishadani remarks regarding AJ, I clearly stated on the talk page, that I did not support the current sourcing as I proposed academic geneticist Tony Frudakis regarding the subject from his field.[6] and [7] I still have intention to add him, although that page is currently protected. Concerning remarks on Hebrew, it is the only living Canaanite language [8]--Tritomex (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about anything "historic", by I assume that Nableezy is referring to the current discussion, at

Wikipedia:RS/N#Reliable_press.2C_outside_area_of_expertise., where several people have commented on Prior's expertise, and especially User:Rjensen, himself an academic historian, has provided good evidence that Prior is generally accepted as an authority on Palestine history, and that his books are widely referenced in the literature. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 10:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, let me clarify that I did not go in the factual accuracy of this editions but I pointed to unreliability of the sources used. What is presented through Michael Prior, the priest, as historically and genetically established fact, is a historic theory, likely a minority view, oversimplified and lacking basic explanation regarding among many other things, demographic trends (f.ex the reduction of population of Palestine from close to 1 million in I century to less than 200 000 in 1800) despite consecutive migrations, which was by him, not followed with any immigration, but the population remained "in situ". Such claim has to have reliable source to cover it. Although the genetic science support the genetic link between Palestinians and Jews which could be explained through common origin, the lack (or unwillingness to provide) of usable sources can not be replaced by the views and speculations of one politically active priest.--Tritomex (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. Do you or don't you challenge the factual accuracy? And why do you keep referring to Prior as "the priest", when he also had a degree in physics, and, particularly relevant, was Professor of Biblical Theology (and not at Liberty University, but at a real college, where such a position implies significant knowledge of the history of the Near East). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Primarily I challenge the source for historic claims which has nothing to do with the Bible but with historic migrations and demography 1000 year after biblical time, secondary yes I do challenge the factual accuracy of claim which is not presented by historian and not supported by historic sources.It may have or not have some historic backgrounds, yet as it is presented as fact, it must have WP:RS, to cover it. Its clear that in this case it has to have academic historic sources. Tertiary I challenge the use of political activists involved in Israeli-Palestinian conflict on one side as WP:RS especially in subjects where they do not have any formal education.--Tritomex (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

But you consistently edit articles using genetics papers uniquely for historical claims (Ashkenazi Jews). Why do you oppose on RS grounds Prior (an historian and biblical scholar, with area competence), and yet promote Frudakis(a geneticist) for an historical definition? NMMGG notes I am opposed to this. What neither you nor NMMGG seem to understand that there is a clear distinction between my affirmation that genetic papers cannot be used to write historical claims, and my use of a genetics paper as support of several sources written by competent scholars of the Middle East, Palestinian history and the bible. It is quite legitimate, as Dlv argued, to use a genetic paper if it supports what the historical specialists say. It is not appropriate, I have been arguing all along, to source historical statements to genetic papers only, particularly when the conclusions are in flagrant conflict with what modern interdisciplinary research argues. Since all history is a reimagining of the past based on reconstructions from incomplete data, it remains 'an hypothesis' or a 'series of hypotheses', and my approach, on controversial historical subjects, is one that privileges multi-sourcing to relevant interdisciplinary studies. Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any possibility to exclude genetic science and its findings from being reliable sources regarding the origin of different people. This is the case with this article and hundreds of different articles about other ethnic groups. This article has many references from population genetics, although genetic studies on Palestinian people have been very limited in numbers. This is something that you recently proposed as far as I know [9] However, its clear that human population genetics have defined competence, and this claim is not backed by any historical, genetic or any other reliable source.The author of this claim is a priest and a political activist without any formal education from history or population genetics. This claim has nothing to do with Bible or theology, so what are the credentials of a priest, physicist or political activist to claim:"Moreover, after Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 the population by and large remained in situ, and did so again after Bar Kochba's revolt in AD 135. When the vast majority of the population became Christian during the Byzantine period, no vast number were driven out, and similarly in the seventh century, when the vast majority became Muslim, few were driven from the land. Palestine has been multi-cultural and multi ethnic from the beginning, as one can read between the lines even in the biblical narrative. Many Palestinian Jews became Christians, and in turn Muslims. Ironically, many of the forebears of Palestinian Arab refugees may well have been Jewish."

