Talk:Palestinians/Archive 26

As an aside, I found myself fixing a similar issue in the article Sudanese Arabs earlier today.[1] The same claim is made for non-Coptic Egyptians, non-Assyrian Iraqis, and non-Maronite Lebanese. How can sensible scholars imagine that the population of the largely inhospitable terrain of the Arabian Peninsula was able to replace more than half the population of the much more fertile (and therefore much more heavily populated) areas of Egypt, Nubia, Iraq, Palestine, Syria etc etc etc. The numbers simply cannot add up. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Provide sources that dispute this and then we can have a discussion on weight. nableezy - 21:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I really don't have an idea how such positions are arrived . It's true there are some areas in Palestine/Eretz Yisrael were indeed settled by Bedouins who arrived from the Hijaz or Elsewhere either subsequently or some decades/centuries after the conquest , as seen in works such as those of Moshe Gil , where he mentions the Arab tribes by name . regardless Cline went too far in the scale of settlement in a way that insinuates the Hijazi Muslims either overwhelmed the Original population , or pushed them to expatriate to make room for foreigners to take their place , and Moshe Gil did say the country was under Islamic rule , but it was not Muslim , The Islamization would occur after the crusades (of which I am yet to know the proportion of Mechanisms of such ie Conversion vs importation of foreign Muslims ) but that's a different topic .

Even the Anglo-Saxons who had no relations with the Celts of Britain (compared to Arabs who did since the Qedarites , and who were also a Semitic-group like the Aramaic speakers in the country during the conquest )weren't that bloodthirsty and driven to eradicate of the Brittonic Celts as opposed to absorbing them , and merge together .

___________________________________________________

For Nabellezy  : There is no "counter-source" to Cline , because Cline's claim is fairly specific , and in such a wording that's typically found in either polemics . ie non-peer reviewed sources , or publishers of atrocious quality and standard.

I have a few sources , some which might be the same as the article (didn't check the bibliography ..sorry , just read the article in a while ) , but I'll list their titles here so you can read them sometime later , of which you will know that evidence doesn't confirm the claim of Hijazi Muslims constituting the majority in Palestine any time after the conquests , which in turn : answers your question of why Cline's statement that Palestinians can be reduced to the marauders of Omar is false .

)"Changes in the Settlement Pattern of Palestine Following the Arab Conquest"

)THE ISLAMIZATION OF THE HOLY LAND, 634 –1800 , MICHAEL EHRLICH

)"New Evidence Relating to the Process of Islamization in Palestine in the Early Muslim Period"

)"Arabization versus Islamization in the Palestinian Melkite Community during the Early Muslim Period"

In these 4 sources : we see there is continuity of a Christian majority in the region which has adopted Arabic language and culture : which is against the occurrence of an event of a large-scale foreign migration which had radical demographic implications that Cline insinuates .

After some while of searching through google books and the internet archive ; the only other author who seems to agree with this notion is Robert Spencer , in his work The Myth of Islamic Tolerance . I believe sane-people are aware that Spencer is a well-known demagogue whose only purpose in life is causing incitement and dehumanization , and seeding prejudice and hatred against Muslims , let alone Palestinians , as opposed to an honest professional wishing to reconstruct the past using objective analysis made on concrete historical or archeological evidence .

The opinion , as already said , is a lost before its battle started . It has no serious foundations from logic , nor reputable sources to warrant bringing it here in an informative encyclopedia .

Personally ; I think the notion of Arab ethnicity being foreign to the region is wrong , given things such as the Ein Avdat inscription having an Arabic dialect resembling Classical Arabic , suggesting Palestine , at least the southern half of it , was part of Arab ethnogenesis , but that's another discussion for another time. 94.99.181.177 (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It's doubly dubious - it's only a 'probably' even in the source text, and it makes a fairly extraordinary claim of scientific consensus, so absolutely falls under

Iskandar323 (talk

) 08:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah.. it's best removed until such reliable sources -if they exist anyway- are found .

I mean; disputing that a noteworthy percentage of Palestinians are Canaanites isn't a blatantly nonsencial stance. The primary Canaanite people in the country were the Israelites, who the only groups who evolved out of them are Jews and Samaritans. The former was almost genocided in the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 AD: only area of noteworthy Jewish presence after that was Galilee, with research and evidence going back and forth on whenever the people of the Judea (not Judaea) were forcefully Hellenized, or exiled and replaced with foreign pagans , or instead: went on as usual. Samaritans later on rebelled during byzantine times, and did have their numbers being severely reduced. Assuming the scale of killing and slow recovery; the Christian majority of 5th century Palestine was most likely predominantly of Levantine non-Israelite origins rather than Christianized Jews and Samaritans. That position can't be easily dismissed. Regardless: such discussions belong to the Demographics of Palestine (region) article , rather than the primary article concerned with introducing readers to Palestinians.

On the other hand : the position of interpreting the phenomena of Arabization as mass-colonization rather than cultural acculturation is a very difficult claim without at least a handful of archeological and historical evidence -especially when most available peer-reviewed academic literature using them , substantiates the contrary verdict  : that your average "Arab" in 10th century Palestine/Eretz Yisrael was a Monophysite Christian peasant speaking half-broken Arabic (compared to the one in the 1909 Manual of Palestinian Arabic : think Middle and Modern English) , rather than a recently Sedentarised Muslim Bedouin .

Then it is agreed : it's best to stay removed ..at least for now until such sources are found . 94.99.181.177 (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

EDIT :

Eric's view wasn't removed  ; I just checked using Ctrl+F searching for his name .

So editors understand what is going on : Allow me to bring Tombah's edit, the one who brought us into the mess .

There are 2 instances of the Cline quote : one used after the George Antinous citation , which has now been removed .

The second instance is found under the Canaanism section , reference 144 , with the text in the article :

"suggests that the Palestinians are more closely related to the Arabian Peninsula" .

The reference there was indeed deleted by Oceaninawhile , but it was brought by some AnomieBOT (edit link) . As agreed ; it's best to delete both the reference and the line ; removing Cline entirely .

Hope what has been said above is applied , and that I made some helpful contributions to a such a ... permanently contentious article . 94.99.181.177 (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

OK. After reading this thread, there are a few things I'd like to add: (1) Please stop with the personal attacks. "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Please read and internalize

WP:WEIGHT. Tombah (talk

) 17:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

But please chill with the settler speak, the place is called the West Bank in English, not "Judea and Samaria" or "souther Samaria". And its not part of "the country" (which is clearly a reference to Israel). nableezy - 17:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Settler speak? You almost sound like you are blinded by hatred. I was referring to the historical regions of Judea and Samaria, each has its own distinct demographic history. I won't use "northern West Bank" to refer to former Samaritan-majority areas, it's ridiculous and unprofessional. Anyway, maybe it's time to accept that not everyone agrees with your beliefs. Tombah (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, settler speak. You can use whatever you like, but "Judea and Samaria" is indeed settler speak. See for example Israeli settlers have long asserted that the Palestinians are an invented people, that the West Bank’s real name is Judea and Samaria, and that it was liberated by Israeli soldiers in 1967. First promoted by Gush Emunim until being adopted by Likud in the 70s, it remains, in English, certifiably identifiable with settlers. Use what you like, but be aware of how anybody familiar with the topic will take it. And, for the record, in our articles you may not use "Judea" or "Samaria", much less the certifiably settler-oriented "Judea and Samaria", as though that is a common English name for a region in the present time. nableezy - 18:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The names are still applicable when talking to the historical regions, which as I mentioned earlier, had distinct demographic histories over the centuries. For instance, Judea's majority of Jews had been wiped out in the wake of the Bar Kokhba revolt, although Samaria had a sizable Samaritan population up to the early Muslim period. And in the sources that describe these, those terminology are used rather than more recent ones like "West Bank". Levy-Rubin, for example, refers to certain parts of Samaria in her articles discussing events in the Middle Ages, and Ehrlich, also cited many times in this article, does the same. These are the facts. Tombah (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

If you want to castigate people for perceived personal attacks, best to dispense with accusing them of 'hatred' in the same breath. It is the height of 'unprofessional' and can only serve discredit whatever thoughts you subsequently give voice to, regardless of substance.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 18:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323, thank you, as always, for your wise advice. But... why don't you criticize Nableezy, too, for putting words in my mouth? Mmmm... Tombah (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Which words did I put in your mouth? You did write "Judea and Samaria" and "other regions of the country". nableezy - 19:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Please : I urge editors not to bring contemproary politics , let's stay on topic .

