Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:48, 24 June 2012

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Palestinians. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Palestinians at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Human Genetic History (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Vandalism by deleting Safed Plunder references

The Safed Plunder source issue has been resolved. The history section of this article starts by explaining the situation in the 1830s. The section goes on to claim that the so-called "Palestinians" are descendant from both Arab settlers and indigenous Hebrews/Canaanites. So this articles claims that the so-called "Palestinians" are descendant from the indigenous people meanwhile editors are intentionally leaving out that the Arabs who settled the area after the Islamic conquest exterminating that indigenous population in such incidents as the 1517 Safed pogrom, 1517 Hebron pogrom, Safed Plunder, 1660 destruction of Safed, and the 1660 destruction of Tiberias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DionysosElysees (talk • contribs) 15:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.162.68.159 (talk)

Probably the majority of ancestors living in 600 A.D. of current-day Palestinian Arabs were neither Arabs nor Jews, but rather Aramaic-speaking superficially-Hellenized Monophysite Christian "Syrian" peasants... AnonMoos (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Each incident raised by the original poster: 1517 Safed pogrom this occurred in the context of the Ottomans defeating the Mamlukes and taking control of Palestine (and the rest of Greater Syria) the article only mentions some being killed in violence and unrest after the Ottoman's took over the former Mamluk holdings that page in fact ends with: "The community was soon rehabilitated with the help of Egyptian Jewry."

Then Safed Plunder the "1834 Safed pogrom" (putting aside the term pogrom is most often associated with Europe, and many scholars don't use it in reference to this or any other of the isolated events in this context). As for scale one simple quote from the opening tells us; "Hundreds fled the town seeking refuge in the open countryside or in neighbouring villages."

Next; 1660 destruction of Safed; the supposed "massacre" there (and far from any supposed "extermination") is dealt with by real scholarship that notes its relatively modern Zionist propaganda (hasbara); "Gershom Scholem writes that the reports of the 'utter destruction' of the Jewish community in Safed in this time period 'seem greatly exaggerated, and the conclusions based on them are false.' He points out that Sabbatai Sevi's mystical movement was active in Safed in 1665."

On the 1660 destruction of Tiberias far from a supposed "extermination" the intro itself to this Misplaced Pages article on Tiberias notes that the minority Jewish community that had been in Tiberias returned; after the city was "rebuilt by Daher el-Omar in early eighteenth century." after the conclusion of the Druze power struggle that had occurred in the Galilee.

All this only deals with Jewish minority communities that existed in two cities of Palestine (Safed and Tiberias) and even in these cases they were in fact later immigrants who came from Europe and were allowed to settle in the land either by the Mamlukes or the Ottomans. This has no effect on the completely verified fact that most Palestinians descend from the indigenous people of Canaan/Palestine . This wikipedia article for example discusses how again the Mamluk and Ottoman rulers allowed Jews from Europe to immigrate to Palestine again from Europe after the Crusaders were defeated (as the Crusaders killed some Jews themselves who had been living in for example Fatimid Caliphate ruled Palestine and also Saladin allowed to set up communities in Palestine after his defeating of the Crusaders in the late 12th century CE and his Ayyubid dynasty taking control of Palestine.

And then just a quick note; "AnonMoos" the Palestinians were of course culturally and linguistically Arabized after the 7th century CE so they definitely did speak Aramaic earlier on.Historylover4 (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead and infobox re: Jews

