Talk:Palestinians/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Gaza

please change ((Gaza)) to ((Gaza City|Gaza)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:c70:e067:b3a3:2d55:60d0 (talk • contribs)

Done --st170e^talk 16:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Honduras

Although there are no official statistics, historian Jorge Amaya estimates that around 250,000-300,000 of Honduras’ eight million inhabitants are of Arab descent, mainly Palestinian.

The figure of 250,000 comes from Jorge Amaya, author of a key academicd study: Los árabes y palestinos en Honduras,1900-1950, Tegucigalpa: Editorial Guaymuras,1997

Given that 'mainly' is indeterminate, and can't be used we get the probable figure in

Jorge Alberto Amaya, Los Árabes y Palestinos en Honduras: su establecimiento e impacto en la sociedad hondureña contemporánea:1900-2009 23 July, 2015.

En suma, los árabes y palestinos, arribados al país a finales del siglo XIX, dominan hoy en día la economía del país, y cada vez están emergiendo como actores importantes de la clase política hondureña y forman, después de Chile, la mayor concentración de descendientes de palestinos en América Latina, con entre 150,000 y 200,000 personas.

(Honduras) has the greatest concentration of people of Palestinian descent in Latin America, with between 150,000-200,000 people

So, the figure can be reliably given as '150,000-200,000 with this reference.

The general topic is covered by LG Rivera, 'Palestinian Immigrants in Honduras,' Revista de Estudios Sociales, Bogotá, January-April 2014 Pp. 57-68., who writes:

The events show that, far from being an assimilated group, Palestinian immigrants and their descendants are still perceived as a culturally distinct group in Honduras

I put this on the Honduras-Palestinians page as well Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.unesco.org/culture/intangible-heritage/30arb_uk.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic group vs national group

Lets do a vote, this is ridiculous because it's so obvious that palestinians are not an ethnic group, they are a national group of multiple ethnic groups, otherwise there wouldn't be a template could "ethnic groups in the state of palestine". As you know I support a change to national group.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Votes never count, as far as I understand. If it does, I'd join you. I am surprised that the previously mentioned sources, where Palestinians were referred more to as a nationality with different ethnicities, was removed in favor or a single source referring to them as a unique ethnicity. It showed no inferiority of what so ever to the other sources. Keep in mind, that the sources I refer to were posted by someone who claimed Palestinians were ethnicity - and it backfired on him. I am still in favor of choosing the neutral option just to satisfy everyone, showing both points and perhaps even adding that it's part of the Arab Panethnicity. Yes, it means a little bit more words to the text but it also means more accuracy. 84.108.171.88 (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The 3 editors who negate this usage re ethnic group so far have a declared Zionist interest. It's like having a Turkish majority on a page on the Armenians. Frankly, is no one embarrassed out there by this conflict of interest and partisanship? Apart from the crassness of a page on an occupied people being dominated by editors who identify with the occupying power, . . . I will provide an adequate number of Rs showing this is common usage. We go by RS, and not by editor's personal ideological objections.Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I will write a section on the issue of Palestinian ethnicity. That should satisfy all concerns.Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No votes please. Votes are the cancer of Wikipedia.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, Cancer, wow. Can someone please explain the antipathy towards voting on the pedia? I've always loved a good vote. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"Identify with the occupying power...." these are black and white terms.You often edit Jewish topics, yet I have never told you to "GO away" because you "identify with the Arab imperialists" or something of the sort. "The occupying power" is a rather dehumanizing word for the israeli people, remember what dehumanization leads to? The comparison to turks and armenians is silly, the palestinians adore Erdogan, once calling him "the new Salahdin", and many armenians (particularly the US diaspora) support Israel and identify with the Jewish people. You are making this into an ideological crusade. It's not. If scholarship were evenly split, or even 3:1, it would be debate worthy, but google shows a split of 78 to 1 in usage of the terms "palestinian nation" and "palestinian ethnicity". You can find all the reliable sources you want, it's not about reliable sources, it's about due weight.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

[2] A little bird showed me this. On the Palestinian/Arab minority in Israel."Their collective identity is composed of different elements: nationality (Palestinian), ethnicity (Arab), religion (Muslim, Christian, or Druze), citizenship (Israeli)" --Monochrome_Monitor 02:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(a) I almost never edit exclusively Israeli articles. (b) I have frequently noted on the Jews article's talk page, that the standards Zionist editors demand here are violated there, in a WP:SYNTH definition. I don't harass the page with edit-warring. I leave it to the conscience of involved editors to fix, eventually.(c) the editors who keep trying to hack at Palestinian identity know that, but just concentrate their efforts here. Totally slack or ideologically committed to their own oneiric myths of self-definition, the Zionists among them hail from a tradition whose greatest political, religious and military leaders, to give a small selection from an essay I once wrote for myself, have consistently gone public calling Palestinians: ‘lice’;‘moles; ‘animals’; ‘two footed beasts’;cockroaches; ‘beasts and asses’; ‘ravening beasts’;‘leeches’; ‘ants’;‘snakes’:‘subhumans’;‘crocodiles,';‘mosquitoes’ to be exterminated; people who ‘live like dogs’;‘grasshoppers’ to be crushed underfoot;‘a nation of monkeys’;‘scorpions’; ‘worms’;‘they are not human beings, they are not people, they are Arabs’ (David Hacohen); ‘wasps’:‘cannibals’; ‘primitive people’;‘savages’;‘niggers;’‘sand niggers’;‘Red Indians’; aliens from a different galaxy; ‘cancers’ needing treatment with Israeli chemotherapy”: somewhere below minerals on the evolutionary chain of being;‘local bacteria’; people with a “genetic blemish”; pigs; Arab scum: deserving castration to be rendered eunuchs if they resist occupation; a non-people; non-existent people, etc.etc.It's a Turkish nationalists-trying-to-hog-the-Armenian page scenario.

Anyone aware of the intensity of that contempt thriving in their own outlook's representatives would, if decent, tread very warily around an article on the people whose dignity has been for a century under such rhetorical assault, and would probably refrain (as I know the great majority of Jewish editors here do) from touching such a page (I'd be happy if they did, since most have no ideological fixations in putting Palestinians in their place). Sensible suggestions and edits, even if they point out lacunae that might be negative in impact, are welcome. Anyone can edit here, but ethnic crassness is intolerable, esp. from partisans of the victor in a conflict, insisting by edit-warring on definitions that mirror the orthodoxies of Zionist contempt for the vanquished.Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Would you care to provide sources for those comments? I know many of them are fake quotes from questionable sites, btw. Drsmoo (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Not quite sure what do you try to accomplish with that comment, especially when it seems like a weird violation WP:NOTFORUM and I am also not sure on which victory you are talking about. And with all honesty Nish, I genuenly belive that the argument that Palestinians are not an ethnic group but a national group is much much less politically motived than the argument that they are in fact an ethnic group. If it was an ideological argument, I would ramble about the fact the Palestinians are a made up joke by some Arabists, a joke that was taken too literally, but that is not the case. I am not willing to change the content of the article (Just like with the claim of a "state" or "de-jure state" in the State of Palestine article, which established a consensus by democracy which is totally not how wikipedia should work), I only think that the claim that the Palestinians are an ethnic group, with or without sources doesn't make alot of sense and that it feels like the users who want to place it in the article do it as a prinicple, just like those who insisted on writting that Palestine is a "state in the Middle East" becasue "Israel is also written like that", this is principal editing. I seriously don't care about how many sources will be brought to here, this question, wether the Palestinians are an ethnic group is very ambigues, and I think that's becuase a very small number of people in the scholar community actually think they are an ethnic group, not because they are zionists, but becuase what they know is an "ethnic group" doesn't match with the description of the Palestinians, a group created by the drawing of borders by colonialists, with religious, cultural and clan divisions. Just like the Israeli popular notion that Arabs within Israel are "Arab-Israelis" and Arabs in the territories are "Palestinians" is wrong, in the same way that the members of the Zoabi family didn't just became ethnically Palestinians while their family members who lived in Jordan didn't became ethnically Jordanian when the Brittish Empire decided on 3 June 1922 to split between Palestine and Transjordan, which only until a shortwhile, were considered part of the same region (you can see it in the survery of Eastern Palestine from 1889). You just can't deny every single source (out of possibly hundreds), saying it's because Zionists are inhumain or somtin. In this way, I"ll deny every single source I"ll find, saying Palestinians are liers. Which they are sometimes, concering poisoning water.. or "peacefull protests", or flooding the Gaza Strip, or whatever they say in Arabic that the educated westerners can't comprehend.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I intensely dislike the world 'ethnic' because as I grew up, I got the clear impression it was being introduced by cultural anthropologists to replace the discredited concept of 'race', without ridding it of the breeding complex intrinsic to the old concept of race. Whatever, two factors intervene here. Anthropology and ethnic studies generally use that word now to mean

a group of people who share the same language, culture, history, religion, and values. Each ethnic group adopts a certain language and lifestyle to distinguish itself from other ethnic groups’ (Ennaji 1999)

They fit that, particularly in modern times, within the occupied territories, they are caged in to intermarry among themselves, share the same politico-social realities, are overwhelming Sunni predominantly and assert that difference against the ruling power in their midst, which defines itself ethnically. The conflict literature classifies the I/P struggle now as an ethnic conflict. Lastly, a Palestinian national consciousness has, willynilly, been formed as all recognize. I was talking to a Syrian Alawite with a professorial degree some time ago, who hates their guts; some Egyptians in my neighbourhood are equally hostile - their life in the diaspora tends to keep them together, esp in Arab countries, but Honduras idem, where they are collectively branded 'los Turkos' etc.etc. The Palestinians, like the biblical Hebrews, extended from Palestine to the Transjordan and Syria, and had distinct divisions, but this didn't stop the priesthood from defining them as a collective. Ah, the German-Italy match has just restarted. I can see what you are driving at, but I guess my final point should be that anyone in a minority does not like the majority to dictate how it should be perceived in the outside world. The tradition of Israeli denial of their identity, or reduction of it to that rather vapid and vague term 'nationality' is too deep for me to feel comfortable.Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I just saw Nishidani's comment from 10:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC) now, and have to reply:

(a) You almost never edit "exclusively Israeli articles" (however you would define that) but you edit many MANY exclusively Jewish articles, almost always in a ways that most Jews would find objectionable, almost always in ways that attempt to disconnect Jews from their history. You are the most active promoter of the Khazar theory on Wikipedia, for example. (b) You indeed frequent the Jews article. There you demand some kind of exact wording to fit your POV and everything else is SYNTH, while here you insist on vagueness that fits your POV which you SYNTHed from various sources. Interesting how that works. (c) Do you also keep a list of nasty things Palestinians have said about Jews? Those are not hard to find, and you won't have to dig back to someone who died in 1983. Of course you don't have such a list.

You of all people should stop telling others they shouldn't be editing this article. It's hypocrisy of the first degree.

And to the point of this discussion, a Palestinian from the Galilee has more in common in terms of culture, language and values with a Lebanese Sunni from south Lebanon than he has with a Palestinian Bedouin from the Negev (who became a Palestinian because he happened to be there on a certain day and not in the Sinai or Jordan where he was just as likely to be), and you know that. They are not the same ethnicity per the definition you posted above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I stopped reading when you wrote:-

you edit many MANY exclusively Jewish articles, almost always in a ways that most Jews would find objectionable

You are not a spokesman for most Jews, whatever that refers to, and attempts to try and find a provocative edge into a personalized argument by playing on this will fall on deaf ears. Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You started this thread by telling editors they shouldn't be editing this article because "It's like having a Turkish majority on a page on the Armenians" and I'm the one personalizing things? That would be funny if it wasn't so typical.

You didn't stop reading and you know every word I wrote is true. I'm just going to assume you don't have a counter argument to the ethnicity thing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't start this thread. I didn't tell editors not to edit the article. I suggested to editors self-identifying as Zionists (which they do) to show sensitivity to the very people one form of Zionism is in conflict, or at war with. I expect consistency in editors. Every wiki policy summarily adduced to challenge the very notion of a Palestinian identity is never applied to one of the parallel, sister articles, namely Jews, where the definition is patently fictitious, a WP:SYNTH patchwork whose egregious flaws are not visible on this page. The editors who return again and again to the question of a 'Palestinian people' in order to challenge it -read the archives - come from a perspective which is the obverse of those editors who are identified without raising hysterical eyebrows from arbs, 'pro-Palestinian'. Their editing history is, to use the same language, 'pro-Israel'. I find nothing wrong in being either: Israel is the accomplishment, by universal assent, of a Zionist project. To say this is not the case is to be disingenuous in the correct sense of that term. If the point in returning to this stale thread is to engage in a fishing expedition to angle for the mythical trout of anti-Semitism said by rumour to lurk in the murky waters of the Nishidanic mind, it's unlikely the bait will catch its victim, because the object of the piscatorial quest is, like the frumious bandersnatch, mythical, and invented creatures don't rise to the bait. As Auden once put it

Poet, oracle, and wit

Like unsuccessful anglers by

The ponds of apperception sit,

Baiting with the wrong request

The vectors of their interest,

At nightfall tell the angler's lie.

Your constant return to the campaign you waged years ago to nail me as an anti-Semite is tedious. So drop it. Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I got it the first time. In the Nishidanic mind, "Zionist" editors should be limited in the articles they may edit as a show of "sensitivity", like he shows by "almost never" editing articles that are "exclusively Israeli" (such as?) but he otherwise may edit whatever whatever he likes, "sensitivity" be damned (in fact, you often lachrymosely say on the talk page that your edits are not welcome, and then edit anyway). Funny, if not surprising.

Anyhow, I returned to this article discussion because I just saw it yesterday. I'm allowed to do that. What I see here is a majority of editors supporting a change, and one editor browbeating them into submission using personal attacks, promises of sources that are never produced, and irrelevant comparisons to other articles. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Check your edits, since you returned. You are constantly using provocative language, close to a sneer, in my regard. You've been around long enough to know this aggressive needling is frowned on. We're are here for article improvement, and enmity has no place here.Nishidani (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You stop telling editors their presence here is indecent and crass and that they should be embarrassed for showing up here, all while posting long lists of irrelevant shit, and I'll stop pointing out the hypocrisy of your comments. How's that? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The insistence of not labeling Palestinians as an ethnic group is nothing more than digital genocide to push an agenda, if the table were turned on other ethnicity pages on wikipedia there would be public outlash. The wide array of sources directly support the labeling of Palestinians as an ethnic group. Lazyfoxx (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Please tell me what is the difference between the Arabs who lived in Al-Bassa and the Arabs who live Naqoura and why the former is Palestinian and the latter is Lebanese. Please tell me why Beduins, a distinct ethnic group, are considered part of the Palestinians, dispite the fact many of the Beduin tribes are connected to other tribes from Jordan who are considered Jordanian? Please tell me why the Arabs of Amman are not considered "Palestinians" dispite the fact the British, the UN and the Jews considered it to be part of Palestine, but the British decided to cancel this and now forever Palestine is "from the river to the sea"? I can accept the idea of "Palestinian culture", but the fact the Palestinians were defined as residents who lived or migrated to a terrtory whose borders were drawn by the British to alloy their intrests and in some cases the Jewish intrersts, does not make them an ethnic group. Fun fact, the Galilee Panhandle was created to incorporate Jewish settlements, and since it was incorperated, suddenly all of the people living there were considered Palestinians, disite the fact it was part of French controled Syria. Palestinians are a national group, no more than that.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Bedouins are a part of the Palestinian Nationality, whether they are ethnically Palestinian is decided by their culture, language, and ancestry. Some Bedouins may be ethnically Palestinian, others may not. As for them having ancestral ties to other countries, I ask you this, is a Scotsman who may be partly descended from some Viking colonists in the past any less of a Scotsman? Lazyfoxx (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Beduins who identify as Palestinians are part of the Palestinian nationality. The fact the Beduins have the second highest rate of volunteering to the Israeli army among minorities just shows you how the minority groups and non-Muslim Arabs in Israel refer to themselves as Palestinians less than Palestinians outside of Israel (in total only 60% of the Israeli Arab population identifies as "Palestinian" and an overlaping 80% identify as "Israeli", with 40% of them identifying as "Palestinian Israelis"). The Palestinians are a nationallity, there is no doubt. An ethnic group? That's hard to determine. What is exactly Palestinian ethnicity (i.e. simmilarities)? I don't know, I"ve never read much into that subject. I"ve read about Palestinian culture, and everyone who knows Israeli-Arabs and Palestinians will see that not all of the Arabs of Palestine/Israel have the same culture, especially when you look at the Nomadic Beduins and the Druze. The Druze for example, see themselves as non-Arabs. They think of themselves as an ethnic group and they do not seek independence (the absolute majority). They usually identify with their hosting country, like Israel, Syria and Lebanon, kind of like the Jews in Europe. The Druze in northern Israel are considered Palestinian, according to the PLO, but they themselves consider themselves Druze Israelis, and in Israel many of them will be insulted if you"ll call them "Arab" or "Palestinians". This is why the IDF tend to put them in West Bank checkpoints, they really hate Arabs, and when Druze give bad treatment to Arabs, it is not as bad as when Jews give bad treatment of Arabs (No Jews No News). I remember a Druze friend who told me "Fucking Arabs stole my bike", and I wanted to ask "Aren't you an Arab?" but I just didn't say anything. So how can you label the Druze as "ethnically" or "nationally" "Palestinians"? "Palestinians" is a geographical term, it refers simply to all of the non-Jewish residents of the British Mandate of Palestine until 15 May 1948, including the immigriants who came from other Arab countries, like Yasser Arafat and Izz ad-Din al-Qassam.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The Druze have a recent political history in the region, it makes sense why they may want to not identify as Palestinian or why they did not take to pan-Arabism like Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

It is actually very easy to define an ethnic group and it has been done on this page and countless others many times in the past. A simple definition of an ethnic group is "a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities, such as common language, ancestral, social, cultural, or national experiences." I'm having a deja vu here so I may suggest you read the archives.

It is your opinion that Palestinian is simply a geographic term and reliable sources do not agree with you. Lazyfoxx (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bolter21: There seems to be an assumption in your reasoning that new ethnic groups cannot be created. Also, I think that all ethnic groups have unclear boundaries, so pointing to cases of unclear membership doesn't help to distinguish ethnic groups from other groups. Sociology is hardly my strong point, but it seems to me a reasonable case can be made that the shared experience of the British mandate, Zionism and (especially) the Nakba solidified the Palestinians as an ethnic group even though it was less clear before. Zero^talk 07:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is that the so called ethnic group was, and I genuenly, 100% believe in it, created to counter Zionism, which is a less batalant way of saying "to push the Jews into the sea". Sure there were some Christian newspapers in the 1900s called "Filastin", but in reality all of this nationalism wouldn't exist if history wouldn't take a different path in which, Hajj Amin al-Hussenini was assasinated by the Lehi and king Abdullah took over the Arab parts of Palestine. Just throwing a scenario. If the Arab countries accepted the Palestinian refugees, their kids and grandsons wouldn't feel so Palestinian. If the Soviet Union wasn't a warmongerning nation and the United Kingdom wasn't a negelective colonialist, maybe all of this wouldn't happen. The need to define Palestinians as a distinct ethnic group is based in political history on the region. The PLO it self says that Palestinians are all the non-"Zionists" who lived inside the spesific boundaries drawn by the British to make the Jews and the Hashimites happy, which were the Palestinians' main enemies in 1948. I don't deny that Nablus and Hebron might have their own distinct characters, but it doesn't make the Druze in the north or the Beduin in the south, connected to them culturaly, just because they were trapped in British borders. People gave up on "East Palestine" too quickely.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bolter21: Here is another version of what you wrote, with some words changed, to illustrate the inherent double standards:

"The problem here is that the so called Jewish ethnic group was, and I genuinely, 100% believe in it, created to counter 19th century Jewish Assimilationism, which is a less blatant way of saying "to push the Jews into Palestine". Sure there were some Christian and Jewish pamphlets calling for Restorationism or Aliyah, but in reality all of this nationalism wouldn't exist if history wouldn't take a different path in which, Alexander II of Russia was not assassinated, Dreyfus had not been wrongly convicted and the Ottoman Empire had not fallen."

If you want to keep questioning Palestinian ethnicity, whilst remaining balanced, you must apply the same standards to the creation of Jewish ethnicity and nationalism. You should also compare the complexity of this situation to the creation of other national identities around the world, and not just the obvious ones. Trying to analyse Palestinian identity on its own is just going to cause you to get a warped and deluded view of the situation. If you really care to learn, this is a good place to start.

Oh and your ideas about TJ and other Arab countries are absurd. They show a total lack of understanding, and are racist insofar as such views assume an undertone of "all Arabs are the same". Irrespective of who drew the boundaries in the region and where they were drawn, the people living in the region knew that they lived in the Holy Land. The deserts of Transjordan or the towns of northern Syria are not substitutes for that. Their towns and cities have thousands of years of history that the local people took pride in. They spoke a unique dialect. And to top it off, they believe they have had their land and heritage stolen. The idea that Palestinian nationalism could somehow dissipate without the application of some level of justice and dignity has no worldwide precedent or other justification.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no "Jewish ethnicity". This is why it was called a "Melting pot". Jews are a nation or if you want, a "revived nation". Second of all, I don't remember when I said "all Arabs are the same". I have spesifically said several times that Beduins are completely different than the other Palestinians. I don't think the Arabs of Aleppo are the same as the Arabs of Tulkarem. I am well aware of the Egyptians are considered an ethnic group without needing to battle Zionism and I am not sure of to be offended by the accusation. I am not a racist or a chauvinist. What I said was that there are two banks to the Jordan river and the eastern bank was almost always considered part of Palestine and the split occured only because the UK had to make the Hashimites happy. I don't believe the fact some European drew a border between you and a village 500 meters from you, makes you Palestinian and makes them Syrian. As I said, the Galilee Panhandle is the best example, when the entire panhandle was created beacuase there were three Jewish settlements that were needed to be annexed. It was also annexed with parts of the modern day Golan Heighs. If the UK didn't transfer the Heights' foot to france, today the Cirecessian villages there were considered "Palestinian" and not "Syrian. I also don't think there was a cultural difference between Rafah, Palestine and Rafah, Egypt. So why is Egyptian Rafah Egyptian, and Gazan Rafah Palestinian? Why is Umm Rashrash Palestinian but Aqaba is Jordanian? If you want to claim that in the heart of "historic Palestine", i.e. in the hill region and the coast there was a distinct culture, I am willing to accept that, but as far as I know, the Galilee also had a distinct culture as well as the Negev, which have major geographical and historical differences in compare to Judea, Samaria and the coastal plain. Did the mostly Christian Nazareth was more culturaly close to Hebron than to Amman? And if Hebron is culturaly closer to Amman than to Nazareth, does it mean that Nazareth is not Palestinian or that Amman is also Palestinian? And what about Acre and Tyre? I am refusing to accept that just beacuse the British drew a border between Irbid and Tiberias, they are two different ethnicities and I am certain that there is no one "Palestinian ethnicity", if you want to go as deep as saying that the Muslim Arabs of the Levant are not a single ethnicty.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but this is true for border regions in every country. The people of Savoy have more in common with each other than they do with Parisians, Romans or Zurichers. The people of Silesia have more in common with each other than they do with the populations of Prague, Warsaw and Berlin. What you wrote above have nothing to do with Palestine and everything to do with the problems with all borders. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, Bolter21, you are not correct about the Galilee panhandle. The location of Metulla was considered when drawing the very northern part of the boundary, but the overriding reason the panhandle was included in Palestine was to ensure water supply. The negotiations are described over several pages in Gideon Biger's book "The Boundaries of Palestine". Zero^talk 12:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

From what I"ve read, the British used the Jewish settlements there to justify the annexation of the Hula lake and the rivers inside.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile, you took two bad examples, because both regions have a history of being independent, Savoy and Silessia. Also France had many ethnicities in the south, including Savoy and Silessia was German until someone decided to deport them. A better example would be the Poles who lived in Wilno Voivodeship and were part of Poland, but were disconnected from Poland and given to Lithuania. On the one hand, you claim there is a Palestinian ethnicity, which is obviously rooted many centuries ago, probably mostly influenced by the Arab conquest, but on the other hand you claim that the fact the Palestinian ethnicity extended and limited to the borders drawn by the British becuase it was created in them? The Poles in Lithuania are Poles and the Hungarians in south Slovakia or Transilvanya are Hungarians, they were just cut from their mainland following Europe's wars. And was the village of Naqoura and the village of Al-Bassa.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Native vs. Arab

@Oncenawhile: Before we start anything, should I revert your edit per WP:BRD dispite 1RR or is it you that is obligated to follow BRD? Either way, you made the bold edit, I reverted so one way or another, your bold edit needs to be reverted if you want to discuss.

I always prefer to have discussions when disputed source-contradicting, undiscussed bold edits are reverted and the discussion starts from zero and not with the 1RR pistol aimed at my forehead.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

That is fair and I agree with your sentiment, so I have done it. Will you start by explaining your strength of feeling on the edit, or do you want me to? Oncenawhile (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright. First of all there are two referneces, the first one says:

The Arabs of Palestine began widely using the term Palestinian starting in the pre-World War I period to indicate the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people.^[3]

The second refernece does not link to an open internet source.

Second of all, the Old Yishuv (dispite being native) did not take a significant part in this nationalism, actually most of the Old Yishuv joined the Zioinists. I think that the 1929 Hebron massacre is a reminder that the Arabs fought the Jews and not only the Zionists.

Third of all, according to the Palestinian Declaration of Independence, as well as the s:Palestinian Covenant, Palestine is an Arab nation.

Forth of all, Palestine has always had Pan-Arab colors in its flags.

In conclusion, I think that there is no place to judge the reliable source, that Palestine, is and always was an Arab nation, some even say Muslims, but the latter does not matter to us right now.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

We can both find other tertiary sources supporting every possible terminology usage here. The point we need to decide upon is what is most correct.

Your second point is misleading - the Old Yishuv certainly used the term Palestinian. See many thousands of uses of the term Palestinian Jews in the JTA archives (note the archive begins in Jan 1923, but it is clear that usage was already widespread by then.

Your third point is misleading - the Palestinian National Charter stated that "The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians."

Your fourth point shows how you misunderstand the situation here. "Palestinian", "Syrian" and "Arab" identities were all created at the same time, in response to Turkish, Zionist and other competing nationalisms. The idea that any one of these identities has precedence over the other is the primary mistake in your conclusions.

We should not use any nationalist term here. The current sentence implies that Palestinians are "Arabs" ethnically, which is often used by right wing bigots to suggest that Palestinians are not natives. We should not get into that native / not-native debate here. "Local people" is neutral. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is exactly the POV your edits represent, with or without you understanding it, dispite your good intentions. See, the sentence is:

"Palestinian" was used to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine in a limited way until World War I

Yes indeed the the Old Yishuv was called "Palestinian Jews", just like I am a Palestinian/Levantine/Canaanite/Dannite/Middle Eastern/Asian Jew. I put an emphasis on the passive part here, people called the Jews "Palestinian", there was an extensive use of the term by English scholary in the recent centuries before WWI. But we are talking about people who called themselves Palestinians, and those were primarily Arabs (and primarily Muslims). The "Palestinian Jews" are Jews from Palestine, but they did not call themselves "Palestinian Jews", hence "Jews of the Palestinian Nation".

The Palestinian National Charter described the Jews as Palestinians, but did the Jews described themselves as Palestinians? This is one of my own problems with the term "Palestinian", which is why I added the fact that dispite the UN and the PLO scream about "Palestinian citizens of Israel", only 60% of the actually identify as Palestinian, predominantly Muslims. Now who wrote the Palestinian National Charter? Jews? I don't think so (unless there's a Zionist false flag bs here). Those who described the Old Yishuv as "Palestinians", where the PLO Arabs who had interests in that notion, although attacking Hebron, partially on the order of the Muslim leadership, is quite contradictory to this notion.

Arabs also, are not only a nation (=A group of people, united in solidarity, to achieve a national goal = unity and self rule) but also an ethnic group (A group of people, with or without solidarity, not necessarily unified and not necessarily want a state, but share many characters, like history, language, traditions, religions, geographic origin and mentalities... like the Arabs of Israel, or Iran, or Turkey). The Arabs of Palestine are first of all, ethnically and linguistically Arabs. You can allege that my grandmother, Fortunna Saad Tabakh at her birth, was an Arab Jew from Beirut, she spoke about Nassrallah in the same way he spoke about the Jews, so dispite the slight religious and opinion differences, I don't think it is that crazy to say that my grandmother and Nassrallah were both ethnically Arab, while she was ethno-religiously Jewish and identified nationally as a Jew, and he was ethno-religiously Shia, identifying as Lebanese. It is not neutral, to say that those who who were native to Palestine, started naming themselves "Palestinian", that is the regular PLO BS we hear day and night, those who started calling themselves "Palestinians" were the Arabs.

I rest my case.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Bolter, how do you explain that the Jewish Telegraphic Agency used the term then?

Everything you have written above re Arabs being an ethnic group etc is your WP:OR. It is clear that you have a personal view here, which you are entitled to. But we must be neutral in the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ethnically Arab is a pretty meaningless term, esp. in this context, except as a synonym for cultural identity, in which case it could be dispensed with. The only argument I have for keeping ethnic identity here is because every group in the world now claims it, so the Palestinians also are thereby entitled. Probably the Sentinelese people are the only population that suits the underlying idea of pure descent. In a pivotal historic crossroad like Palestine, the notion of one dominant ethnos, with its implicit nudge of a 'racial' identity, is pretty silly. Everyone from Kurds to Moroccans, French Crusaders to Yemenite mercenaries, Bosnians (Yanun), African slaves to Circassians, have fucked around there for donkey's ages. We're all bastards.

Often we get lost in generalizations from just a word. If you look beyond complex words into the historical sociology, things shape up differently, B. I know, I think, the details of Hebron, in particular, fairly minutely, and if you read of the aliyah waves from the 1880s that affected the city, there was a deep strain between the Ashkenazi newcomers who had different customs, manners, attitudes, languages and the Old Yishuv, fluent in Arabic, totally at home in Arab customs, costumes and manners. I'm not idealizing, because I can also mention cases of violence, tension, intolerance for that early period. The Jewish Hebronites, old Yishuv and new, kept to separate synagogues, they were two different worlds. T he Zionists were considered utterly crass, constantly making social errors with their Arab landlords, because they didn't have what the Old Yishuv had, that second but natural knowledge of one's neighbours expectations and habits. The Old Yishuv could join in end of Ramadan feasts, just as Muslims round Bethlehem had their children occasionally baptized according to Christian rites, which didn't have the religious significance our intolerant times puts on it. Muslims could also participate in Jewish celebrations. I'm reminded of Yugoslavia pre 1914: the guslari or epic singers could be Christian, Serbian Orthodox, or Muslim but, depending on circumstances, any of that confessional group could sing for the other confessional group's parties. Numerous anecdotes underline this, and if we keep reading the past in terms of the present conflict, we screw up. I mean, where your grandmother came from, you could get a Greek orthodox cantor going up the minaret at day's end, when the local imam was ill or away, and taking over to act as muezzin with the broadcasting of Qur'anic verses over the village. That didn't embarrass the Christian, anymore than a pagan like myself feels embarrassed when, a guest of nearby monks, I recite at their request, the blessing at mealtimes in Hebrew. Of course there were lots of tensions, but not just ethnic. That's a very modern thing which trounces everything else. This has little to do with the PLO. Palestinian identity like everywhere else was provincial, tribal, hamula-clannish, and regional, just as it long was in Italy or France. As late as 2 centuries ago, Napoleon's Grande Armée had problems because at the outset, the peasants from a dozen regions each speaking their own regional tongue had difficulty communicating with each other. They became Frenchman later. Italians only started slowly to get their national identity from 1870s onwards, not that far distant from the time Palestinians started getting a feel for a general sense of national interest, whatever their origins - like in Israel - the function of armies is to draft in different social units and force them under stress of danger to adopt one language and mentality - What marks people in premodern times is dialect, customs and class, not ethnic identity.Nishidani (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This is basically all your opinion and it’s all bullshit. Many Palestinians are Arab and share a common language and culture. You end it with the most confused sentence I have ever read. Which seems to claim that dialect and customs are not markers of ethnicity. In other words, in your view ethnicity is a synonym for race.Jonney2000 (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Surprising. Every single sentence I wrote above, had a specialized book source at the back of my mind when I wrote it. So you are calling those books bullshit, which of course is your right. I'll give you an example, but you can probe further if you like. When you say it is my view that ethnicity is a synonym for race, you are just calling Pierre Bourdieu Nishidani. (P. Bourdieu, Ce que parler veut dire: l'économie des échanges linguistiques, Fayard 1982 p.135:'La confusion des débats autour de la notion de région et, plus généralement d'‹‹ethnie›› ou d'‹‹ethnicité›› (euphémismes savants que l'on a substitués à la notion de ‹‹race››, pourtant toujours présente dans la pratique), etc. . . . ). If you think I'm confused, then Hobsbawm, Gellner, Bourdieu, Benedict Anderson, and a dozen other major authorities on the topic, with the one exception perhaps of Anthony D. Smith, are muddle-headed bullshitters. That's your problem, not mine.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Italians. Just read that page, and there is nothing there that would tell you that the common identity of being Italian developed just a century ago, as in Palestine. We make a huge fuss, uniquely, of the fact that the people resident in Palestine acquired a national identity, per Rashid Khalidi, seeded in ca 1832, but taking wing by 1920. A few decades before that, if you read Italian history, you find numerous complaints that Italians don't exist, they have to be created by the state, because, in the 1860s, only 5% of the fuckers could read and write, let alone speak, Italian. In 1900 25% of the population wasn't registered - they lived outside the zones controlled by the centralized bureaucracy. Same in Japan and China. Identity, as we insist to the letter of the modern law with Palestine, is very much an invention. You should read the comments old Viennese Jewish families made of the waves of Ostjuden flowing in after Russia started pogroms as one of their 'modernizing projects', bit like Ashkenazi and the new Mizrachis in the 1950s. No real sense of common identity whatsoever, just disgusted embarrassment (unlike, I think, British Jewry which was far in advance of its time). Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Anyone who doesn't understand this should read Eric Hobsbawm's Nations and Nationalism. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This has became a long conversation on ethnities. I don't know how, but I manage to move the discussions into places I weren't intended to (Just like walking with a friend at night and accidently insteed of taking him to the Hispter and weed neighborhood of Florentin, I led us the the enclave of Sudan called Neve Sha'anan). Anyway, these interesting talk does not contribute (I think, read 80% of it) to the issue.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Because Arab ethnicity was the WP:POINTy nature of your revert. Let's just find a form of words that we all think is neutral. Any suggestions? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Than change it to the "Muslim population". I abide the source and common sense, that the people who invented the Palestinian identity are the Palestinian Arabs. If you want to go deeper with your anthropology, some women might enjoy it, but it will mean that we have to change the entire concept of ethnicities and nationalities in all articles. The people who initiated the Palestinian identity were Arabs, according to the source and according to the Palestinians themselves. Just like that stupid matter with the State of Palestine lead section, no matter the sources and common sense, Palestine is always so different.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I will make that change. For your own benefit, please take the time to understand that "Arab ethnicity" is no more real than "Palestinian ethnicity" or "Jewish ethnicity". They are all Imagined Communities, and a product of the late 19th and early 20th century.

The alternative is to believe in primordialism. Even worse is to believe in primordialism only for certain nations. For example to believe that Jews and Arabs are ancient ethnic groups that will continue to fight forever. It is a childish belief, and a deeply lazy one.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Generally, the specific is superior to the vague. 'Arab' is a massive collectivity. 'Local population' of Palestine is specific, it includes Arab Muslim, Arab Christian and even Arab Jewish (Albert Antébi was SyroPalestinian,) people. 'Muslim population' is stupid, because Palestinian nationalism was driven by Christian Arabs, predominantly Lebanese/Syrian, who were francophones and got their ideas from Europe.Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep. @Bolter21: you will find Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"#Late_Ottoman_period very interesting. Look at books written in 1898 and 1902, and newspapers in 1911 and 1913. All Palestinian Christians. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I know Christians had a role in early Palestinian press (also probably had the highest literacy rate among the Arabs you so eagerly try to deny). I simply asked you to bring a reliable source.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not a matter of denialism, 'Palestinians aren't Arabs'. It is about getting precision. It is an official Israeli POV, and integral to Zionism, to deny Palestinians have an identity separate from a pan-Arabic identity. They're just Arabs and Arabs are everywhere, and therefore what the fuck are they screaming on about saying they are native to our land when they should be over the Jordan, or beyond the Sinai, or the Golan, anywhere from Morocco to Basra or Yemen. I've read that a thousand times. Talk with any 'Arab' for more than a 'hello moment' about their world, and they will speak about other Arabs, Egyptians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Libyans, Lebanese, Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, Iraqis etc.etc.etc., as different in speech, customs and often attitudes, just as English speakers do, since native English speakers covers a huge range of nationally and often ethnically distinct peoples. Your Palestinian 'Arabs' had, as adolescents, by the 1960s a far higher proportion of students in secondary school, than did Israel at the time. Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians and Albanians are 'Europeans'. Try and get them to prove that abstract noun trumps the infinite distinctions they draw between themselves if you ever get them into one room.Nishidani (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

And yet many Arabs will disagree with you. When the Arabs say they are a State of Palestine all the boys come and genocide any memory of "Palestinian Territories" or "Palestinian Authority", even though Palestinian official TV doesn't refer to themselves as a state. But when the Palestinian Media report exaggerated numbers of injured per reports of radom civilians and regard them as facts, these are facts of a reliable source. When the Palestinians say they are a state they boys welcome it but when they say they are Arabs, suddenly you deny the existence of Arabs. There is the Hasbara of Palestinians in Arabic and the Hasbara of Palestinian in English, two completely different things, so instead of hearing your Palestinian Hasbara in English, I go for the reliable sources.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

And so? A. B. Yehoshua says Jews in the diaspora are wankers, and only if you become fully Israeli are you authentically Jewish, etc.etc. Who says what about whom, cui bono. What's the spin? Identity arguments never end, except when the enemy defines you. Then you're stuck, caught up in their definitions, and restrictions and hung out to dry in the sun as they bask in it. Many Jews could never be themselves as long as the muscled majorities of the West kept defining them as a problem. That was why Israel was founded: to tell that fucking western/global majority to shut up with trying to tell us who we are, i.e. their 'negative' or 'inversion'. Idem for Palestinian aspirations for statehood, to tell those occupiers to piss off, and let us define ourselves, and pass at least most of our day, not having to haggle, plead and barter, and negotiate with intruders on the farm, even for something like a well, or an olive grove, or to get the kids to school without them running the gauntlet of alien thugs as happens in the South Hebron hills.

There are always at least 3 orders of discourse. How real people in any area traditionally think and speak (the object of anthropology); how they are taught to think and speak (the object of the study of identity formation) -the engineering of souls you get everywhere, teaching the masses how not to think individually but as members of a group; and the politics of nations spinning their identity, mainly through the intelligentzias, called the 'service elites'. Before nations are formed you have aggregates of groups who leave no verbal trace, and are the backbone of a people demographically; you have the urban intelligentsia with its literate control of history, which (there are notable exceptions) rarely recorded what people in Nablus, or Hebron or Jerusalem thought. All of this you ignore, but the distinctions are thoroughly absorbed by modern scholarship. All of what you say reflects your observing what television and newspapers say or report now. History is another place, and requires wide reading and the exercise of a sympathetic imagination for the different world that was the past. Don't be silly saying you have RS and the others don't. I added one last night, because you asked for one. Palestinian identity emerged as Zionism declared its aims, as a natural reaction. just as an Israeli identity was engineered by melding the disiecta membra and mentalities of dozens of diasporic cultures. Palestinians are 'Arabs' in the same sense that Baruch Marzel et al are 'Jews'. Despite the abstract nouns defining them in each case, ask Noam Chomsky or the shade of Einstein what they have in common with the Tel Rumeida settler, and they'd say, 'nothing', just as Palestinians are treated with contempt in several Arab countries.Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

There are two sources for the statement, one says "the Arabs of Palestine", does anyone have access to the other source to confirm how it's phrased? I don't really care either way in terms of this dispute, both choices (Arabs vs Muslims and Christians) have plusses and minuses. I reverted because there didn't actually seem to be any consensus or closure on the talk page. The first sentence of the article does seem to orient the meaning towards use of "Arabs", "who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab due to Arabization of the region", though there are also Arab Jews so I can see why that may be unclear as well. So yeah, I think going by sources would be best. Neither version will negatively affect the article imo Drsmoo (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The second source uses "Arabs" as well "By the early twentieth century, with the predominance of European influence and with it of the European language of discourse, the name Palestine came to be used even in the country. This use was, however, in the main confined to Christians and to a very small group of westernized Muslims...It was therefore not as a Palestinian nation that the Arabs of Ottoman Palestine objected to what they saw as the encroachments of the Zionist immigrants and settlers" Drsmoo (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're not sure about consensus, then just ask. Reverting means you want to get involved. There was clear consensus to move away from Arab. Bolter's opposition changed per his 21:36, 19 August comment.

If you want to get involved, please have the decency to respond to the comments made in this discussion already.

Of the points made, the strongest for me is that "Arab" is anachronistic in the timeframe it is being used in. Arab and Palestinian identities formed in parallel. To use wording suggesting that the majority had an Arab identity before they had a Palestinian identity is simply incorrect.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Of the points made, the strongest for me is that "Arab" is anachronistic in the timeframe it is being used in. Arab and Palestinian identities formed in parallel. To use wording suggesting that the majority had an Arab identity before they had a Palestinian identity is simply incorrect.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Some at that time may have used Arab in a more limited sense as only applying to Bedouin. But I would be carful in using sources for the period because they were very focused on purity of racial decent.

The Arabs conquered a vast empire and brought with them their language and culture. Palestinian was thoroughly Arabized for a long time and of course some Arabs when present even much earlier. Significantly before modern Arab nationalism but I get a sense that you are objecting to the uses of Arab for anti-nationalist reasoning am I wrong?Jonney2000 (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jonney2000: good question. My primary objection is the same as if a sentence had been written as follows: "Bavarian was used to refer to the nationalist concept of a Bavarian people by the Germans of Bavaria in a limited way until the Austro-Prussian War". It is confusing and anachronistic.

I also object to your comments: "brought with them their ... culture" and "Palestinian was thoroughly Arabized". This is a facile simplification taught by those wishing to undermine Palestinian identity. If you would like to understand this, I suggest you read The Arabic Language and National Identity: A Study in Ideology, which is possibly the best scholarly work on the genesis of the "Arab identity".

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the 21:36 comment by Bolter, you didn't follow what he suggested on talk, and then he reverted your change as it didn't follow his suggestion. For you to then claim your change reflected talk is incorrect. Regarding your statement about Arab identity before Palestinian identity, I haven't seen anything to suggest that the latter came before the former. Both sources are using modern terms to describe the situation, not assigning retroactive identities. Regarding that point, the paragraph from the second source delves in a bit: "It was therefore not as a Palestinian nation that the Arabs of Ottoman Palestine objected to what they saw as the encroachments of the Zionist immigrants and settlers, since the very concept of such a nation was unknown at the time and did not come into being until very much later. Even the concept of Arab nationalism, in the modern sense of the term, was still comparatively new, and although it was a growing element in the political awareness and activity of the Arab provinces of the Ottoman empire, it had not reached significant proportions before the outbreak of World War I." Drsmoo (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I tried to make a compromise edit, and I see it still stands. As the prefatory remark from Khalidi's long survey of Palestinian opinion points out, Christians and Muslims is what is referred to in the succeeding 'Arabs'. I don't think that the majority had either an 'Arab' or a 'Palestinian' identity at that time: there were regional identities, quite distinct. In addition, unlike the 'Zionist' telling, British surveys of that period pointed out that the Palestinian majority, fellahin, had very distinct customs and cultures and were not to be confused with ethnic 'Arabs', in the general acceptance of that term at that time, since they were a mixed population with very ancient roots preceding Arabization. Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I think a compromise would be to follow the source more closely, ideally in a succinct way. How's this for a compromise: Original: ""Palestinian" was used to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine in a limited way until World War I." Compromise: "Palestinian" was used to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people primarily by the local population of Christians and a small group of local westernized Muslims until World War I." Drsmoo (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, but this tendency to keep splitting up the Palestinians along sectarian lines, while ignoring the fact they shared the same land, language, and largely, the same culture, save for creed, is anomalous. Put it this way, it is like insisting that everytime premodern Jews are mentioned one must break it down into Haredi Jews, Yemeni Jews, Sephardic Jews, Karaite Jews, Moroccan Jews, Misrachi Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Mountain Jews, etc.etc.etc. The overwhelming thrust is to portray unity, the obverse of the thrust to highlight one's adversaries' disunity. In talking ca. 1890s onwards about their condition, Palestinian writers, writing in Arabic for the public, did not think in terms of Palestinian Christians vs Palestinian Muslims, from what I have read. They were an Arabized population thinking of a unified political, social and economic identity. The tradition is still carried on, as you can see in Manuel Musallam's career, hard as it might seem to be believable to outsiders.Nishidani (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Your response is quite puzzling. The original phrasing was "the Arabs", which is the phrasing used in the sources, as well as most of the article. It's also the phrasing that I reverted back to. Oncenawhile is the editor who added "Muslims and Christians", but his use contradicted the source which only brought up the multiple religions to illustrate the differences in how they adopted the term. Bringing up "sectarian divides" but then writing it in a way as if their adoption of the identity was uniform would be incorrect. Oncenawhile brought up multiple creeds, my reversion was to the wider, standard term. But if we're to use "sectarian lines", it should reflect the sources. Drsmoo (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani Wait, so no they are a single group? I don't get it. Because the "Arabs of Palestine" simply means today "Palestinians", isn't it? So if you acknowlege that those who started the Palestinian identity were members of a single group, and we can add the fact that they were not Jewish, so we can just call them "Arabs"? By the way, if there is a source for the suggested compromise, I have no problem with that, it is actually a very interesting fact I am sure not many people know.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Back to basics.

We use 2 refs. the first is

(A)'"The Arabs of Palestine began widely using the term Palestinian starting in the pre–World War I period to indicate the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people. Encyclopedia Britannica.

which is selectively lifted and distorted to write:

"Palestinian" was used to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine in a limited way until World War I.'

Note that, 'widely using' in the source becomes 'in a limited way', an example of the usual shenanigans of source distortion to a POV end, to undercut that part of the thrust of the source which says the opposite of what some editor desired to put over (making a widespread sentiment into a restricted one). It is probably a WP:COPYRIGHT violation by the way.

(B)By the early twentieth century, with the predominance of European influence and with it of the European language discourse, the name Palestine came to be used even in the country. This use was, however, in the main confined to Christians and to a very small group of westernized Muslims. The name .. had no precise territorial definition until it was adopted by the British to designate the area which they acquired by conquest at the at the end of World War 1 and ruled under mandate from the League of Nations. It was therefore not as a Palestinian nation that the Arabs of Ottoman Palestine objected to what they saw as the encroachments of the Zionist immigrants and settlers, since the very concept of such a nation was unknown at the time and did not come into being until very much later. Even the concept of Arab nationalism, in the modern sense of that term, was still comparatively new, and though it was a growing element in the political awareness and activity of the Arab provinces in the Ottoman empire, it had not reached significant proportions befor ethe outbreak of World War 1.Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice, W. W. Norton & Company, 1999 p.169

This whole passage is copyand paste by Lewis from what he had been touting for yonks (cited more or less in Commentary Magazine back in 1975), and then put into the first edition of his book in 1986. So what you get is Lewis ca.1975, ignoring all research in the intervening period.That chapter is particularly bad, it is full of deliberate distortions as one would expect from a chapter describing Palestinian resistance to dispossession as ‘The War Against Zionism’ (intimating the first mention of Arabs dates to the Talmud, when it dates a thousand years earlier, or the establishment of the use of Palestine accredited to the Romans ca.I30 CE when it was in use in Greek for 7al hundred years before that time, etc,). But he’s RS, even if RatShit on this particular issue. The point is, Lewis is not stating what he is quoted as saying. He says (a)Palestine was a Western term, which it was not (Arabi c Filasṭīn), and he knew it; (b) confined to ‘Christians and to a very small group of westernized Muslims’ (implying no Arabic/Turkish speaking Ottoman ever used the word Filasṭīn Filistin (c) he is used to define the use of Palestinian for the Palestinian people whereas he is speaking of a nation ambiguously, as a political unit or a people, we are inferring from ‘the Arabs of Ottoman Palestine had no concept of the nation’, that he is referring to the latter.(d) While editors are insisting on ‘Arab’ identity, Lewish says the concept of Arab nationalism was new (as new as Palestinian nationalism). (e) Arab nationalism was not significant before WW1. That ‘not significant’ is used I guess to alter the ‘widely used’ in the Britannica to ‘in a limited way’. So Lewis is used to contradict and adjust the language poached from the Encyclopedia Britannica. This is a fucking mess.

I guess the problem is that Oncenawhile and myself are looking at this in general terms in the light of the larger theoretical literature on identity formation - this looks like a bias, not focused on the specific textual issue which you chaps rightly insist on. I'll allow also that the tendency to exercise extreme textual rigidity on this Palestinians argument, while ignoring the huge WP:SYNTH nonsense you get on the comparable article Jews, annoys. Why such attention to the adversary, and such indifference to the scandalous simplification of the complexities in the technical literature over there. Of course, one will reply, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, i.e. that the comparison has no bearing here (it does, in terms of editorial neutrality). Let me cut to the chase, in any case.

We are using two sources for 'Arabs'. I basically concur with what Drsmoo stated above in regard to those sources. The problem for me at least is, the British ethnological survey of that time dismissed the idea that Palestinians were 'Arabs' in the ethnic sense, which is something the Israelocentric or 'Zionist' POV likes to insist on. Secondly, in terms of identity, the Palestinians would appear to have distinguished 'Arab' identity from 'Syro-Palestinian' identity, and to have felt themselves largely, for a decade or so as the Ottoman empire crumbled, and to have embraced the latter. Economically, administratively, and culturally, there was a strong overlap between south-eastern Syria and Palestine. One can get a good overview of this by reading James L. Gelvin , From nationalism in Palestine to Palestinian Nationalism ch 5 of Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War, Cambridge University Press, 2005 chapter 5 ('From Nationalism in Palestine to Palestine Nationalism’ pp.92ff, esp. the point made at. p.95 where he dismisses what Lewis et al., speak of as a (pan(Arab identity as rather the rhetoric in a ‘thin stratum of educated people’ quickly dropped in favour of a Syro-Palestinian identity, which in turn, after the Balfour Declaration was announced, and Syria was carved up for the Frogs, turned into a Palestinian identity.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"The "problem" is that you keep making bizarre claims about "adversaries" and other nonsense. It's taken you to the point of making accusations of "splitting up along sectarian lines" by "adversaries" when in fact that was just a continuation of an idea brought up by Oncenawhile (who you seem to not perceive as an adversary). This is a bad way of thinking/editing, because it causes you to view any suggestion by someone you erroneously perceive to be an "adversary" in a paranoid light, and then you reject it outright, even if it's beneficial. The common name is "the Arabs of Palestine" (or some permutation of that). You'll find this everywhere, including from Palestinian authors, and throughout this article, and as far as I can see, every article on the subject in Wikipedia. That's not textual rigidity, that's having the lead reflect the article and Commonname. If you want to use a different descriptor (which doesn't by definition contradict usage of "Arabs") then that's fine, but it can't be contrary to the source. And of course, don't go along with using subdivisions, only to then blame their use on an "adversary" who hadn't brought it up. Drsmoo (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Um. 'adversaries' means politically involved people who write the sources we use for these articles. Israelis and Palestinians, unless I missed something, are polemical adversaries, besides being in a state of war, and as a zillion sources will tell anyone, this affects the spin each side puts on the narratives. If you examine good editorial practice in here, you will see that Bolter, Arminden, Zero, myself and several others, including Oncenawhile, when they find a problem, go on the chase and hunt it down to the original sources (Degania Bet; Beit Alpha;Temple Mount entry restrictions etc.,etc, recently. ) because esp. in this area there are large quantities of technical RS that are ratshit, and if you really want clarity you have to delve deep, not take up anything, whatever the POV, looks good. I don't see editors as adversaries, I was trained to see what, other than the basic facts, is the cast of mind of the author writing them up. Oncenawhile has reverted me more than you ever have, and I have no trouble with that, esp. since he has been right more often than not.Nishidani (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Arabs is used by everyone (including Palestinian authors) though. Drsmoo (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Historically 'Arab' was the default term. After 1967, Palestinian became the default term, except in Israeli official sources which still prefer to emphasize that they are 'Arabs', for the old reasons Golda Meir gave, i.e., they were not supposed to be a 'people'. In Jordan people of Palestinian origin are called 'Belgians'(Beljikis), see the point,(now that I seek a source for that last statement, here, which is why I am paying more attention to Oncenawhile's remarks than others here). Palestinians from al-Husayni down to Arafat often emphasized Arabness, esp. in PLO circles, because they had to raise money from sponsors in Arab countries. On principle, it is best to let another ethnic group establish its preferred usage, and avoid using exonyms. For some years here I really had to struggle to use the word 'Jews', since I still feel and hear, in English and several other languages, the resonance of antipathy in it in goyim usage. I have strong views on this area of course, but before that, as many recognize, I tend to be neurotically sensitive about the implications of words, in any context. It made me difficult as a child. Perhaps I never grew up.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

In historical works in any case, I'm thinking of a wonderful book by Johann Büssow on the Tanzimat reforms, one refers to Palestinian Arabs, rather than just Arabs, when narrating events in the 19th century in that area.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see the critical difference between Palestinian Arabs and Arabs in Palestine. I think either would be fine and neither would be considered to be contradicting RS. Muhammad Y. Muslih in The Origins of Palestinian Nationalism and Rashid Khalidi in Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness use both "Palestinian Arabs" and "Arabs in Palestine". Drsmoo (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are some examples which should make the point:

• "Britons in Scotland" vs "Scottish British people"
• "Germans in Bavaria" vs "Bavarian German people"
• "Spaniards in Catalunya" vs "Catalan Spanish people"

In all the above examples, the former could be read as undermining the local identity. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Both are supported by reliable sources, I have no objection to "Palestinian Arabs", it's already used throughout the article in any case. Drsmoo (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: please could you propose an edit you are happy with? Oncenawhile (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

As I noted above, in the line under discussion, the sourcing has problems, esp. the WP:SYNTH use of Bernard Lewis who, there, does not define Palestinians, for which he is cited. Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Huh? I've already mentioned several edits that work. Drsmoo (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Ugh, Nishidani, you always conflate SNYTH with juxtaposition. Here Lewis is being juxtaposed, not synthesized. And you seriously need to swallow your righteous indignation and accept that the Jewish adversary will edit articles about those whom they are "at war" with. It's not a grave injustice akin to Turks editing articles about the Armenian Genocide (you made that comparison before and I pointed out that Palestinians are very pro-Erdogan and Armenians in the diaspora strongly identify with the Jewish people and consider Franz Werfel a patron saint). I do agree with Onceinawhile that "palestinian arab" and "arab palestinians" have some nuancial (I coined that word I hope you like it) differences. The former construction has the implication that Arab is the primary identity and Palestinian is the secondary, the latter that palestinian is the primary and arab the secondary. The form which is used reflects how groups are viewed. For example it is no coincidence that our article for Italians in America is Italian Americans (Americans with the quality of Italianness) while for Jews in America it is American Jews (Jews with the quality of Americanness). This reflects the subconscious perception of Jews as a "nation within nations". IMO "Palestinian Arabs" is more accurate simply because Palestinians identify as Arab first and Palestinian second, and "Arab Palestinians" is problematic when it denies the Jewish identity of Jews in the Yishuv. (the PLO stance is that Jews are a religion and not a people, thus serving to deny Jews self-determination) However, when Palestinian is taken in the sense of the historic palestine region and not the national sense "Arab Palestinians" is 100% accurate.--Monochrome_Monitor 08:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have 'Jewish adversaries'. That is a creature of your imagination. There are two discursive constituencies always in conflict in these articles: those that, like the present PM, endorse the public image of Israel/Jews being present in their Israel/Palestinian homeland for 4,000 years, i.e. since the time of the mythical Abraham, and scholarship, which says that is nonsense, and that archaeology, linguistics, and historical research establish the facts, whatever their consequences for the myths coagulating around the ideology of Zionism, which has two driving interests: to make 'Jews' the primordially indigenous people of that land, and smother all other historical presences by erasing them from the record. The rest of your blather is just that.Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying you have Jewish adversaries, you were talking about Israelis and Palestinians being in a state of war and how that effects the debate, and (in my perception) you feel like this is a proxy war of sorts where you have taken on the burden of defending the Palestinians (or at least counteracting their enemies) since most of them don't edit English wikipedia while Jews do. You are very empathetic (to them), which is a good thing in many contexts, but it can make you sound sanctimonious and, well, angry. Case in point with your aggro comment there. Sure Abraham and the 4,000 years is biblical myth but there is value in these myths as part of our cultural heritage. Its a basic fact that Jews have had a presence here in some form since the Babylonian exile, and our predecessors were here for far longer than 4,000 years. No one is disputing archaeology, linguistics, etc, which just so happen to overwhelmingly attest to our indigeneity. Your accusation of "smothering" Palestinian history is pure (in the words of the venerable @Jonney2000:) bullshit. The Israelis have with few exceptions protected Byzantine and Islamic heritage in Palestine- compare that to the Jordanian Arab legion's destruction of synagogues and desecration of the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. The conspiracy you indulge in contains the underlying premise that all of the Palestine region is inherently "Palestinian"-- including Jewish culture and history, ie the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ironically it is Jewish history that is being wiped out and replaced with Palestinian history--- so that the language of the Canaanites was Arab Palestinian and Abraham and the prophets were Arab Palestinians. This is quite simply an Islamic appropriation of Jewish culture: without Judaism Islam would not exist, and without the Jewish reverence of Jerusalem there would be no "al-Quds", the Dome of the Rock would be a church and the "Palestinians" would be Greek and Aramean Christians. (another religion based on Judaism while claiming to supersede it) What you call "Zionist ideology" is in fact Jewish ideology. The majority of Jews consider the land of Israel our homeland, and you dismiss these sentiments, which are based on millennia-old tradition, as irrational propaganda. Even if nothing is sacred to you, a little cultural sensitivity would be nice. As for Arabness, there is no single "Arab ethnicity" but there are Arab ethnicities (plural) united by shared cultural mores into one "Arab Nation". Palestinians identify as part of this nation and are proud of it, and there is nothing wrong with that. Your anecdote about how Sephardic Jews and Arabs in Hebron got along while the bumbling Ashkenazim barged in with their Zionism (I know that's an oversimplification) neglects a crucial point: despite the differences between their communities, Sephardic Jews considered Ashkenazi Jews, and not Arab Palestinians, to be their brothers-- and as the Arabs massacred the Jews of Hebron the Sephardim refused to betray their fellow Jews even to spare their own lives.--Monochrome_Monitor 11:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• you seriously need to swallow your righteous indignation and accept that the Jewish adversary will edit articles about those whom they are "at war" with
• I'm not saying you have Jewish adversaries.

I don't take you seriously, so drop it. And leave the Palestinian page to people who are not at war with them, or fixated with defending the cause of their adversaries.Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: I am not of the mind, as some Zionists are, that just because Jews were there first, the Palestinians are a historical abberation. (though some palestinians feel that way.[4]) The palestinians are largely not Arab-Islamic conquerers (despite claims to this) and are more likely peaceful migrants of various periods who have integrated with pre-Islamic christian populations. (unlike common sense these may not be christians, palestinian christians are more likely to be recent migrants than muslims)--Monochrome_Monitor 12:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Saying "Arab population" instead of "Native population" has no problems. Saying "native" when referring to "Arab" does have problems, when you consider that many of the Arabs in Palestine came from neighboring lands, like the Zoabi family or some of the Beduin tribes.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hanin Zoabi says otherwise lol. ;) I agree equating native and Arab is obviously false. Bolter, do you have any peoples from the Yishuv? Just curious.--Monochrome_Monitor 15:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Heh I just realized that you also brought up the Hebron massacre. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

All Bedouin tribes are non-native in that they originate from Arabia. However Negev Bedouins have a historic presence preceding most "Arabized" Palestinians. The first Arabs in Palestine- and all of Syria- were Bedouins.--Monochrome_Monitor 15:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The Palestinians are descendants overwhelmingly of the Arab population indigenous to that territory. All attempts to undermine the idea that the present population is such via natural demographic from the Ottoman, and pre-Ottoman population have failed, and in any case are driven by the idea that the (Ashkenazi) Jews, who are a mixed people likewise, have title and precedence because some trace of a Middle East connection is present gtenetically is just that, ideology. Countries are taken by military force, not by ideology: this was true in antiquity as now. The Palestinians are Palestinians, as Eskimos are Eskimos, and Americans are Americans. It is pointless trying to jimmy in nuances that, within the official Zionist line, are used to disinvalidate Palestinian rights to their homeland. Full stop.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You have a thing when defending Palestinians, you go out of context and call out Jewish thesises. Did anyone here question the fact Ashkenazi Jews are mixed? We are talking Palestine, not about the genology of Auschwitz.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't defend Palestinians. This is possibly the only area in the world where talk/books/descriptions of Palestinians is dominated by people who identify with the ethnic group that has taken up residence on their historical territories, and defines Palestinians as their 'enemies'. If folks here can't see the problem in that, it's not my fault. Enemies or declared adversaries should not engaged in definitions of the 'other' party in a hostile conflict, at least at the academic or encyclopedic level. The Jews define themselves (endlessly, in a hundreds ways, never (fortunately) agreeing), and get justifiably 'maggotty' at any outsider construal of who they might be(for good historic reasons). I apply precisely this lesson to Palestinians, who are now, as Jews were before, evicted from their land, and driven mostly in diaspora, and looked on throughout the world with contempt. Take all the land, for fuck's sake, by all means, but don't define them. Leave it to the Palestinians to sort their identity out. Take a leaf out of your own history. I'd take these attempts to influence the definition of Palestinians seriously, I repeat for the nth time, if I saw some serious attempt to fix the ridiculous stupid fabrication of a definition of Jews on the Jews page. No none will do it, and yet many there fuss here over Palestinians. The politics of embracing a pathetic set of clichés there, while hairsplitting about niggling details here, is blatantly obvious.Nishidani (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Jews are from Khazaria.. Anyway there's no point in continueing this discussion just like there was no point in reviving it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It's cute because Nish just proved my point that he needs to take the proverbial "chill pill" and stop treating wikipedia like a platform for the Arab-Israeli conflict. First off, if I wanted to say you had Jewish adversaries, I wouldn't have said the Jewish adversary, I would have said your Jewish adversary. Secondly, changes to Palestinians are not contingent on changes to Jews (a good article) and vise-versa. Changes to Palestinians are not necessarily motivated by burning ethnic hatred, and vise-versa. I don't take you seriously, either. It would be easier to if you didn't carry such a chip on your shoulder and listened to what other people said once in a while. (like Onceinawhile for example) You are constantly trying to divide the Jewish people by separating Ashkenazi Jews from Sephardic Jews, Hebron is just one example. The Jewish people is not divided into "Ashkenazi fake Jews" vs "Oriental real Jews". It's a purely liturgical matter, not a genetic one. If you want to see the genetic divisions of the Jewish people, look at genetic studies on the subject. Ashkenazim and Sephardim (including Maghrebis) are very closely related, having a mixture of Middle Eastern and Southern European ancestry, in contrast with Iraqi and Iranian Jews who have a mixture of Middle Eastern and Central Asian ancestry. The fact is that all major Jewish communities are mixed in the sense that they have primarily local maternal lineages and Israelite paternal lineages. And at any rate, it is not "Middle Easternness" that ties Jews genetically to Palestine, it is Israeliteness, ie, their shared Middle Eastern heritage. Yemeni Jews may have more Middle Eastern heritage than Ashkenazi Jews, but Ashkenazi Jews have more Middle Eastern heritage shared with other Jews. So basically your comment about a "trace" of Middle Eastern heritage is utter crap. If you really want to find jewish communities that are majority non-Hebrew, check out the Ethiopian Jews. But no, they don't get your scrutiny because you must continue the hearty European tradition of denying the legitimacy of the Jews of Europe. (or as Bolter put it, the gen(ea)ology of Aushwitz) AKA: You are a supercessionist and the Palestinians are the new Jews. The positive in this is that we are reminded why you have claimed ownership over the article on the khazar theory- which against all common sense and serious reviewal of scholarship only tepidly refutes it. The last anonny edit to that article was quite good and sourced, and yet you reverted it with a mere "non-POV" which is pure bullshit. Mainstream scholarship has abandoned it since serious genetic testing began--- full stop. You cite mainstream sources saying that there's a possibility that a minority of Ashkenazi Jews are admixed with Khazars as if they prove the Khazar theory, when they don't, and anyway all of them have been contradicted by further research. It's not a coincidence that the only people seriously pushing the theory are post-zionist Jews-- in contrast, ardent Palestinian nationalists have admitted to their non-Palestinian origins.[5] Find one Jewish nationalist who has said Jews aren't indigenous to Palestine, oh wait you wont. Your contention that the "Ashkenazi Jews" constant "attempts" to say the Palestinians are mostly migrants from various periods with only a minority preceding the Islamic conquest have "failed" is more bs which attests to the the echo chamber you have insulated yourself in. (and evidently want to make wikipedia a part of) You are convinced that the "core" of the Palestinians- the fellahin- are indigenous, when there is no tangible evidence of this-- linguistic, archaeological, or historical. But if you like try it for yourself and name a single Palestinian family which is actually from Palestine. They'll be the descendants of Jews or Samaritans, and fun fact: Samaritans are much more closely related genetically to Jews, including Khazar Jews, than to "indigenous" Palestinians! Or do you also deny that Samaritans are indigenous to Palestine? I myself don't deny the existence of Jewish/Samaritan Palestinians-- but most of them do. Palestinians have yet to sort out among themselves whether they are Philistines, Canaanites, Jebusites, Egyptians, or Saudis, but whether they are Jews has never been on the agenda. Even if they are as Arabian as crude oil, the majority of Zionists would give the Palestinian refugees (by the UNHCR definition, not the bullshit UNRWA definition) their land back. The conflict is not about rights to land (with the exception of Jewish holy places appropriated by Muslims). It is about identity, and much of Jewish antipathy towards Palestinians comes from their seeming dishonesty about their own identity. Israelis see apparent duplicity in identifying as Arabs for regional and domestic ears and Canaanites for international audiences. Disingenuous claims of antecedence to the Hebrews by borrowing terms only known from Hebrew tradition (and poorly at that, as the Bible claims that the Canaanites were destroyed) have convinced many Jews that the main purpose of Palestinian peoplehood is to negate Jewish peoplehood. And after all of our years of being told we were made obsolete by Christ, Jews are pretty sensitive to this sort of thing. And A.B. Yehosua's remark was hilarious.--Monochrome_Monitor 09:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

he needs to take the proverbial "chill pill" and stop treating wikipedia like a platform for the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I've done 59 articles on 59 different ethnic groups in the last 9 weeks. I still have the I/P articles bookmarked and examine from time to time the grinding agony of editors who can't get over a fixation with just their own ethnic group. Good luck.Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Strip what I said of all its context if you must. I never said you only edit A/I. I'm saying that you are treating A/I discussion like a war, where Jews editing pages of Arabs are doing it as enemies. As for "fixation", contrary to the "tribal Jew" stereotype, my editing is quite diverse, thank you. Since you aren't interested in a serious discussion I'd best be going.--Monochrome_Monitor 16:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I edit the I/P not A/I, area because it is an interesting residue of nationalist ideology justifying colonialism actually succeeding in exercising authoritative traction even over otherwise intelligent people. One can only be blind to this obvious reality if one implicitly subscribes to, perhaps on an American lease, the doctrine of exceptionalism. It is as fascinating as it is tedious. For there really is no argument to controvert the obvious, and precisely because there is no argument, an enormous ballast of bullshit is discharged on the facts - I'm reminded of the Patagonian rite of offering excrement to their deities - and this, like all matters related to crap, does spur one's curiosity.Goodbye Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"The fact is that all major Jewish communities are mixed" I suspect this would be true of any given human population. People migrate, groups interbreed, and genealogical ancestry does not depend on a single line of ancestors. Racial and/or ethic purity might be nationalism's wet dream, but contradicts historical evidence.

One problem with the discussion is the description of Jews and Palestinians as essentially homogeneous groups whose self-conception is static, easy to describe, and easy to evaluate. The descent of individuals within the group may be completely different, their ideological beliefs may actually vary, and the only thing they have in common is their identification or self-identification with a larger group of community.

Whether a rabbi descends from a 1st-century Pharisee or whether his parents converted to Judaism 9 months before his/her birth matters little. The only identity the individual has known throughout his/her life is that of a "Jew", the world sees him/her as a Jew, and treats him/her accordingly. Similarly, whether a given Palestinian's ancestors have been living in the region of Palestine for a few millennia or migrated there 9 months before his/her birth is probably unknown even to him/her. The individual has been raised as a Palestinian, identifies with the group, and is treated accordingly.

Living in the Balkans, you either have to learn how fluid identity can be or you can turn into the next blindly fanatic nationalist. The latter has not exactly helped the region and its stability. Dimadick (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Lol, colonialism. Colonialism is when a state establishes a colony in another territory. Israel is a colony of what entity exactly? Of the International Zionist Empire? Israel is the only Jewish state in the world, it is not a colony of any other nation. Jews have a right to self-determine like all other peoples, and as the Jewish people were born in Palestine, Palestine is the natural place for Jews to achieve self-determination and the most just. In contrast to Zionism the Palestinian national movement was only initiated because of the failure to create a pan-Arab state by Emir "we wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home" Faisal. But Pan-Arabism was not dead in spirit, as evidenced in the Palestinian National Charter: "Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.... The Palestinian people believe in Arab unity. In order to contribute their share toward the attainment of that objective, however, they must, at the present stage of their struggle, safeguard their Palestinian identity and develop their consciousness of that identity, and oppose any plan that may dissolve or impair it...Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress.... the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence" The "Palestinian nation" is a means of unifying the Arab Nation by destroying the Jewish nation. But yeah, it's the Jews who are the bad guys. Of course, they don't stop at defining themselves (as Arabs who lived in Palestine for two years or more before the war), the Palestinians also define Jews. "Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong." Of course that's false, but it is necessary for the Palestinians to believe it, because "recognition of the Jewish people and their right of self-determination may lend credence to the Jewish people’s claim to all of Historic Palestine."

How do you reconcile this? Do you deny that Jews are a people with a right to self determination? If yes, you're a hypocritical bigot and this entire conversation was pointless. If no, you are a liar for calling Jews colonialists.

If you had just said "nationalist ideology justifying occupation" that wouldn't have engendered such a response from me, I would have mostly agreed with you. But "colonialist"? Jews were considered aliens in every country they sojourned in, when they finally get a nation-state in the only place they have ever had one they are colonialists. I thought the occupation was what you objected to, not the very foundation of the state of Israel itself, apparently I was wrong.

@Dimadick: Do you live in the Balkans? Where exactly? I hear it's awfully Balkanized. Hehe. Yeah that was awful. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Western Thrace in Greece. It is next to the border with both Bulgaria and Turkey. My hometown is actually closer in proximity to Istanbul than Athens. My paternal ancestors were from Eastern Rumelia, but had to migrate along with most of their village after Bulgaria annexed the place. The area has seen several military campaigns, military occupations, and changes in borders during the 20th century. It is now relatively quiet, but several people fear that Turkey is going to invade us. I have been hearing the same fears for most of my life. Both countries constantly concentrate troops at the borders, though we have not had any serious incidents since 1996. In the last couple of years we have had Recep Tayyip Erdoğan repeatedly giving speeches about the need to redraw the borders. You can figure out how we view the proposal.

For the standards of Greece, we are quite a diverse area. A large Muslim minority (which mostly consists of Turkish-speakers), Roma neighborhoods and settlements, Pomaks, and the typical assortment of older and recent immigrants: Albanians, Armenians, Bulgarians, Georgians, Russians, and Ukrainians. In recent years we have had some Chinese settlers, but I doubt there are more than a dozen or so Chinese people in my area. The problem is that we have quite a share of ethnic tensions, nationalists of various stripes, and some religious fanatics. The quiet time may not last forever. Dimadick (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope it does. :)--Monochrome_Monitor 17:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Είναι οι βάρβαροι να φθάσουν σήμερα.Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm veering into WP:NOTFORUM but I'm curious what sort of religious fanatics you mean. Greek Orthodox? Turkish Sufis? --Monochrome_Monitor 20:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Foreign aid

Israel receives more than twice as much foreign aid per person as Palestine receives. Tzipi's propaganda piece of course hides that fact by citing a source that includes only humanitarian aid, without mentioning that fact. The aid given to Israel is not humanitarian since Israel is a wealthy country and doesn't need it. Anyway, this is an article about Palestinians, not about Palestine. Zero^talk 09:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The exact edit was:

Since the mid-1990s, Palestinians are among the highest per capita recipients of foreign aid internationally. [emphasis mine]

Your straw man argument about Israel is irrelevant WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:SOAP. The RSs are about "Palestinians". Please feel free to interject your "facts" and thoughts about Israel here. KamelTebaast 17:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

One could cite the foreign aid per capita for Palestinians but only if it is qualified by clear contextual exposition, which one is unlikely to get in journalism. By 2006 Israeli direct pro capita assistance was $500, meaning every Israeli's income was subsidized annually by that amount. (Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby, Penguin 2007 pp.26-28) The moneys to Palestinians are not direct, and they are bound by several regulations to use: a good part is to pay for Israel's proxy army in the PA; secondly, U.S. regulations means the aid can be stopped at any minute if (a) the PA initiates criminal prosecution against Israel or Israelis in the International Criminal Court (whereas Israel's backers consistently initiate legal actions against the PA for billions in US courts) and (b) if the PA dares to obtain full state recognition at the UN (other than UNESCO) the spigots for economic assistance can be turned off.(Jim Zanotti,'U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians,' Congressional Research Service March 18, 2016 pp.8-9) whereas aid to Israel takes up half the US foreign aid budget and is not subject to accountancy as to the end use it is put. An estimated 30-40% of aid to Palestinians is so organized that it goes straight back to the Israeli economy.

The simpleton citation of high per capita aid for Palestinians is thus, shorn of these contexts, a POV point, which, translated signals to the reader:'The bums are sycophantic freeloaders and won't get off their arses to make their state work'. Well, on the other hand:

Although Israel is an "advanced, industrialized, technologically sophisticated country," it "receives more U.S. aid per capita annually than the total annual [Gross Domestic Product per capita of several Arab states." Approximately a third of the entire U.S. foreign aid budget goes to Israel, "even though Israel comprises just...one-thousandth of the world's total population, and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes."</]blockquote>

In sum, unless the datum inserted can be contextualized by a source that puts this into comparative perspective vis-a-vis Israel, its occupier, putting it in here is pointless, since that aid rarely benefits Palestinians (the people) as opposed to the PA and Israel. It's more appropriate at International aid to Palestinians, which needs a lot of work on it, since numerous important details are missing.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The aid the US gives to Israel is actually given to some millitary companies in the US. Just another one of the US corruptions, that doesn't have anything to do with the war in the Middle East or with the Palestinians. I mentioned it since you both gone far out of context and mentioning "why" there is aid for Israel, and not "how much" aid. If the stated number in the source Kamel provided is lower than the one given to Israel (divided by population), than remove it and be done with it, instead of writting speeches against the Zionists and their shit. The I/P area, especially with Kamel Tebaast around, is salty already.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope.(a) This is about Palestinians, not the Palestinian 'state'. (b)There are many sources mentioning by contrast the record held by both Israel and Palestine as recipients of modern aid. Monocular POV pushers, particularly with KT's reputation for either getting at the Palestinians or rendering their presence in the area historically invisible, are choosing one item to the exclusion of the other for obvious reasons. I'm not writing speeches about the Zionists: I made a note about an editor who selectively highlights one cited figure while repressing the other figure, when the two are often linked. Selective use of sources to frame one side. Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

As to 'shit', googling will show how the meme about Palestinian parasites is repeated from the Wall Street Journal down in complete contempt of the 'niceties' of 'aid to Palestinians'. In the 70s and 80s, an all-told-hidden and open accounts estimate suggested that Israelis were getting a $1,000 annual per capita handout from the U.S., that for decades of the occupation when aid to Palestinians hadn't even arisen. If someone wants to put in this stuff, then they are obliged to give the NPOV version from a reliable technical source. In this regard Jim Zanotti's research is always impeccable. So is Shir Hever's.

The OPT is the world’s tenth biggest recipient of per capita aid accumulated over the years 1994-2011. The top nine (starting from the highest) are: Palau, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands, Federal States of Micronesia, New Caledonia, Israel, French Polynesia, Tonga and Cape Verde. It is of special interest that Israel is the sixth biggest recipient of per capita aid, positioned above the OPT. The data are from the World Bank, 2015 and Sharp, 2014 Shir Hever 'How Much International Aid to Palestinians Ends Up in the Israeli Economy?,' Aid Watch September 2015 p.1. n.1

There is a strong argument that the aid to Palestine functions as an indirect subsidy to sustain and strengthen Israel's occupation, furthermore.

An article by Nikki Tillekens in 2010 conducted the first estimate of this figure. By tracing the connection between the trade deficit between the OPT and Israel on the one hand, and international aid to the OPT on the other, Tillekens found a 71% correlation between aid to the OPT and the trade imbalance between the OPT and Israel. In other words, aid money is used to purchase goods and services from Israeli companies. The sustained trade surplus Israel enjoys with the OPT, and the fact that the trade surplus is financed with foreign currency, has contributed substantially to Israel’s economic stability, and therefore allowed the Israeli government to invest ever-increasing resources in the occupation of the OPT (Swirski, 2008).'p.2

I might add that by Hever's calculation 72% of international aid ends up in the Israeli economy. If so, then the balance sheet figures omit several things, which include (a) often 30-35% of aid promised is all they get, and, since the aid distribution is regulated by Israeli overseers, much of it may simply be indirect aid to Israel. Economics like this cannot be summed up by the usual headline grabbing cartoon clichés.Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

(Notwithstanding Bolter's "refuted this fact" comment) in addition to my prior edit: WP:NOR. KamelTebaast 17:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't be stupid. WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages. Talk pages are where edit disagreements are ironed out, usually by the introduction of material bearing on the issue in question, as here, and the more material adduced to lend bifocal perspective to the monocular the better. Jeezus, I could have a great day smearing this kind of junk on Israelis - 'pampered by foreign aid' etc.The per capita U.S. foreign aid to Israel's 5.8 million people during the same period was $10,775.48. This meant that for every dollar the U.S. spent on an African, it spent $250.65 on an Israeli, and for every dollar it spent on someone from the Western Hemisphere outside the United States, it spent $214 on an Israeli. I don't do it, most editors here don't 'attack' the parallel pages. Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Your WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM is rife with your original research theories which makes it WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM, which is rife with your original research theories which makes it... KamelTebaast 18:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You're quite entitled to waste your own time, but not at the expense of that of other editors. The above policy flag waving is void of relevance, because you did not read or grasp the point I made, and which you make a show of replying to. So drop it.Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

No, read and grasped... I'm just busy searching for the policy that backs this: "One could cite the foreign aid per capita for Palestinians but only if it is qualified by clear contextual exposition..." KamelTebaast 19:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV which is what your behavior constantly villates. If a source compares, as many do, Palestinian pro capita aid funding to Israeli pro capita aid funding, then both go in, not, as you, a notorious POV pusher, are doing. Not to do so, is to suppress information regarding the occupying power, in order to cast the other side in an uninvidious light. Secondly, we don't add this kind of information to the article on Israeli people, and, by NPOV it should not be on the parallel page regarding Palestinians, for the simple reason that these articles are about peoples, not states, as several people have noted. Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

When a "people" receives humanitarian aid, that information can go into their article. When a people's government (PA, Hamas, etc.) steals their humanitarian aid, that can go into their state's article. What you do or don't add in the Israel or Israelis articles is irrelevant here, as has been noted several times. KamelTebaast 20:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I have given you several sources giving the comparative evidence for aid to Palestinians and Israelis in the same sources. You are therefore aware of this fact, that the comparison is made in RS. If you add in the Palestinian material, while refusing to mention the Israeli material cited with it, as above, then you are clearly in breach of the obligation to adhere to NPOV, as set forth in that policy, by knowing suppression of the second half, for example, of a passage that mentions aid to Israelis after aid to Palestinians. If you wish to provide documentation as to your habit, noted elsewhere, of suppressing evidence, all you need do is persist in this violation. In any case I will revert you if you refuse to add the evidence of both. Either both or nothing. Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you, and even if I was, I don't give a single damn about the topic. I implied my comment was out of context, and you replied out of context, so there isn't much to do now. When it is out of context, it is a speech. We are talking about a sentence written somewhere within a long article. KT added a "fact". You came here and refuted this "fact". Sentence deleted. Fin. This topic should be treated in the most robotic way there is. Can be refuted? Removed. That's it. If I was almost blocked because of salty arguments, fueled by personal agenda, I expect the people who tried so hard to block me, as well as the people who did not (that means you), to use the talk pages for the good of the article and not to clash narratives. This whole discussion wasn't even necessary in the first place, but it might spawn another AE or AN/I.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to quarrel with you or anyone else B. I replied to what I saw in KT's edit, the revert edit summaries, and the note dropped here. I think that's one of our jobs. I do this because I dislike edit-warring, and the way to avoid it is to clarify what is not evident. Any editor can take the three sources I gave above and go an improve the relevant article. I did some work for them. I doubt anyone will do so, and I'm too busy. Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

What I am wondering is why KT apparently cannot ever add a "fact" about Palestinians/PLO etc, without major rewrite and/or WW3 breaking out.....It really isn't difficult to add undisputed facts to Wikipedia (a lot is still missing! and both of you manage to add facts just fine) ..it just seems that KT is unable to do so, Huldra (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

We do you even continue this discussion? KT will now respond to you and you both just waste your time and throw more oil to the fire. If you have so many complaints on Kamel, go to AN/I or AE. And I am not here to defend Kamel, I am just trying to make sure this discussion is not going to continue because only 10% of it actually had anything to do with the article. Just move on.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 02:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Nah. I wasn't trying to continue the discussion.... I'm just trying (most probably in vain) to get KT to stop wasting everybody's time....(And this will be my last word here.....) Huldra (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Arabisation!

This text should be removed (who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab due to Arabization of the region), there should be neutral. As a Palestinian I refuse this term at all.--BerneCha (talk) 08:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with being heir to one of the great civilizations of history?Nishidani (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the editor has an interesting point.

On the one hand, we don't say that the French people are "largely culturally and linguistically Latin / Romance". Geographically and culturally, the connectivity between France---Italy---Rome compares to Syria Palestine---Hedjaz---Mecca/Medina. French people consider their culture to be their own, although they accept their language is Romance. This is the same for most Palestinians. The "culture" of most Palestinians from Palestine-proper (i.e. excluding Bedouins) is very different to that of the Arabian peninsula, and more so than the French-Italian cultural divide. Palestinians are arguably more culturally Mediterranean than they are culturally Arab.

On the other hand, many Palestinians absolutely consider themselves to be Arabs as well - and perception is a key component of ethnicity and culture.

I think a tweak to the wording might be able to fix this. Not sure what it is though. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

We go by sources, Since there has been a massive effort to try to deauthenticate or to validate Palestinians as a people local to Palestine, by endless learned and polemical discussions on to what degree they are 'Arabs' and what degree not (something that means discursively we are forced to operate in terms of 19th century categories). This is the unfortunate fallout of Zionism's rhetorical obsessions, which inflects what otherwise would be a simple description of Palestinians as the traditional people of Palestine with predominantly Christian/Arabic cultural roots. Writing Wikipedia rationally, and encyclopedically is not an option because we have no freedom to state what we, with good reason, think precise and descriptively adequate. Take out the Arabization (which I dislike also) and you invite an edit war by the usual crowd. In any case, suggestions can be made and examined, of course.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, You didn't understand what I mean, I refuse the term of Arabization, Palestinians are Arabs, and not Arabized. I hate when they say that the Arabs are just living in the Arabian Peninsula, in every city in Palestine and even in the Arabian Peninsula it has a culture and dialect that you can't compare between the Yemeni and Saudi have different habits. Nishidani, this text is unhelpful because the Palestinians universally known simply they are Arabs and also there (Palestinian Arabs), so we don't need it.--BerneCha (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

We go by what books write.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Nish, I agree with your earlier comment, for which thanks (and a belated Merry Christmas).

BerneCha, thanks for clarifying and sorry for misunderstanding you. There are some facts that you should be aware of:

• The difference between a "language" and a "dialect" is arbitrary. For example, Moroccan Arabic is further removed from Gulf Arabic than Spanish is from Portuguese. So the idea that the 400m people who speak Arabic "are Arabs" is arguably no different from saying that the 800m who speak the Romance languages "are Latin / are Roman".
• All such identities are Imagined communities - they exist because we choose to believe in them
• The concept of modern "Palestinian" identity and modern "Arab" identity were born around the same time, in the late 19th century. Both have long pre-national roots - Palestine being the historical name for the land and Arab being the historical name for someone fluent in the language of the Quran. But the concepts of "I am a Palestinian" and "I am an Arab" are modern, and grew in reaction to similarly new concepts such as "I am a Turk", "I am an Egyptian" and "I am an ethnic Jew".
• For the first few decades, the concept of Arab won over most local identities, as it had been fuelled by being championed by the Western powers in their bid to carve up the Ottoman empire. But as Arab nationalism began to fall apart after the death of Nasser, local nationalisms are now in the ascendency throughout the region. Neither identity is right and neither is wrong - they are simply how people choose to perceive themselves.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, I'm sorry but I don't understand where you are headed, this thinking, I didn't hear that accent is language, again you say that Moroccan dialect differs from the Arabian Peninsula, this is very provocative, and then Moroccan Arabic is further removed from Gulf Arabic than Spanish is from Portuguese. Oh my God I am a Palestinian, but I understand the Moroccan dialect, do I speak Spanish and Portuguese?, I need to speak in these languages because I have friends Portuguese and Spanish, so I will speak to them in Moroccan dialect thank you for this valuable information!. So the idea that the 400m people who speak Arabic "are Arabs" is arguably no different from saying that the 800m who speak the Romance languages "are Latin / are Roman. Are you serious? You are comparing the Arabic language and his dialects to Romance languages?. Oh God! The ties that bind Arabs are ethnic, linguistic, cultural, historical, identical, geographical and political. The Arabs have their own customs, language, architecture, art, literature, music, dance, media, cuisine, dress, society, sports and mythology. All such identities are Imagined communities - they exist because we choose to believe in them... Unfortunately, it's not my problem these are communities. The concept of modern "Palestinian" identity... I don't understand, do you want to change identities of peoples or want them without an identity?. For the first few decades, the concept of Arab won over most local identities... If you are an Arab did not say this in fact the Arabs clinging to each other more than they imagined world of the Internet and non-Arabs, let us not talk about something related the people he knows more than he is. I didn't see this, many Palestinians absolutely consider themselves to be Arabs as well Please don't ascribe any of your ideas to a whole people , although the occupation of the Palestinian people is still the governor of the language, culture and the Arab origin. After all, you're a long way from my subject, I'm sorry but remind you my subject is about Arabisation and not about language, dialects or identity?.

Nishidani, We go by what books write I'm sorry, these books are written by people like you and me is not a holy book, so we can't take that seriously, we're not talking about the Torah, the Bible and the Koran, there are also books reverse this term (Arabization of the Palestinian people), so I hope there will be neutral and then removing this term, thank you.--BerneCha (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia obliges us to write according to what written authoritative scholarly sources say, as has been done by summarizing 8 different sources- Your response to Oncenawhile is garbled, unfortunately, and is incomprehensible.Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not good in English and I'm not very knowledgeable about these things. I also apologized to a colleague Oncenawhile because of my words, but it is my right to defend my identity. I withdraw from this talk, that won't change anything, thank you.--BerneCha (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No, don't withdraw. People here, I can assure you, are interested in this issue. We've argued the pros and cons for a decade, and many of us have in mind many long discussions, which you can read in the archives. The essence is (a) are Palestinians a people alien to Palestinian, arriving from 'Arab' lands in the 7th century CE, or are they are people whose roots go back millennia, and who have undergone fundamental cultural and even ethnographic revolutions predominantly from the impact of Arab/Islamic influences? The page suggests that both are true: ethnic 'Arabs' were in the area of Palestine from several centuries before the Christian era; the settled in the south extensively by the 4-3rd centuries before Christ and a millennium before Islam arose. At the same time, the Christian Arab communities predate Islam by several centuries. There were consistent waves of Arab settlement in later periods, some Hebron families were established from Bedouin/Arab immigration as late as the 17t6h century (just as many Jews emigrated late from Syria and Iraq at the same time to establish or consolidate their traditional communities before Zionism). The issues are complex, and saying 'Palestinians are (just) Arabs' is a standard slipshod meme in a modern vein of Zionist propaganda which, in using the language you advocate, is signaling that the Jewish people are native to the land, and Palestinians are aliens. The sentence you object to tries to get beyond propaganda to outline (a) continuity and (b) cultural change, in accordance with scholarly opinion.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

BerneCha, I hope we can continue discussing in future. It may be worth you spending time reading about what it actually means to be "an Arab". And I do not mean what Yuri Mraqqadi thinks it means... Instead, try Foundations of Modern Arab Identity, The Arabic Language and National Identity: A Study in Ideology and more recently Imagining the Arabs: Arab Identity and the Rise of Islam. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Why always targeting Arabs why not the Turks, Kurds, Assyrians and other peoples, Why do you think all the Arab peoples that are outside of the Arabian Peninsula is Arabized, why the Arabs, why is not the Russians who own a country like the continent, Why do not you tell what it actually means to be "an Turk, Kurd or Syriac"? So I can't talk about it, because frankly, I think this anti-Arab. The identity of the Arab peoples are targeted among all peoples of the world?! (Why you don't discuss non-Arabic peoples identities. Like Berbers (Tuareg people and Kabyle people both are a Berber ethnic) Kurds: Turkish Kurds why are they not Turks and why aren't the Turks are Kurds?) (As far as ethnicity is concerned, Arabs share the same culture and genealogical traits more than the French do. The languages in France include Breton, Corsican, Basque, Alsacian, and French. Yet, the majority in each of these groups identify as French. Actually, Arabs share more genetics than those people, and therefore it makes perfect sense to consider them one group.) Arabs indeed constitute an ethnic group, just as Berbers, Kurds, Turkmens and Armenians do. Today the people of the Arab world who are not Berbers, Kurds, Turkmens, Armenians, Assyrians, Nubians, Copts, Beja, etc, would be considered ethnic Arabs. It should also be noted that Berbers and Kurds themselves are ancestrally-mixed but that doesn't negate the fact that they constitute their own ethnic group, is determined by shared language, self-identification, and common socio-cultural experiences and values. Ethnic group is like religion born person like his father and his grandparents, so you can't tell someone who tells you he is a Muslim that your grandparents weren't Muslims, but Islam makes you Muslim. like You're not Muslim, but Islamiz! or Muslim people are Muslims previously they were irreligion and who today are relates to a person who follows or practises the religion of Islam due to Islamization!. Or as you say that Arabs are only in the Arabian Peninsula because they are the native population, Islam born in the Arabian Peninsula, so Muslims are only in the Arabia.? These terms Arabisation and Islamization are just hostile. The Arabs have settled all over the area that extends from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arabian Peninsula. If you believe there are genetically pure people in this whole area you are totally wrong, even the Arabs of the Gulf have mixed with other people throughout the Islamic Golden ages. Yet, Modern People in thos area do see themselves as Arabs despite their Mixed Origins, apart from some other peoples and Minorities that Also inhabit this area (Syriacs, Turkman, Berber, Armenians). No ones tells or determines who is who, as long as the Arabs themselves see that the people in this whole area are a single ethnic. However haplogroup J and E1b1b are the most frequent Y-DNA haplogroups among Arabs, the mtDNA haplogroup J has been observed at notable frequencies among overall populations in the Arab world. This is enough for me about Arabs) I'm here talking about (Arabization) is a racist term for the Palestinians. Nishidani, Do you know why I am in Wikipedia? History professor at the university was talking about peoples and suddenly the professor said (The Palestinian people or Palestinian Arabs , are an ethnonational group comprising the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, including Jews and Samaritans, and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab due to Arabization of the region.) Copy and paste from Wikipedia unfortunately, there were also five Palestinian students in class, and got great conflict between us, and then told us, I am not saying this but Wikipedia! and then we introduced a complaint against him. He pledged that does not take information from Wikipedia and this is prohibited by the University. "Palestinian National Covenant: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.." This is my opinion and content myself. Thank you and Merry Christmas.--BerneCha (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The Palestinian national charter was written at a time by people who thought of political calculations, i.e. they needed support and funding from the Arab world and naturally enough wrote that line to put out the idea that everything affecting Palestinians as a national group affected the larger Arab world. The text you cite is a favourite one among Zionists, quoted to 'prove' their theory that Palestinians had, unlike Jews, no intrinsic roots in Palestine or native land title rights. When this overlap between the Zionist disinvalidation thesis, and the Palestinian pan-Arab rhetoric was noted, definitions changed, to ensure that the constituent 'Arab' component in Palestinian identity did not imply that the Palestinians were outsiders, and not the expression of autochtonic traditions. 'Arabized' means having undergone a profound cultural transformation with the Islamic identity introduced by Arabs after the conversion of Arabian tribes to monotheism under Mohammad, just as European populations were 'Christianized'. Unwittingly or not, you are insisting that the Zionist thesis is correct, and that you, a Palestinian, are an ethnic intruder. As to Wikipedia being banned in Universities, that used to be true. The Times Literary Supplement recently ran a piece by an historian who said this prejudice was collapsing, esp. since he, who had underwritten this interdiction, discovered that the best article available to him on some obscure issue concerning, I think, coinage in an Indian subcontinental kingdom, was to be founded on Wikipedia. The Shakespeare Authorship Question article written by Tom Reedy with a little help from friends and admins, is now regularly cited in scholarly works as the best short introduction to the topic, bookwise, academically or netwise. That is no guarantee that anything on Wikipedia is to be taken at face value: but then again, a lot of academic work suffers from the same problem. Here, at least, in a controversial and intensely edited article, the nature of things tends to ensure bullshit does not prevail facilely, since scrutiny for quality,reliability and adequacy to the historical record is very focused. Five Palestinian students are not a quorum for the truth,(replace 'Palestinian' with any ethnocultural group) and what your professor should have done was to take the 8 sources used to formulate that line, print out the texts, and discuss them to see if they fairly summed up scholarly views. Wikipedia, done properly, is, like any scholarly work, a prompt to deeper study, and is not biblical writ.Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The Arab history in Palestine origin of Arabs is intermingled with several races and ethnic groups instead of a more singular line. The tradition says that Arabs come from the line of Abraham and his son Ishmael. The tribal, Bedouin society of the Arabian Desert is the birthplace of “Arab”. There are other ethnic Arab groups as well that spread in the land and existed for millennia. Before modern Arab nationalism which developed in 19th and 20th century, Arab speaking people identified themselves with a particular tribe, a village or a family. Following the Battle of Yarmouk in 636 CE, the Islamic Empire was established in Palestine as Muslims conquered Syria and there started a Muslim rule which spread over 1300 years. It is known that the Muslim empire was a “golden age” for Jews as they were treated much better than by the Christians. The land of Palestine has been populated by the nation known as Palestinians since historical times. These people are known to have been religiously diverse always with Muslim as its majority, living peacefully with fellow Jews, Christians and Druze people. However, with the Zionist movement of 20th century, a large number of Jews immigrated to Palestine from many parts of the Europe which increased the Jewish population drastically, leading to conflicts between Arabs and Jews. The historical figures show a substantial Arab population in Palestine till 1914 until Jews started pouring from across Europe as a result of the Zionist movement. As Palestinian refer to people who were the descendents of races living here, they have been the original inhabitants from centuries and even at present. I think that Wikipedia is good for Art, architecture, archaeology, animals, business, economics, finance, food, drink, geography, places and other such things but I don't think it's good for the history, ethnicities, religions, politics, government, warfare etc. There are always users who use their powers on Wikipedia such as Administrator or veteran editor.--BerneCha (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Bernecha you do realize almost the majority of Jews in Israel are Mizrachim. As for conflicts between Arabs and Jews, Arabs have persecuted Jews as far as the time of Mohammad and the later Abbasid era.

Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam, Princeton University Press, June 1, 1987, ISBN 9780691008073, pp. 25-26.

The land has been for the Jews since ancient times, not the Palestinians. Noted by the Assyrians:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehu

Babylonians. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_Chronicles :

In the Babylonian chronicals

"In the seventh year, in the month of Kislev, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land, and encamped against the City of Judah and on the ninth day of the month of Adar he seized the city and captured the king. He appointed there a king of his own choice and taking heavy tribute brought it back to Babylon.". [. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity].

Greeks and Persians:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah.

لذا كفاكم كذبا. The Romans: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish–Roman_wars Yoseph Hakohen (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation and naming

Palestinien People

Palestiniens

Palestinien Arabs

(Palestinian people اَلشَعَب الْفِلَسْطِينِيّ → الشعب الفلسطيني)/ Palestinians اَلْفِلَسْطِينِيُّونَ → الفلسطينيون/ Palestinian Arabs اَلْعَرَبِيّ الْفِلَسْطِينيّ → العربي الفلسطيني).--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate information

I can't speak for the Muslims in Palestine because I'm not Muslim but I am Christian and I can tell you straight away that we don't worship anyone other than God now I know that traditionally the word worship has meant more than just adore. I can't edit it to say venerate which is a better term in English. I know being Catholic that Catholics and Orthodoxs venerate Saints, but we don't worship them or at least not in the modern sense of the word. If you don't know what I'm talking about just ctrl f and look for the word worship, I understand the page being protected because this is a contentious issue but at least get the accurate information about the religions Adam (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Adam (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You have a good point and I changed "worshipped" to "venerated". Zero^talk 23:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent point, Adam. Thanks for the suggestion.Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)