Now ... I really don't like talking too much , but so be it .

1)First : You have my apologies , I'll focus on the concept rather than the orators , though I would still point out possible points of bias : especially seeing you just confirmed my claim at the very start that you gravitate the Israeli-mentality towards the region's history by calling the West Bank -a modern political entity created after 1948- "Judea and Samaria" : two biblical terms with vastly different borders that include what is now Tel-Aviv and Haifa (Yeah : a quick look would show at least half of these areas are now within the Israeli-state's borders ) , which are now bastardized to refer specifically to the West Bank , in order to confuse people in hopes of improving Israeli-public relations in light of the current military occupation characterized by numerous legal and ethical violations there , something which I hope is not part of your motivations .

2) Second : My problem with Cline is not because I don't "like" his opinion, or it's because I have prejudice against him as an individual author : it's because he made an extraordinarily difficult statement to support, of which he is not able to support .

Either He must have studied the past 3 millineas in Palestine/Eretz Yisrael in such great depth that his whole career is based on what can be termed as Palestinian History , or that he references multiple accomplished authors to defend his random statement.

As seen on his wikipedia page : he neither is an authority on what can be termed Palestinian history, but rather Biblical archelogy (religiously motivated archelogy that concerns itself only Bronze age and at the latest the Persian period ), nor has he referenced at least 1 other scholar in the original source, who agrees that the origin of Palestinian Arabs are largely the Hijazi Arabians who arrived here after the Islamic conquests.

I searched for others who might agree with this statement, and the only one who has was Robert Spencer ...a person who is just an embarrassment to anyone brave enough to burn his creditability by referencing him in rigorous academic discourse.

3)Third : there is no need to weigh things because as already said:

-Cline made an overly simplistic claim which requires plenty of evidence ; from archeological excavations , historical records , ethnography , and linguistic analysis , which he has not provided : relying instead on a shallow conjuncture based on the discredited tale that Israelites were foreigners to Cannan who genocide the Canaanites . Such events from the Books of Exodus and Joshua have long been dismissed as biblical myths than historical realities.

-Most available peer-reviewed Academic literature that Palestine remained Christian-Majority through the entire early Muslim period , with Islamization being pointed out to Mamluk persecutions which caused a "trickle of conversions" , in the words of Nehemiah Levitzon .

We are not disputing that something like half a dozen Arabian tribes numbering around some ten-thousand or whatever number of tribesmen , settled in Palestine after the conquests.

What we dispute is that Palestinians (Holistically ; not merely the ones in your revisionist "Judea and Samaria) , can be reduced to 7th century Hijazis , instead of being an amalgamation of all the people who inhabited Palestine the past 3000 years , whose origins are better described as a core Levantine population that dwelt in the country before Islam , and are still there with different admixtures ,language , culture , clan affiliations , in the form of Palestinian Arabs .

This is not deflecting the weighing , because I already provided sources acting as circumstantial evidence showing this notion is wrong . (I am willing to give more out my stash if that's not enough) .

It's you , Tombah , who needs to provide more sources to justify the presence of Cline's opinion in the article , as already has been asked from you on April 2nd by Selfstudier .. of course : actual sources , not just adding because "it's a counter opinion" , an opinion which is hardly found in peer-reviewed academic literature.

Either you have a decent reasonable defense to keep it , or not : his opinion isn't going to be kept here in spite of Evidence shown by sources either I , or the Article referenced . 94.99.181.177 (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, made a quick re-read of the thread. Allow me to say some 2 things to clarify some matters :

1) When I said "Blatantly Nonsencial" : this is not agreement that Palestinians are largely not of Canaanite -Israelite decent. What I meant is that whenever they are of such origin or not, is currently part of a debate that's yet to be resolved .

We know the Bar Kokhba revolt was disastrous to Palestinian Jewry, yet ; it's yet to be confirmed to what extent they were displaced and replaced, or instead remained where they are while undergoing a process of forced Hellenization/Romanization . Historical sources like Cassius Dio , Eusebius etc imply that Judens were displaced , and there are a few archeological areas that demonstrate a sharp take-off from judean , to pagan inhabitants who originated from Nearby Levantine provinces . but that's not yet confirmed archeologically for the majority of Judea in Palestine , leaving a possibility the revolt might not have been so demographically , as opposed to ethnically tragic .

What this means is that the Palestinian Nationalist claim that Palestinians are holistically (as opposed to a portion of them, when I said "sizable" ) of Canaanite ancient ancestry , is yet to be either substantiated, or discredited to satisfactory lengths , and that we only have a blurred , foggy image of the past .. not that I don't dispute Cline's comments. This brings me to my other note :

2) I primarily dispute the phenomena of Arabization in Palestine being attributed to mass migration engulfing the inhabitants than their acculturation . This is based on the sources I provided , which demonstrated that Cline's position can't be maintained unless one ignores the other sources, something not befitting of an encyclopedia.

If you wish to bring other scholars (hopefully , accomplished , relevant, and engage in good faith etc ) who dispute the Canaanite claim : they better do it on good reasoning than just repeating a discredited biblical tale , and statements contradictory to Literature (the "major-movements" which Clide alluded to that have no evidence of substituting the population ) . Otherwise : Clide's claim dosen't have a good reason to be here . 94.99.181.177 (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is this IP you, @Nishidani?

Are you performing hajj? Mashallah. Synotia (moan) 16:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

No that is not him, and if it were it would be abusive sockpuppetry. But also generally not polite to ask somebody to identify their location or IP here. nableezy - 16:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd better check out with some local imam if performing an instantaneous morning flight from Italy to Saudi Arabia and back is blasphemous as a reversive parody of Mohammad's night flight. That Cline's stuff is way out of date and only of biographical and historic (dis)interest is evident from the quote below from 2017.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

the ancient Levantines clustered predominantly with modern-day Palestinians and Bedouins and marginally overlapped with Arabian Jews, whereas AJs clustered away from Levantine individuals and adjacent to Neolithic Anatolians and Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans . . . AJs are dominant Iranian (88%) and residual Levantine (3%) ancestries, as opposed to Bedouins (14% and 68%, respectively) and Palestinians (18% and 58%, respectively Das, Wexler, Pirooznia, Elhaik,Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish,, Frontiers of Genetics Vol. 46, No. 3/4 (Autumn - Winter, 1987), pp. 568-580

To anticipate pointless counter-gambits on that, I am citing the genetics section, written by competent molecular biologists, not Wexler.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

..No , I am not Nishidani .

..guess I might create a Wikipedia account to contribute here  ; don't want others to get into trouble because of me . 94.99.181.177 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright ..there is some eerie silence here , which seems rather pointless .

First off :  If a source is to be used ; it needs to deal with the subject in some depth , of which Cline here didn't deal with the question of Palestinian Cannanism in proper depth , he only mentioned them for such topic , alongside dismissing them in other matters such as the refugee problem (stuck to the Israeli myth of Mass evacuations , or voluntary migration , which Benny Morris long discredited showing Israeli military opeartions were the most prominent factor ) , as well as the subject of the Palestinian demand of return to the areas of former Mandatory Palestine ; he doesn't have a source for his claim  , nor is he an expert of all the past 3000 years so we take his word .

He favors rejection of the claim of Canaanite ancestry of Palestinians based on a conjuncture , made with the following points :

1)That the Israelites geocide the Canaanites (a myth as already said , long been discredited ever since at least the 70s , showing Israelites evolved as a Canaanite group , rather than being an Egyptian , or non-indigenous  ethnicity that invaded the region ; something which is the result of Cline focusing on "Biblical Archelogy"   ) .

2)That any "Arab" in Palestine was :

A) Of  Hijazi , or Arabian extraction. ( Which as said a billion times by now that Immigration of Bedouins was not a prominent factor of such : "Arab" isn't a race .

The Lebanese speak Arabic , eat kebab , dance dabke  etc ; the Phoenician nationalists of them will be sore if you tell them that , but their self-hatred  doesn't matter : no-one is going to claim Mia Khalifa is either "Pure Phoenician" , or a "Bedouin's daughters" , to the world : she is "Arab" . that's because Arab ethnicity is defined by culture , and language  , not ancient bloodlines , of which I just said is a myth . the Israeli-Jews of our times could have originally been the Idumeans , Ituraeans Judaized by the Hasmoneans  , yet they are still called Jews .)

B)Could not have been there prior to 7th century AD (When you have things like the Qedarites ,  Nabateans , the earliest Arabic inscription at Ein Avdat : this sounds like an Ignoramous statement  . )   

3)That an alleged "majority" of scholars agree they are Hijazi Arabs . (providing no citation to prove such idea is well-known , verified , and indisputable ) .

By all points ; they render his entire opinion being invalid , because it's based on wrong foundations  , established by either unsupported , or  wrong facts . Such things are not helpful for readers .  The man himself  said prior to that line  "The origin of the Arab people living in the region of modern Israel is less certain" ; meaning even he himself doubts if his opinion is verified  .  

He claims Palestinians are exclusively Hijazi Bedouins ,  which for many times we said they are not  , but rather the   mixture of peoples who dwelt in Palestine ; of which the Canaanites and their subgroups is a part of their ancestry , something which contradicts the lead in the article   .

If such reasoning isn't enough showing this to be an infactual , and fringe opinion : then I ask editors what is needed to convince for removal ? ; I already provided 4 sources above which indirectly shows why his comment on Arab relatedness under the assumption that it's through migration post-conquest  is wrong . Tombah still hasn't fully clarified his position . 94.99.181.177 (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit :

I just noticed the second instance has been removed .

Thanks for applying my recommendations : glad that I was able to contribute . 94.99.181.177 (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

American historian and archaeologist Eric Cline writes:

Although some would disagree, historians and archaeologists have generally concluded that most, if not all, modern Palestinians are probably more closely related to the Arabs of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, and other countries than they are to the ancient Jebusites, Canaanites, or Philistines.

Cline was writing in 2002-3, the remark is outdated. It was even at that time inaccurate in its claim that there is a consensus about Palestinian descent from distant Arabs rather than from the indigenous population. There was no such 'consensus' and even had there been, it would reek of the stale sweat of dormant memes in desuetude by 2023. Palestine has always been a historic crossroads of populations in transit (even with aliyah waves these days). The pastoral economy of much of the area was based on transhumance, which does not recognize borders, esp. the ethnicizing borders of modern geography. Arabic-speaking populations are attested from the 5-4th centuries BCE in the Hebron-northern Negev ostraca, and do not suddenly arrive to populate Palestine with the Islamic conquest. Cline was writing when population genetics was still rather primitive: if contemporary research (Elhaik/Das et al., 2017) is any indication, then the present population is stably grounded in the Levantine profile with its Chalcolithic elements.

We all. well Tombah excepted, should recognize that attempts to relativize the indigenous majority in 1900 (the 95% of the Muslim-Christian pop. of Palestine) as historically 'recent' incomers or intruders has been a theme of Zionist polemics, even if Ben-Gurion to his credit in 1918 dismissed it, asserting Palestinians were prob. converted Jews), most recently revived with the balderdash of Peters' 1983 manipulative fudge of the statistics. The raison d'etre is one of ideological table-turning. Since the present population of Jews arose through massive modern migration, the indigenousness of the displaced population is an embarrassment, and therefore one grasps at straws to suggest parity between the present populations.Both result from recent migrations. History may be ironic, but not stupid.Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The consensus here is for removal, and thus I have elided it. Tombah is very frequently highly eccentric in his impressionistic overviews of history. i.e. For instance, 'Judea's majority of Jews had been wiped out in the wake of the Bar Kokhba revolt, although Samaria had a sizable Samaritan population up to the early Muslim period.' Thus phrased, two pieces of nonsense, and pushing dated and inaccurate opinions like Cline's is just pointless wadding in a section that itself requires strong précis. More facts, less waffle.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

For my edification, the most recent sources point to shared genetics?

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-05-31/ty-article/.premium/jews-and-arabs-share-genetic-link-to-ancient-canaanites/0000017f-eb8f-d4a6-af7f-ffcf4f190000

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/dna-from-biblical-canaanites-lives-modern-arabs-jews

https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30487-6.pdf

A conclusion also reached rather controversially by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena much earlier.

Then Cline view seems somewhat contradicted. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Shared genetics? By definition all human groups share 99.9+% of the common genome, these inferences are made on minute variations. Abstract terms like 'Jew' and 'Palestinians' can't be genetically defined since ingroup variations are notable, particularly with the former since Palestinians don't have the definitional range Jews have (from Kaifeng Jews to Inca Jews). One can be a Jew without any genetic link to the Middle East whatsoever, an argument one would not make for Palestinians in their diaspora. In any case the key point the authors of the cell report make (p.1155) is:-

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

Hey .. didn't want to comment there thinking my case was over , but changed my mind .

Anyway , It's nice reasoning you have Nishanadi , but I would to point out that the dispute isn't over the line you quoted; that line has long been removed.

What is under dispute is the line under the Canaanism section , and its reference :

"suggests that the Palestinians are more closely related to the Arabian Peninsula than to the ancient Jebusites, Canaanites and Philistines".

He insinuates what you consider to be wrong: that Palestinians are either Wholey or mostly derived from the Bedouins of the 7th century than the original pre-conquest population. These past 2 days : I have been telling editors that the statement is not factual , and even contradictory to sources used in the article , and not a strong opposition as to warrant having it in an article that's supposed to introduce readers to Palestinians.

The problem is this : People take the stance that Palestinians are either pure-bereded Canaanites (highly unlikely with all those events of the past 3000 years) , or that they are Arabian Transplants ( out right rejected with Archeological and Historical evidence showing the "Arabs" in early Islamic Palestine were Accultured Chrstian Levantines , and not settler Muslim Arabians ) . The factual claim is that they are a mixture of various proportions of both , A Palestinian in one village might be more "Arabian" than another who in an other village . Palestinians are not rigidly homogenous , nor overly heterogenous ; Cline claims they are of the former , which isn't right. 94.99.181.177 (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

??You wrote that after I made this edit? Perhaps the fact that I have to edit or view the internet, while in the amber ambiance of a pub means I miss things?Nishidani (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Good place to edit :) Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey .

Sorry . Didn't you see my second (edit:) here on the page ? ( copy paste edit: into the CTRL+F .box) .

I did note it was fixed latter .

Oh well ; much obliged to help . 94.99.181.177 (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The following article my Colombia’s most notable newspaper claims over 120,000 people have Palestinian ancestry in the capital city bogota alone. Therefore colombia’s number should be changed to 120,000 https://www.eltiempo.com/amp/mundo/mas-regiones/los-palestinos-que-encontraron-un-segundo-hogar-en-el-centro-de-bogota-334782 Regresodelmak (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This was raised previously, see archive, I asked a question of the OP but received no reply, care to comment instead? Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a great example of cultural misappropriation. The Jerusalem Talmud was created by Jewish scholars in Israel and was probably completed in the 500 CE. It is never called the Palestinian Talmud it is known the Jerusalem Talmud. In Hebrew this is תלמוד ירושלמי.