If there are no criteria in editing this article, so priests, physicists, political activists and mathematicians are used as reliable sources for historic and population genetic claims, how those who support this kind of editions would object the edition of similar improperly sourced material to this or any other article tomorrow?--Tritomex (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Priests, physicists, mathematicians and political activists is a distortion of the respective records, and nowhere are they being used as reliable sources for population genetic claims. Could I suggest you are not listening? You had no such scruples some time back in citing Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman on genetics to corroborate your thesis that genetics can be used in historical articles. I don't know why you think a priest with a political outlook, who happens to be a scholar in the relevant field, cannot be cited. I'm reminded of one of my preferred writers on many of these issus, Reuven Firestone. He is a rabbi, has a definite political stance, if more nuanced, and is a deeply erudite scholar of Islam. I've cited him for articles, and no one objects. In any case, most of what Prior writes is not a matter of claims. He generally, here, sticks to a summary of what many scholars have argued over the last century and a half. Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As to your link re Sethmann, I stated that the article on Genetic Studies on Jews should be sourced to geneticists, as the title expects. The article 'the Palestinian people' is a very broad one covering numerous aspects of their culture, history, language, cooking, politics, demography etc., and needs cross-disciplinary sourcing self-evidently.Nishidani (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

(Re Tritomex): Sorry, I have a hard time parsing the first half of your statement. But in general, ethnicity and genetic heritage are somewhat, but not strictly linked. Genetic continuity is one piece of evidence for an ethnic continuity, and genetic discontinuity is one piece of evidence against. But neither are these strict determinants, not are they necessary. We wrote histories of people and identified ethnic relationships long before genetics as a field existed or anybody had ever heard of DNA. Prior is making an historical claim. He is considered reliable because he is generally recognised as a competent scholar of the ancient Near East. This can be seen in the way his works on the topic have been received by the scholarly community, and by the fact that reliable academic publishers publish them. You seem to make the argument that "he is a priest, therefore he is not an historian". That argument is simply wrong. Many people have quite a broad qualification. See e.g. Gregor Mendel, who, surprise, was "a friar" and still a major early contributor to genetics, or Shaye J. D. Cohen, who is "a Rabbi", but also Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy (despite being "formally trained" in history...). And, once more, the claim that Prior makes is completely unexceptional. Complete depopulation and resettlement has been extremely rare in history - most often, conquest only replaces a small part of the population, and then either the conquerer or the conquered get largely assimilated, forming an amalgamated society. Not that even in Jesus time, many ethnic Israelis lived as "Greeks", i.e. they adopted Hellenistic culture and language (guess why the new Testament was mostly written in Koine Greek). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Prior is not being used here to support anything that has to do with the history of the ancient Near East. I agree that what he says is generally unexceptional. It just doesn't support the sentence he's being used as a ref for, except the last part of the quote. That part is outside his area of expertise and involves modern history and not ancient history, and anyway is worded as speculation while in the article it's worded as fact. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Nishadani Where in any of my editions I have cited Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman on genetics? What sources you have that Prior is " a scholar in the relevant field" when he speaks about history of Palestinian people between 70 ACE and 1948?? Stephan Schulz: do you have any source supporting your claim that Prior "is generally recognized as a competent scholar of the ancient Near East." especially regarding post-Biblical period, as this assertion alludes to the period between 70 CE up to today. If you do not have, such claims are

WP:OR. Let us not compare Prior with Mendel, I do not find even a comprehensive biography about Prior beside Wikipedia. He is not cited by other historians, nor he is mentioned by any academic book beside for being a POV driven political activist who claimed that biblical narrative of the Exodus from Egypt and the Conquest of Canaan had been deployed to justify colonialism in Palestine, the Americas, and South Africa. This claims by WP:NPOV already disquly him for being reliable regarding the conflict which involves two sides, and where editors are obliged to adhere to neutral position in both sourcing and editing. Beside lacking education or credentials for being reliable for any historic claim, his views are clearly influenced by his self declared anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist believes. Imagine vica-versa situation in which a Jewish rabbi and a Zionist political activist, lacking any formal education from history is being used as reliable source regarding the origin of Palestinians. Where are the sources which are supporting the claim that Prior has high reputation in scholarly community or that he is he is generally recognized as a competent scholar for the history of Palestinian people? Beside all of this how his claims could be presented without proper attribution like an established historic fact?--Tritomex (talk

) 21:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

'This claims by WP:NPOV already disquly him for being reliable regarding the conflict.' Translation, you understand neither

WP:RS. Sources aren't required to be neutral, our reportage of them is.Nishidani (talk

) 23:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I knew that instead of getting response, this permutation will be the focus of answer. Yes I spoke about WP:RS, not about WP:NPOV, yet this is irrelevant for all the rest I have said and I did not change this after because I asked clear and direct questions. Where are the sources which are supporting the claim that Prior has high reputation in scholarly community regarding Palestinian history from I century up to today, or that he is he is generally recognized as a competent scholar for the history of Palestinian people? How can anyone identify someone lacking formal education for the claim beyond his competence, without being able to providing any source. There are no such sources, and it is clear that the edition of his view was POV pushing (that is what I wanted to say).

How can a historical claim of one priest and political activist be presented as an established historical fact, without any attribution? --Tritomex (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition to not understanding

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You have been referred several times to the RS/N board where a independent wikipedian Rjensen, with no horse in thisd I/P race, and who is a practicing historian of note, made a call on Prior's qualifications as eminently suited to the subject. (here, here, and here). Please read up policy and desist from 'arguing the point' while ignoring all the points made.Nishidani (talk

) 11:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)