The lead was not accurately summarizing the body of the article with the incomplete statement that Palestinian people are "descendants of the peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries". I know that this statement is sourced, but it is incomplete because there are some peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries as well as today (ie: Jews) who are descendants of the peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries and yet are not part of the Palestinian people. So I added another source that specifies that we are talking about Arab descendants specifically. Also, I added a sentence that summarizes the point found later in the article that Palestinian people used to include Jews living in Mandate Palestine but no longer does today. And finally, I removed Judaism from the list of religions of Palestinian people because it is unsourced, is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and makes as much sense as listing any other religion that some Palestinians may happen to practice such as Buddhism for example. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The user Bali ultimate reverted my edit entirely without joining the discussion here, but just to note: he only provided an explanation in his edit summary for one of my changes. he claims that my addition was unsourced. In fact, I included a WP:RS for the change to the lead. the sentence about "palestinian people" referring to Jews before 1948 but no longer including Jews comes from this very article (the etymology section), and he is the one who has inserted unsourced content into the infobox about Judaism being a religion of Palestinians. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The changes you're making are unsourced (except for one word, which is sourced to an online dictionary). They constitute impermissible original research. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 04:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You reinserted Judaism to the infobox, which is unsourced and incorrect. How is Judaism a minority religion notable for Palestinian people? The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the article. The sentences I inserted are not WP:OR, they are a summary of the information discussed in the etymology section. And as for the online dictionary source, is there a policy stating that online dictionaries (of Princeton, mind you) are not WP:RS? 99.237.236.218 (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD, sources are not required in the lead section. But if you insist that the sentences are contentious enough, then I will be happy to insert the very same sources used within the etymology section into the lead. There is one source discussing the fact that during the Mandate, the term Palestinian referred to all inhabitants including Jews. Then there is another source discussing the fact that after the establishment of Israel, the term fell out of use for Jews. Will that satisfy you? 99.237.236.218 (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A dictionary—even one from Princeton!—is not the best source and, in this instance, not a very good source. It contradicts the two sources already at the end of the sentence. Please see WP:IRS for information about reliable sources. Also, see WP:PSTS for information about tertiary sources such as dictionaries.

Thank you for pointing me to the Etymology section. I didn't realize that the material you were writing was cited there.

Is the historical meaning of the word "Palestinian" so important it belongs in the second sentence of the article?

The statement you would add to the second (third) sentence, "the term no longer includes Jews", does not convey the same meaning as the Etymology section, which says "largely dropped from use". And again, is this bit of history so important it merits mention at the very beginning of the article? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's very important. How can it not be? The way the lead currently stands, an uninformed reader would leave the article thinking that all Israelis are considered Palestinians. If my edits aren't satisfactory, that's fine. But something has to change to clear up that confusion. Also what do you think about the Judaism in the infobox? 99.237.236.218 (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. The opening is very broad, and it could be read to suggest that every descendant of any of the peoples who have lived in Palestine is a Palestinian. Still, I think there must be a more elegant way of addressing it. Maybe we can work together on something. Hopefully other editors will chime in as well.

As far as Judaism in the infobox, that's a non-issue. I've removed it. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 04:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for listening to my explanations now. I hope you can understand how frustrating it is to be treated like I have no right to edit or make an opinion by others just because I am an IP, and that was mainly done by Bali ultimate who for example called my edits vandalism. So then when you an administrator joined him, it was hard to imagine how I can accomplish anything on Misplaced Pages. Anyway, I'm glad we can move forward. Do you have any ideas about what can be added/changed to clear up the ambiguity? 99.237.236.218 (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that the opening sentence is a bit unclear. I'm not sure how to resolve it though? Perhaps by listing the exact groups that self-identify as Palestinians? There might also be an issue with listing Druze in the infobox - since at least the religious leadership of the Druze community in Israel don't self-identify as Palestinians. And I believe that the Druze in the Golan Heights generally identify themselves as Syrian. Avaya1 (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. For now I will add a tag to hopefully attract more editors to join the conversation here with ideas. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Population Statistics

The correct "Palestinian" population of the "West Bank" is at about 1.5 million, not 2.3 million as this article claims. I've got more than enough sources, but not sure if I'll find the time to update this page. In the meantime, feel free to express any comments. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

What a Disgusting Re-Writing of History

The term "Palestinian" to denote people of Arabic origin was not put in place until 1964. The vain attempts of this article to make it look like there was an established Palestinian people is a prime example of how Misplaced Pages can be exploited as a platform to twist pseudo-reality. In any case, as Jimi Hendrix said, "castles made of sand fall in the sea eventually." History will not remember this farce, although Misplaced Pages is currently a prime source of false reality for the presently predominant Arab ego. Have a field day with it. Enjoy! Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever I did enjoy seeing you believe that there is a people who derive from the Arabic language. Write it up, get a Phd on the theory, and reliably published, and we'll edit it in.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean -> random sample, The Glasgow Herald - Feb 16, 1924, "Further these conditions had already formed the subject of discussion with the Palestinian Arabs..." Sean.hoyland - talk 13:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Or there's Ze'ev Jabotinsky's "The Iron Wall" (1923) article, (English translation, original Russian) in which he uses the term палестинскими арабами. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