This article makes a false claim that the Jerusalem Talmud is called the Palestinian Talmud. The article tries to take a Jewish historical treasure and make it "Palestinian". This is an outright falsehood that shoulf be removed from Wikipedia. 2A01:6502:A56:6315:583E:35EC:3AFA:8E7A (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You are misinformed. Search for "Palestinian Talmud" (with quotes) at Google Scholar and you will find almost 7000 hits. "Palestinian" means "written in Palestine", which is true, in contrast to "written in Jerusalem", which is false. This is discussed at length at Talk:Jerusalem Talmud. We don't make up names; we just report what names reliable sources use. Zero^talk 02:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, Google Ngrams tells an interesting story here. It suggests that the term Palestinian Talmud was not used in English until 1853. It would be interesting to look at how the equivalent terms were used in French and German before then. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps that was when scholarship interjected and objected to the association with Jerusalem when it was not produced in that geography? That would be very apt for the 19th-century.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 07:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is 1841. The 190x Jewish Encyclopedia suggests a much earlier pedigree:

The general designation of the Palestinian Talmud as "Talmud Yerushalmi," or simply as "Yerushalmi," is precisely analogous to that of the Palestinian Targum. The term originated in the geonic period, when, however, the work received also the more precise designations of "Talmud of Palestine," "Talmud of the Land of Israel," "Talmud of the West," and "Talmud of the Western Lands." Zero^talk 07:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Zero. I have added this quote in the footnote at Jerusalem_Talmud#Name. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I hope I am not paranoid or anything : but this recent edit by Skitash is largely meaningless .

Where is this ethnonym in the introduction of Lebanese , Syrian , Egyptian , "Insert Arabic-speaking nation"  ? .

Even "Real Arabs" in Western Parlance such as Jordan , don't have this word as the very first word in the introduction of articles descriping nations .

To avoid confusion : the meaning of "Arab" in our times is largely a modern construct that was no more than a tinkering object of some Maronite and Christian intellectuals seeking an alternative to the Millet system prior to the WWI .

To Arabic-Speaking Ottoman Levantines : "Arab" referred to desert nomads , rather than a nation or ethnicity , as clearly seen in numerous village toponyms having the prefix "Arab" to indicate the village's inhabitants were former Bedouins. This usage is not unusual ; it stretches back to Biblical times , as seen in examples from the Bible like Isaiah 13:20 , or Nehemiah's adversary being referred to as "The Arabian" . Even the "Arab revolt" of Arab nationalist histography was predominantly a Hijazi afiar in the name of Hashemite dynastic aspirations than "Arab"

Such reductive tone is taken either by hateful Israeli-Jews , or passionate Pan-Arabists ( Indeed : Skitash has Abdelaziz Bouteflika's picture on his profile .)

I propose deleting it . Stating that Palestinians are an ethno-national group whose origins lie in the region's ancient inhabitants which were eventually Arabized , is a more appropriate descriptive than merely saying "Arab" without explaining what "Arab" actually means (Ethnicity/Language and culture ? ; so are Copts and Assyrians . Descent /Race ? , of course some marginal admixture. Arab= Arabian = Oman , Emirate etc ? , defintely not at all , but Levantine .)

Hope editors respond  ; there is no need for politically charged misconceptions to resurface .

Thanks . 2.88.119.229 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

"Palestinians are an Arab ethnonational group who are now culturally linguistically Arab" lmao why do you need to repeat that they're Arab twice? Clearly seems like an NPOV soapbox kinda issue where the definition is trying to tacitly emphasize the fact that they're "Arab" rather than their own people. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:C9A0:AE48:F495:2536 (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey .

I just want to say what has already been said : remove the "are an Arab" part at the introduction.

The editor who forced this line , Skitash , is clearly an Arabist . A few days ago : he blatantly removed a crucial paragraph which takes into account the Levantine , non-Arab origins of Palestinians which explains what is exactly meant by Palestinians being an Arab group , and also the Pre-Islamic history of the region , and has the guts to say "unsourced for quite a while" , when that line has been around for years with a source .

It's clear such edits of this nature are not meant to discuss the identity, heritage , and origins of Palestinians on a holistic , unprejudiced basis , but to shed away Palestinian peoplehood in favour of Arabist views (which might also be shared by Zionists , which is exactly what they are looking for , so they can deny Palestinian existence and legitimacy ) . The very least thing we need now is saying that Canaanites , Israelites , and other semitic groups , are "Arabs"  ; confusing Arabian origin with Arabs , who didn't exist before Islam (Peter Webb , Imagining the Arabs) , let alone the Bronze Age .

I repeat : please delete this line . It is gratuitous , and misleading , and is making it seem the article is a circular argument , rather than an encyclopedic entry . 176.44.52.30 (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It does seem repetitive as it is mentioned twice, in differing contexts. We shouldn't need to mention the fact Palestinians are Arab twice in one sentence. JJNito197 (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

An Arabist is someone who studies Arabic civilization or language. Selfstudier (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi . Sorry for the late reply ... got busy .

Anyway : I meant an Nasserist-Arab Nationalist , not Arabist in either the Academic , or the 1970s Political sense of Arabo-philes.

The problem with the introduction doesn't need to be reiterated , by saying "An Arab" right from the get-go  : we are in effect de-contextualizing the uniqueness of a national group , in favor of appealing to common prejudice of "Arab" referring to desert-nomads , or a synonym for "Arabian" .

Many , I would dare say most , people still can't comprehend that "Arab" isn't a racial identity , but one whose essence lies in traditions and language independent of phenotypical appearance , or biological ancestry . Let's look at a most obvious example , which is Egyptians . They are "Arabs" , yet they are still thier own nation independent of the label "Arab": just like saying "Hispanic" , but one could be Argentinian or Mexican . It is one thing to state some ethnographical classifications ; it's another to imagine monoliths , and forcing groups into it .

This is the impression of what an average reader would get from the keyword "an arab" introduced so early ; which defeats the whole purpose of the article enlightening readers about Palestinians and thier identity and roots , ending up instead appealing to Zionist or Nasserist-Arabist POV ( In fact : the so-called "Impartial" Israeli-Wikipedia uses such similar wording ) .

I know this might seem like a minor edit , but some people don't have the luxury of time , or developed the ability to speed-read Wikipedia articles . Is it really worth discussing the problematic impressions stemming from this edit any further ?. Sources might be "right" and valid , but sometimes they are included or placed in wrong places .

..I said my piece , just hope the problem with the edit is clear , besides redundancy . 176.44.92.130 (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Palestinians has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

{The definition of Palestinians on Wikipedia is currently - "descending from people who have inhabited the region of Palistine over the millennia." The references shown are all dated after 1970. Noah Webster 1828 has zero reference of A Palistine, therfore I submit that "over the millennia" be removed.} 2600:1009:B1C1:2624:584B:6B01:FC78:6725 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The reference point you make is not so much the issue as is an editor mangled the intro at some point to make the line about “over the millennia” - which previously appeared in the middle of the sentence. Now at the end of the paragraph it comes across as too editorial and may need to be reverted. Mistamystery (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Seconding that it comes across biased to me as well, as written. Miladragon3 (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I restored back to previous wording per Mistamystery. "Millennia" is otherwise well sourced. JJNito197 (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

In Origins:

For several centuries during the Ottoman period the population in Palestine declined and fluctuated between 150,000 and 250,000 inhabitants, and it was only in the 19th century that a rapid population growth began to occur. This growth was aided by the immigration of Egyptians (during the reigns of Muhammad Ali and Ibrahim Pasha) and Algerians (following Abdelkader El Djezaïri's revolt) in the first half of the 19th century, and the subsequent immigration of Algerians, Bosnians, and Circassians during the second half of the century.

According to https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1949-3606.2012.00172.x

Between the years of 1871 and 1922, the land settled amounted to 360,431 dunams in the new Arab villages, with an additional 185,000 dunams by 1945.According to the same estimate, using settlements identified by this research, therewere 66,940 (6.5% of the Muslim population of Palestine) Muslim residents in 230 hamlets and villages that had been established between 1871 and 1945. Around a dozen of the villages were established by people who came from outside Palestine(Egyptians, Bosnians, Algerians, Circassians, Iranians, and Shiites from Lebanon).Some 25% of the villages were settled by sedenterizing the Bedouin, mainly in Northern Palestine, while an additional 25% were settled by Arabs from highland villages who moved down to the coastal plain because of population pressures in theirmother village. Another 39 villages were constructed on lands belonging to the sultanor absentee effendi landlords.Just over half the new villages were constructed on ruinsof old settlements, illustrating the degree to which the expansion of Muslim ruralsettlement in the Ottoman and British periods represented a return to areas that hadbeen settled in prior eras

The article should be clearer and say that there were around 67k Muslim immigrants into Palestine at the time, which only accounted for around 7% of Muslim Palestinians. According to Demographic history of Palestine (region) there were around 300k Palesitnians by 1800. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

To avoid repeatedly reverting each other, I want to discuss the genetic study here. The source is https://english.tau.ac.il/news/canaanites, and seems to be referring to this study: https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30487-6.pdf. The current phrasing in the article is "Palestinians share a strong genetic link to the ancient Canaanites."

There are two issues with the current phrasing:

1. The source never says "Palestinians". The press release says "modern-day groups in Lebanon, Israel and Jordan share a large part of their ancestry, in most cases more than half, with the people who lived in the Levant during the Bronze Age, more than 3,000 years ago." The journal article itself says: "we assembled a dataset of 93 individuals from 9 sites across present-day Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon, all demonstrating Canaanite material culture", and " Finally, we show that the genomes of present-day groups geographically and historically linked to the Bronze Age Levant, including the great majority of present-day Jewish groups and Levantine Arabic-speaking groups, are consistent with having 50% or more of their ancestry from people related to groups who lived in the Bronze Age Levant and the Chalcolithic Zagros". It is unclear whether any Palestinians were even sampled in this study. Therefore, using it to infer the characteristics of Palestinians is inappropriate.
2. Even if Palestinians are included in this work, to list them alone risks creating the impression that they are unique in this ancestry, whereas in reality all of the modern groups residing in the area seem to share the same genetic link. This is an important difference in trying to understand the Palestinian's origins relative to their neighbors.

Therefore, the study should either be introduced with an accurate phrasing (referring to all modern Levant residents), or removed altogether. okedem (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Per the page notice, the article permits no more than one revert per 24 hours, and you reverted multiple editors twice. Unless you want to risk getting blocked, I suggest undoing the last revert and discussing further here for consensus. Duvasee (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused by your response. I did revert my edit as soon as I saw the admin message about 1RR. Then I came to discuss here. okedem (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Please note that Palestinians are represented separately from other Arabic-speaking groups in several figures. In Figure 5, Palestinians score higher by both measures on "Megiddo_MLBA+Iran_ChL" than all the represented Jewish groups except Iranian Jews. In Figure S4, Megiddo_MLBA and Iran_ChL are separated; we see that by one measure Palestinians score the same as Ashkenazi Jews on Megiddo_MLBA and well above other Jewish groups, while by the other measure Palestinians score well above all Jewish groups on Megiddo_MLBA. I believe it is reasonable to summarise what the article says about Palestinians. I don't agree that the existing sentence is unsupported by the article and I don't agree that the sentence suggests Palestinians are unique in this respect. If we want to turn it into a comparison by, for example including Jews and Bedouin, that would be fine but we would first have to decide whether the article is worth that much coverage. Zero^talk 04:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for tracking down that mention of the Palestinians and correcting me. As it only appears in the figures, rather than the text, I missed it.

Still, to me the bigger issue is the impression we're giving. If we say "Palestinians have this connection", it might or might not be unique - we're not telling the reader that, but we're not saying otherwise. However, we're saying this right after talking about "Arabization", implying the Palestinians might not have been originally Arab, but became such by conquest and adoption of language, religion and customs. Presenting the study at that point strengthens the reader's impression that Palestinians were local to Palestine, and then got Arabized. But the study tells us that most Arab groups share very similar levels of genetic connection to the Canaanites, and so this study cannot be used to say whether Palestinians originally were or were not an Arab people. That is - in the context in which it appears, the sentence does end up giving a false impression. okedem (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

You're talking about populations as if they have single origins - all populations are simply a mishmash and hodgepodge of genetic influences.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 07:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

When I say Arab origin, I include partial origins. Just like the article uses the term in "independent of the existence of any actual Arabian origins".

The article currently lists the Palestinians' genetic link, but then goes on to mention the Israelites, without any mention of their genetic link. In fact, it confusingly says "The Israelites emerged later as a separate ethnoreligious group in the region" - leaving the reader in the dark about the existence of a link between them and the Canaanites. Furthermore, by listing the Palestinians, and then saying "Israelites emerged later", an ignorant reader might believe there was a clear Palestinian group at a time preceding the Israelites - a nonsense conclusion, but a plausible one for the uninformed reader. okedem (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been trying to think about how to properly phrase the text, but the basic issue is that discussing Palestinians when talking about antiquity is simply anachronistic and confusing. We can add a section about genetics, that would give a lot more context, but as is that single sentence is out of place. I'm removing it for now. okedem (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong in the phrasing of the sentence, and a whole section on genetics seems a bit much. Duvasee (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Duvasee, right now it states that the Palestinians have a genetic link to Canaanites; in the next sentence it mentions the Israelites "emerged", but says nothing about their link. The next sentence discusses the Jews, but again makes no mention of their link. A reasonable reader will assume only the Palestinians have such a link. Either mention the link for all, or for none. okedem (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think a reasonable reader will see that this article is focused on Palestinians, and for the origin of the Jews they can go to

Genetic studies on Jews. nableezy

- 23:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Upon reading your comment it appears there is ground to your comment. I think your analysis is brought about some interesting points. I would write that Jews, Palestinians and other local groups are descended from the ancient Canaanites if this is what the source explains. Although I do think another source should be presented in order to back the Palestinian claim (since the source does not mention it).

Otherwise @Okedem assessment holds.

I personally think it'll be best to write that Jews, Palestinians and other populations descend from ancient Canaanite populations. That way it will be NPOV. But a source needs to be found for that. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

"In 1919, Palestinian Muslims and Palestinian Christians constituted 90 percent of the population of Palestine, just before the third wave of Jewish immigration under the British Mandate after World War I.[53][54]"

This gives the misleading impression that Muslims and Christians would have regarded themselves as "Palestinian", while Jews, having arrived later, would have seen themselves as "Non-palestinian" at the time. The term "Palestinian Muslim" is redundant as the sentence is about inhabitants of Palestine. However, according to the cited source, at the time there were roughly 80 percent Muslim, 10 percent Christian and 10 percent Jewish people living in the area, and the Muslims considered themselves to be "Arabs". The second half of the sentence is redundant too, since the time (1919) is stated at the beginning. If needed, the specification "before the third wave of immigration..." could be a second sentence, but should also mention Muslim immigration between 1920 and 1938, otherwise the reader gets the impression that only Jews immigrated into the area of Palestine (same source, page 49, top). Suggestion:

"In 1919, Muslims constituted 80 percent, Jews 10 percent and Christians 10 percent of the population of Palestine. [53][54]. Following immigration of mainly European Jews and fewer Arabs would change that to ..." JacobK (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it necessary to add this in the led? I mean that there are no other groups bearing the name. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course there are, there are

Palestinian Druze, etc. Andre🚐

09:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

This has to do with religion, not ethnic. In the end, they are all Palestinians with all their religious affiliations. I have never heard the word Palestinians associated with religion or language. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Er, yes, that's fair. They are mostly Arab, although I remember reading that some of the Palestinian Christians were at least at one point Greek or Syrian or Turkish or something like that, but I guess they've been Arabized, and according to Demographics of the State of Palestine and Origin of the Palestinians, any amount is negligible. Andre🚐 10:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem is not with the Arabs or Arabization. I do not see any need to mention the word “Arabs” alongside the Palestinians. It seems repetitive. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Palestinians has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am requesting a review and edit on the current wording on the following sentence from SECTION: Origins:

“Palestinians share a strong genetic link to the ancient Canaanites.[92] The Israelites emerged later as a separate ethnoreligious group in the region.”

Edit request: “Palestinians share a strong genetic link to the ancient Canaanites as do other Arab nations and Jews of the Levant.”

The original sentence is technically incorrect and misleading of the actual source.

Source cited: https://english.tau.ac.il/news/canaanites

1. The source cited does not mention the term Palestinians – it refers to Jews and Arabs

2. The study the source is referencing is found here where Palestinians are mentioned along with Jews and Jews other Arab nations and Africans https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30487-6.pdf

It seems several users have been discussing this on the Talk Page below, however I am non-EC and am unable to participate. But on the basis of WP:BALANCE a more senior admin should be made aware of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palestinians#2020_Genetic_study

Further to Talk Page:

Comment by USER:Zero Please note that Palestinians are represented separately from other Arabic-speaking groups in several figures. In Figure 5, Palestinians score higher by both measures on "Megiddo_MLBA+Iran_ChL" than all the represented Jewish groups except Iranian Jews. In Figure S4, Megiddo_MLBA and Iran_ChL are separated; we see that by one measure Palestinians score the same as Ashkenazi Jews on Megiddo_MLBA and well above other Jewish groups, while by the other measure Palestinians score well above all Jewish groups on Megiddo_MLBA. I believe it is reasonable to summarise what the article says about Palestinians. I don't agree that the existing sentence is unsupported by the article and I don't agree that the sentence suggests Palestinians are unique in this respect. If we want to turn it into a comparison by, for example including Jews and Bedouin, that would be fine but we would first have to decide whether the article is worth that much coverage.

The information provided by USER:Zero is WP:SYNTH and WP:PST from the original research. The study graphs what USER:Zero is highlighting but the research does not reach the conclusion given in the article of the origins of the Palestinians or Jews.

Two supporting secondary articles below which highlight the key findings state:

“The report published last week reveals that the genetic heritage of the Canaanites survives in many modern-day Jews and Arabs…that most Arab and Jewish groups in the region owe more than half of their DNA to Canaanites and other peoples who inhabited the ancient Near East.” https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2020/05/dna-from-the-bibles-canaanites-lives-on-in-modern-arabs-and-jews

“This study suggests there is a deep genetic connection of many Jewish groups today across the Diaspora and many Arab groups to this part of the world thousands of years ago…Most of the recovered genomes could be modelled as having a roughly 50/50 contribution of ancestry from local Neolithic inhabitants and from a group that hailed from the Caucasus or the Northwestern Zagros mountains, in today’s Iran.” https://english.tau.ac.il/news/canaanites

I hope after reading this you can see the difference between these two sentences, and which is more in line with the sources provided.

Current: “Palestinians share a strong genetic link to the ancient Canaanites. The Israelites emerged later as a separate ethnoreligious group in the region.”

Edit request: “Palestinians share a strong genetic link to the ancient Canaanites as do other Arab nations and Jews of the Levant.” Thanks. Chavmen (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is solely about Palestinians, we don't need to shoehorn anybody else to prove a point. That sentence is used in a way that shows literal continuity with the preceding one about the Canaanites, similar to how the mention of Jews proceeds the sentence about Israelites. If we are going to delve deeper, we should in its entirety, but this is neither the time nor place; both have their own articles (

Genetic studies on Jews and Origin of the Palestinians). In fact content was moved from this article to that article for that very purpose. The whole reason this edit was even made was because someone inserted something[2] unwarranted about the supposed genetic kinship of the Levant, which includes Jews, introducing a segment about how Jews and Palestinians (and vaguely Arabic-speaking groups) are ethnic kinfolk, even though this is inappropriate given that the section is not defined or given credence by genetic studies. People should indeed be aware of the fact that Palestinians are related to the Canaanites, just like how the Jews are related to the Israelites. The opposite can also be true. This isn't controversial, and it is well established. Ultimately it depends on how one defines related and the context it is used in. JJNito197 (talk

) 22:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The source says that Jews and surrounding Arab groups, including Jordanians and Saudis, are genetically related to the Canaanites. Using the same source to make a statement on solely on the Palestinians is not appropriate.

I propose adding a new paragraph at the bottom of the section. It can say something along the lines of "Genetic studies show that Palestinians, like other neighboring Arab and Jewish communities, have strong connections to regional Bronze Age populations, including the Canaanites. Genetic studies also point to the genetic relatedness of Jews and Palestinians." Dovidroth (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi JJNito197, the sentence about the Palestinians and the link with Canaanites isn't the issue, it's the clarifying statement after "The Israelites emerged later as a separate ethnoreligious group in the region.” That is not in the evidence provided as I stated above in my edit request.

If the attention is for the Palestinian people alone as it should be for an article dedicated to Palestinians, I'd be happy if the edit was to remove the clarifying sentence and then it can solely focus on Palestinians. Seems more neutral that way.

However, as Dovidroth points out, the source elaborates on Jews and Arab nations and I was under the impression we shouldn't be selective - if the research shows X - we write X. Thanks. Chavmen (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

JJNito197, I'm confused by your description of the edit you link ("unwarranted", "supposed") . That edit accurately reflected the source the editor used. That is the same source now serving to support the sentence in question, except that it had been inaccurately edited to speak only of Palestinians, in a way that the source itself never does anywhere in its text. okedem (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This would be better suited under the header "relationship to other populations" which was moved to the other designated article as it does not fit the subheader. Please understand that genetic testing and analysis plays an important role for some, one can say defining, but a less important role for others. Edits using genetic testing or the results of said testing for reasons other than medicinal purposes should indeed be scrutinized. Especially as the motivations for doing so is multifaceted.

Another thing about that source that makes it invalid is mentioning Arabs and Jews without being specific. These are 2 very diverse populations with variations in genetics - another reason why this edit is inaccurate. It leaves one wanting further elucidation, which is why the other designated articles are a better fit for the content.

Regarding that original edit, per BRD that user should have gained consensus for those edits as it wasn't a problem for readers previously, hence the lack of complaints in talk. So only when the edit is changed to just Palestinians in continuity with the article and subheader, everybody has a problem. I'm afraid the grievances don't seem genuine. I would be against making any edits that overshadow the origin of Palestinians on their own article. If necessary, we should also insert that Palestinians are related to Israelites on the Israelite page or the page about Jews. That would be completely fair. JJNito197 (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@JJNito197 Hi, JJNito197, the issue is not whether or not it refers to the genetic study or the Palestinians, the issue is that the sentence in this current version misrepresents the sources provided.

Specifically, as I stated in the edit request, the sentence - "The Israelites emerged later as a separate ethnoreligious group in the region" - is not mentioned in the sources, and does not clarify whether it is pertaining to Palestinians or Canaanites.

It's poor wording, incorrect use of sources, and frankly, is not the standard we should be aspiring to here on Wiki.

I appreciate you looking at this but as I said, either a new sentence with correct clarifying sentences should be made, or for ease, delete the sentence about the Israelites. That would probably make more sense in all honesty.

For me, as a new user and editor to Wikipedia, and someone who checks every single reference, I find these things to be the easiest and most important standards to keep.

Thanks. Chavmen (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Chavmen, yes I agree that wikipedia has high standards and we must follow them, lest this whole project collapses. We should wait for consensus. Thank you JJNito197 (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@JJNito197 Isn't consensus also about referencing sources correctly? I think my edit request has been lost here.

The point was that if this article is focused on Palestinians and their genetic link with Canaanites, it is then misleading (and irrelevant) if the next sentence states that the Israelites emerged later as a separate group.

Emerged from who has a later group? The Canaanites or Palestinians? Do you see how it's chronologically inaccurate?

Also:

1) it's not in the source

2) it should not be about the Israelites/Jews (as you've stated 3 or 4 times)

3) it's factually incorrect

If all these reasons are ignored, consensus doesn't actually matter. It's ignoring sources. Chavmen (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

JJNito197, the original phrasing of the sentence (the one you linked to) was the one accurately reflecting the source – here’s the source: “Most of today’s Jewish and Arabic-speaking populations share a strong genetic link to the ancient Canaanites, according to a new study”. Further, it says: “…modern-day groups in Lebanon, Israel and Jordan share a large part of their ancestry, in most cases more than half, with the people who lived in the Levant during the Bronze Age, more than 3,000 years ago.”

Now you’re saying the source is “invalid”? First, what is your standing to make such a claim? Second, it seems to me you’ve supported keeping it and the sentence using it – please clarify your position.

Your insinuations of whether grievances are “genuine” are offensive and misplaced. I was curious about the topic, read this article, and the sentence stuck out like a sore thumb, both for misleadingly leaving out other peoples, and for anachronistically mentioning Palestinians at a point of the chronology roughly 3,000 years before such a group became a nation – every other group is mentioned appropriately.

Beyond that sentence with phrasing that does not reflect the source, the sentence Chavmen mentioned is also incorrect, in that it implies Israelites arose separately from Canaanites, where the genetic evidence (the study in the source) clearly shows that the modern descendants of Israelites, Jews, are strongly connected genetically to Canaanites. Therefore, both sentences need to revised. okedem (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi okedem. Whatever that source says, it can be removed or changed to fit the statement. But how exactly does it "stick out like a sore thumb" more than the original edit? Would it be more precise with further elaboration or terse summary? The issue is partly WP SKY IS BLUE as it is obvious that Palestinians descend at least in part from the Canaanites, but the sentence can also be made more succint, or alternatively removed as it was the standard before the original edit. I am not willing to bolster the paragraph with racialist pseudoscience however, so would be against making any elaborative edits about the exclusive genetic makeup of the region in attempt to "prove" something somehow using the inhabitants of the region as political pawns, hence no account for Palestinians in the study. It should be clear and precise. We can start with changing the opening line of the second paragraph with "Palestinians" instead of Palestine. Or "Palestine and Palestinians" which be different way to write this. Thanks JJNito197 (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.

"Whatever that source says, it can be removed or changed to fit the statement"? The source is what it is. I hope you're not suggesting we replace the source to match a statement. We don't replace sources to fit whatever we want to say; we accurately reflect what sources say, whether we like them or not.

"it is obvious that Palestinians descend at least in part from the Canaanites" - nothing is obvious about that to me. In a region with so many population movements and empires exiling populations and bringing in others, there's nothing obvious to me about any such genetic links.

I have no idea what "racialist pseudoscience" you're talking about here. No one said anything about an "exclusive genetic makeup", what are you even talking about?

"hence no account for Palestinians in the study" - the study sampled various populations living in the region, including various Israeli Jews, Palestinians, Syrians, Saudis, Jordanians, Druze and others. Since all show genetic connections to the Canaanites, the study simply stated them together, saying: "We found that both Arabic-speaking and Jewish populations are compatible with having more than 50% Middle-Eastern-related ancestry". There's nothing political about this, and I hope you're not trying to call this study, conducted by a large multinational team and published in Cell, "pseudoscience".

"We can start with changing the opening line of the second paragraph with "Palestinians" instead of Palestine" - I don't see how this would result in a coherent sentence. Unless you're saying "Palestinians" in the sense of "whoever lived in the region", rather than any specific nation; using that logic, the Israelites were Palestinians, so that becomes quite absurd. okedem (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The statement that Palestinians are related to the Canaanites is an obvious fact supported by a plethora of RS. You can debate it somewhere else. How one defines "related" is key here, not everybody is ethnocentric or assumes that it is referring to genetics. Importantly, "genetic congruity" is not a predicate for peoplehood. We do not affirm or devalue a people based on uncorroborated, evolving theories. But as we now have sufficient genetic evidence to also support this for Palestinians, it is adequate enough for us to state on their page, and should not be unfairly criticised if we are going by the results of the study, per your understanding.

The reason we don't mention Jews is the the same reason we don't mention Syrians, Saudis, Jordanians, and Druze. Its not about them, it's about Palestinians. As some Arabs and Jewish groups like Ethiopians were not tested, it would be incorrect per

WP:SYNTH

to label them as also sharing a link to the ancient Canaanites on Wikipedia. The adherents of the Druze faith are actually Arabs - Syrians, Jordanians, and Lebanese, so there is no reason to separate them from the rest of the population as was done in the study. This is one of the reasons why this study is not inclusive enough - one does not pick and choose when to amalgamate, incorporate or separate ethno-religious groups, even if it is in good faith. As far as I'm aware, Israel is the only country to make this distinction and separation regarding the Druze. So this study is not without it's flaws, even if being "conducted by a large multinational team and published in Cell". But we shall await consensus.

The last sentence would start with "Palestine and Palestinians", and we can make the changes to the rest of the paragraph explaining the historical bonds between modern day Palestinians and the Palestinians of antiquity, as it is synonymous like this article set out from the first sentence. Lastly, the comment you made at the end of your post is strange, now it becomes "absurd" that Palestinians can also claim Israelite origins? Where is the coherency in all this. JJNito197 (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Palestinians and Canaanites - to me, if something needs to be stated, it's not obvious. Without genetic studies, I see no reason at all to think there's any meaningful connection, given all the population movements (e.g., the Assyrians, Babylonians and Romans exiling much of the local population at one time or another). Three millennia separate the Canaanites and modern-day Palestinians. Still, something being "obvious" or not is subjective, and there's no point arguing about it.

The source itself speaks of the people currently residing in the region, and makes logical choices. Frankly, I give the researchers' choices much more weight than the opinion of a random wiki editor. Regarding the Druze - they separated from the rest of the Arab population about a thousands years ago (in 1043), and have only been marrying within the group since. That means their genetic makeup is going to be slightly different to the other Arabs, even as they reside among them, similar to Jewish communities in the diaspora (perhaps even more so, since one can convert to Judaism, but no conversion to the Druze faith is allowed). As such, they're an interesting population to explore.

I think I need to clarify a bit - one of my objections to the current sentence is that it is inserted in a chronology that mentions each people at their correct historical times, when such a group was recognized as a people or nation. Canaanites, Israelites/Jews (just a different name), Romans, Arabs and so on. There were no "Palestinians" as a distinct group in those times, and so mentioning them in the middle of a chronology is simply jarring and misleading (leaving the impression that there was such a people at those times). Nations develop out of other groups at different times; Palestinians, as a nation, are a young group, and so any discussion of them in ancient times is a-historical. It would be like trying to talk about Americans when discussing North America in 1000 BC. Americans are a nation, but only became one in the 18th century. They descend from many other nations, so we can talk about all their origins, but they did not exist as a group until quite recently.

You misunderstand my final comment. I am not saying that Palestinians don't have a connection to Israelites. I am saying Israelites were not Palestinian. That is, the demonym "Palestinian" cannot be appropriately used at that point in history.

Now, to move forward - I take no issue at all with discussing genetic connections, but it needs to be done appropriately, and not in the middle of a historical chronology. I think the current chronology paragraphs are good and appropriate - they reasonably describe many of the population movement to the area, that each seems to have contributed to the makeup of modern Palestinians. I propose to remove that sentence - right now it's more confusing than helpful (e.g., says nothing of connections to non-Canaanite populations). If there's consensus about adding a few sentences regarding genetic studies, they should be sourced by multiple studies, which would provide a clearer picture of what genetic evidence tells us - alongside strong link to Canaanites, Palestinians are also strongly connected to other Arab peoples, such as Saudis and Syrians, as would be expected given the Arab conquest and subsequent empires in the area. Such a short paragraph can come right at the end of the current section - then the existing paragraphs introduce the reader to the various populations in the area, and then the genetic paragraph shows how modern Palestinians relate to those various groups. okedem (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@JJNito197 @Okedem I think it would be good to get another set of eyes on this discussion as this has been going back and forth now for some days, and in order to avoid WP:BLUDGEON I want to highlight below what I think the main arguments are for someone else to view:

1) This article is about Palestinians - we don't want to detract from that

2) In saying that, we can't "cherrypick" what we want from the source or misrepresent it - this source [3]

3) The sentence in the article in question: The Israelites emerged later as a separate ethnoreligious group in the region is not mentioned in the source and is misleading - recommend to delete this sentence leaving the sentence pertaining to the source Palestinians have a strong genetic link to the Canaanites

4) An important sentence in the source's discussion that would need to be added is: "This does not mean that any of these present-day groups bear direct ancestry from people who lived in the Middle-to-Late Bronze Age Levant or in Chalco-lithic Zagros; rather, it indicates that they have ancestries from populations whose ancient proxy can be related to the Middle East." Could be included in a section on genetics?

5) The comparison shown in figure 5 is not showing direct ancestry, meaning it's not a tree that shows the trajectory of the populations history. The researchers would need to do much more research to figure that out. The lower ancestry in the other Jewish populations could be due to them intermixing more with their surrounding populations, such as Europeans - from a genetics view point this is important

I hope I have summarized sufficiently but would be good for someone else to view. Thanks for taking the time to view my edit request. Chavmen (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@JJNito197, as there are 3 editors discussing this topic my request for WP:3O was rejected. However, I am hoping that after a 4 day break from discussions we can achieve a consensus. After re-reading the discussion I have two proposals for comments, let's try to keep it simple:

1) The sentence I requested edited is:

Palestinians share a strong genetic link to the ancient Canaanites. The Israelites emerged later as a separate ethnoreligious group in the region.

The source given here [4] does not state anything about Israelites, and I am not sure why this follows on from the above sentence considering the Israelites emerged from the Canaanites and not the Palestinians. So the sentence is out of sync chronologically and is unsourced. I also find the paragraph odd that we jump straight from the genetic links of Palestinians to a number of sentences about the Israelites and Jews - seems out of place to me.

I propose a change to this sentence with a clarifier - Palestinians share a strong genetic link to the ancient Canaanites despite the movements of peoples in the region. The ancient Israelites emerged as a separate ethnoreligious group from the Canaanites and Jews eventually formed the majority of the population in Palestine during classical antiquity.

I feel this flows better and is more clear.

2) Expansion of genetic studies (however not essential).

As I said genetic studies are hard to reference without using WP:SYNTH or WP:OPINION. Hence why it's either important to quote them thoroughly or paraphrase them in full. Cherry picking only gives us half the story.

Hence the sentence in the discussion of the paper: "This does not mean that any of these present-day groups bear direct ancestry from people who lived in the Middle-to-Late Bronze Age Levant or in Chalco-lithic Zagros; rather, it indicates that they have ancestries from populations whose ancient proxy can be related to the Middle East."

As I said, up to you if you want a section on genetic studies in this article - my main concern is item number 1.

I hope we can reach an agreement here. Chavmen (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Your edit seems to follow the source well. I think its a good edit request. Well done for researching the source and taking the time to request. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I did the edit request :). Please tell me if its satisfactory. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I was reverted. Looking now I see that its considered contentious. However since the edit request simply asks to follow the source as accurately as possible I did and do not understand why its contentious. I hope other editors will comment here and explain. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Chavmen, yes thanks for your effort. That sentence about the present day groups bearing direct ancestry is pertinent, although like you said bringing genetics into it takes aways from the paragraph slightly. I think possibly "Modern-day Palestinians are genetically related (or share genetic affinity) to the ancient Canaanites who inhabited Palestine after the

Natufian Neolithic culture of the Levant." or along the lines is a better fit, as we are including an equally important historical part of the region, also tied to the Palestinian people, but giving it WP DUE WEIGHT. This is if we want to inlude genetics in the paragraph. We should mention the Natufian culture regardless. JJNito197 (talk

) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@JJNito197 Sure, but again, the source doesn't state it exactly as so.

But I agree it should be a simple statement "Modern day Palestinians share a strong generic link with ancient Canaanites."

But to follow with the suggestions I made regarding the Israelites. Chavmen (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The Israelite distinction was made as a segway to the Jews inhabiting Palestine, giving the reader context about this part of history. If we don't mention Israelites we shouldn't mention Jews as these are inextricably related, especially in understanding fully the origins of the Palestinian people. But we do need a source for this. JJNito197 (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@JJNito197 Yes, I understand that. Do you have some suggestions how to restructure?

Because I want the article to share the genetic link between Canaanites and Palestinians, but not to the detriment of misusing sources.

If we are to omit the Jewish link with the Canaanites in this article, then best to state clearly how Israelites also emerged from the Canaanites as the paragraph does go on to talk about the Jewish people. Chavmen (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe something how, specifying Palestinians,

"The genetic relationship between modern day Palestinians and the ancient Canaanites has been corroborated with shared ancient links between neighbouring populations in the Levant."

Israelites emerging later suits this in terms of continuity, highlighting the unique origin and history of the Jews, in contrast to the others, expanding on the previous wording "neighbouring populations". JJNito197 (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@JJNito197 Hi JJNito197, if you can find a source that directly states that, then that's okay. The genetic study isn't sufficient for that conclusion. All we know from this particular study is that the peoples of the Levant share a genetic link with the Canaanites.

There's no chronological continuity mentioned and terms like "emerging later" aren't appropriate.

I don't want to push my non-EC edit request. Thanks. Chavmen (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

We can change that with "branching off the Canaanites" or similar, but the separation between these 2 groups should be articulated. But yes, with additional sources as long as WP SYNTH doesnt apply, to enlighten the presumably unaware reader of this split. JJNito197 (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This discussion needs to be brought to a close, the requesting editor is non EC,

@Selfstudier Hi Selfstudier, as a non EC that's what I requested an edit per protocol. Seems odd to shut down a discussion regarding misuse of source/omission of content in source. Should be a concern for all editors. Chavmen (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Needs to be concluded, either as not done or with some edit. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I still do not understand what is the problem with the edit request. Chavmen made an effort and read the source and asked for a correction. I don't think its correct to close the discussion, especially considering the effort the editor made. Homerethegreat (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is not closed, it needs to be, one way or another. A non EC editor cannot monopolize the talk page with ongoing argument and editors responding need to make a decision. Selfstudier (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier Hi Selfstudier, I didn't think I was monopolising the discussion - Okedem, Homerethegreat, and of course JJNito197 all had equal parts.

I was merely trying to achieve some rectification over the source use and sentence structure.

Up to you all now what to do with it. WP:LETITGO Chavmen (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I added a better ref about the study that specifically mentions the Palestinians "These were followed by Palestinians, Jordanians and Syrians, with an 80 percent of ancestry shared with the ancient Levantines."

I tagged the next sentence as requiring a citation. Closing this edit request. Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is there this discrepancy between the page Philistines and the page Palestinians?

Philistines: The English term Philistine comes from Old French Philistin; from Classical Latin Philistinus; from Late Greek Philistinoi; ultimately from Hebrew Pəlištī (פְּלִשְׁתִּי; plural Pəlištīm, פְּלִשְׁתִּים), meaning 'people of Pəlešeṯ (פְּלֶשֶׁת)'; and there are cognates in Akkadian Palastu and Egyptian Palusata;[6] the term Palestine has the same derivation.[7] The native Philistine endonym is unknown.

The Greek toponym Palaistínē (Παλαιστίνη), which is the origin of the Arabic Filasṭīn (فلسطين), first occurs in the work of the 5th century BCE Greek historian Herodotus, where it denotes generally[63] the coastal land from Phoenicia down to Egypt.[64][65] Herodotus also employs the term as an ethnonym, as when he speaks of the "Syrians of Palestine" or "Palestinian-Syrians",[66] an ethnically amorphous group he distinguishes from the Phoenicians.[67][68] Herodotus makes no distinction between the inhabitants of Palestine.[69]

Palestinians: A depiction of Syria and Palestine from CE 650 to 1500 The Greek word reflects an ancient Eastern Mediterranean-Near Eastern word which was used either as a toponym or ethnonym. In Ancient Egyptian Peleset/Purusati[70] has been conjectured to refer to the "Sea Peoples", particularly the Philistines.[71][72] Among Semitic languages, Akkadian Palaštu (variant Pilištu) is used of 7th-century Philistia and its, by then, four city states.[73] Biblical Hebrew's cognate word Plištim, is usually translated Philistines.[74]

Why is a term in article A given as derived from Greek derived from Hebrew, but in article B given as derived from Greek? Especially since Shmuel A predates the Historiai by roughly two hundred years, if not more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.27.31.160 (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)