6.'Whatever may be said about the rights of the Arabs to draw such a conclusion from the policy of the War Office during the war, there can be little doubt that the declared policy of the Allies in favour of the self-determination of small nations encouraged the Palestinians to think, that whether they were to be permitted to unite themselves to the great Arab State forming on their borders or no, they at least, under the mandate of one of the Great Powers, would be permitted to work out their own salvation and be masters in their own house.'The Palin Report (1920) pp.7-8

34 'All these movements are now definitely anti-British and Anti-Allies, and their combined efforts are directed to fan the flame lit by the discontent of the Palestinian population.' Palin Report (1920)p.39

How about this in 1918 in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom: "Major Earl Winterton asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what facilities have been given to the Palestinian and Syrian political leaders now in Egypt to visit Palestine?" Oncenawhile (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

These examples all refer to the term "Palestinian" in its previous meaning - anyone from the Palestine Mandate. That is made clear by the fact that most of them specify "Palestinian Arabs", as opposed to "Palestinian Jews". Today, nobody has to specify Arab when they talk about Palestinians. That's because the meaning has changed. This explanation is buried in the etymology section, but it is contradicted in the lead section which is worded in a way that suggests anyone living in the area today (including Israeli Jews) are part of the Palestinian people. That is something I tried to address in the above section, but for whatever reason nobody seems to care enough to join the discussion or fix the contradiction article. 74.198.87.73 (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope. read again. When for example we are told that the Palestinians wanted self-determination, or permission 'to unite themselves to the great Arab State forming on their borders', the reference by definition means people in Palestine who identify themselves politically with an Arab state, not to Jewish Palestinians of the old yishuv, who were often intensely hostile to Zionism, but not particularly interested in being Arab nationalists by compensation.Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"Accipio's" user page comment, "I've been on here for four-and-a-half years and yet have not fully embraced my position as a responsible Wikipedian" does not inspire me with extraordinary confidence. That, in combination with the long gaps in edit history, and other factors like the inflamatory choice of wording for this section heading does not strike me as indicative of the best possible faith and good will in a topic area that sees so much problematic behaviour. Or perhaps I should be more clear, and just say that because it takes substantial time and effort to engage in a good-faith, serious debate, I seldom feel inclined to do so with someone who presents as Accipio does; YMMV.

But I see no reason whatever to expend breath/keystrokes by replying to IP 74.198.87.73. This is clearly our extremely prolific IP-hopping, scrutiny-evading friend who ostensibly hails from Toronto. I say "ostensibly" because this IP address, like many of the others he's used elsewhere (eg 74.198.87.108 at the 1929 Palestine riot article, recently) is currently on eleven blacklists. I don't know a lot about web proxies, but given its appearance on so many blacklists, EdJohnston comments in the highly-relevant Breein1007 SPI imply this IP address should be blocked as a suspected open proxy.

An editor whose investigative skills I esteem believes Breein1007 actually edits from Israel, incidentally. My own opinion is that any IPs editing in the topic area using addresses that resolve to the same ISP and approximate geographic area should be reverted on sight by all editors, regardless of their political opinions, who care about preventing intentional evasion of scrutiny via IP hopping. And if the particular IP in question is on lots of blacklists, then so much the better. I'd be wholly pleased if anyone who knows more than the little I do about blocking suspected open proxies were to follow up on this, btw. --OhioStandard (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

To be more explicit, "Breein1007 = IP 74.198.87.73 = Accipio Mitis Frux" is self-evident. The first equality will be apparent to any experienced editor who reviews the links I provided in my immediately preceding post, even though Breein1007's edits are now stale. The second equality is clearly demonstrated by IP 74.198.87.73's claim, made in this present section at 15:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC), of ownership of the sole comment, made by "Accipio", in the preceding section. More specifically, still, speaking of Accipio's comment in the previous section, the IP writes in this one, saying, "That is something I tried to address in the above section, but for whatever reason nobody seems to care enough to join the discussion or fix the contradiction article." --OhioStandard (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

1. "Hansard ARAB POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES (VISIT TO PALESTINE). HC Deb 25 June 1918 vol 107 c903W". Hansard.millbanksystems.com. 1918-06-25. Retrieved 2011-12-11.

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Top-importance Palestine-related articles
• Palestine-related articles needing attention
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class Ethnic groups articles
• High-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Arab world articles
• Top-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles