| Revision as of 17:06, 14 January 2013 editLazyfoxx (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,131 editsm →Langauge additions← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:06, 14 January 2013 edit undoNishidani (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,504 edits →Langauge additionsNext edit → | ||
| Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
| ::Do you own the book or not?--] (])/] 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC) | ::Do you own the book or not?--] (])/] 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Please stop avoiding, and answer my question Shrike. To answer your question, the book is available publicly thanks to Google, if you are interested look into it yourself, and understand it was not me who initially cited that book. Lazyfoxx 17:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC) | :Please stop avoiding, and answer my question Shrike. To answer your question, the book is available publicly thanks to Google, if you are interested look into it yourself, and understand it was not me who initially cited that book. Lazyfoxx 17:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :: The edit] is in itself fairly innocuous, except that (a) 'some traces of Hebrew' is wrong. One doesn't speak traces of a language as a language, and Hebrew died out as a spoken language in that area by the 3rd century CE. (b) the Arabaic Nabataean stuff raises complex issues, and even were it a precise description of a complex field, not relevant to the article. I can't see that in Greenfield, however. Greenfield, googled, gives pages 156 and 159 for me, with no sign of an intervening gap. Rather odd. How does one describe the languages spoken in Palestine on the eve of the Islamic conquest, by ethnos (Jews spoke Judeo-Aramaic and ] (not ]). Christians in Judea spoke koiné Greek and Aramaic, often called Christian Palestinian Aramaic, which is quite close to the Amaraean dialects spoken by Jews and Samaritans at that period. It is improper for Shrike to ask if you own a book. You don't have to own books: you can google them, but any request, such as he has made, for a precise pagination and either transcription of the disputed content or a link to the page, is normal practice.] (]) 18:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| affinities are with Jewish Palestinian and Samaritan Aramaic. | |||
Revision as of 18:06, 14 January 2013
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Palestinians article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | 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:
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.
|
 | 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
unexplained edits and reverts
Evildoer, there are a number of problems with your edits and an important issue with your editing. To begin with the editing issue, when you make an edit that is challenged it is incumbent upon you to go to the talk page to seek a consensus for your changes. Re-reverting to make the contested edit is not how things are supposed to be done here. As to the actual problems with the edits:
- Why were Levantines, Mediterraneans, Sea Peoples removed from related to?
- Why did you change European Jews to non-Jewish Europeans to Ashkenazi Jews to indigenous European groups?
- Why did you change Jewish immigrants to Jewish returnees in the wikilink aliyah? You'll notice the linked article begins with Aliyah is the immigration of Jews .... Are you under the impression that the Jewish immigrants to Palestine had been there before?
Please self-revert your changes and seek consensus for them here. nableezy - 22:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- I put Mediterraneans and Sea Peoples back just now. I replaced Levantines with Middle Eastern peoples, as it's more general.
- Because when someone says "European Jew", they usually mean "Ashkenazi Jew". However, it appears that I forgot to take Sephardic Jews into account when I made that edit. A minor error in judgment.
- Regarding "European Jews to non-Jewish Europeans", I thought the phrasing was confusing, so I tried to make it clearer. I also don't see how "indigenous Europeans" is inaccurate, unless you believe Jews are an aboriginal people of Europe.
- I don't know why it says "immigration of the Jews" on the Aliyah page. However, in most if not all other contexts, it means "return of the Jews from the diaspora". In that sense, the word "immigrant" directly implies that Jews have no ties to the region. Not only is that inaccurate, but POV pushing in its own right.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Before editing again and again and again - can we get you to read over Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle one of our basic conduct essays. We talk - come to a consensus - then edit after the conversation is concluded.Moxy (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
One of the recurring problems I seem to have is that conversations between me and other editors never seem to go anywhere, especially when the other guy has a fairly strong POV. In most cases, they just quit midway through the conversation so as to keep the article the way it is, knowing that I will be accused of edit warring if I try to restore my edits. Do I have a strong POV myself? Yes. I am of Jewish descent myself and it's hard to remain calm when I see half-truths, if not outright lies, about my people being promulgated throughout the articles (such as that we are "colonists" and "ethnically European"). Manufactured realities are a familiar part of our history, and that's one of the reasons I am here, to make sure everything pertaining to the Jewish people remains strictly accurate and above all, neutral.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- You need to monitor your own neutrality as well as other peoples'. There is nothing neutral about "Jewish returnees" in reference to persons who have never been there before. It is a political statement and not a neutral expression. People who move from one country to another are called emigrants and immigrants. Those are the neutral words for them. Even the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics uses those words in its English pages. Zero 00:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps because those other guys dont believe it to be neutral to call European Jewish immigrants to Palestine returnees and that conversion among indigenous Europeans plays no role in the population of Ashkenazi Jews. That isnt a manufactured reality, and you would do well to understand that your view on a topic does not equate to what Misplaced Pages calls neutral. Academic sources routinely discuss Jewish immigration, including illegal immigration, to Palestine. It is no more neutral to call these immigrants returnees than it is to call them invaders. nableezy - 00:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
For the record, would a Native American family be considered immigrants if they moved to America after about 100 years or so? If your answer is yes, then I will concede.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- The two cases are not analogous, so I dont see the point of responding. I dont need you to concede, but Im hoping that youll recognize that Misplaced Pages is not Zionist, and that it shouldn't adopt a Zionist narrative. The idea that this is a return is a POV, one whose opposing POV is that this is an invasion. You very obviously identify with one of those POVs and reject the other, but that does not mean that yours is "neutral". nableezy - 01:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Evildoer, I do not understand your consistent reverts and edits on this area, if you personally believe certain groups are not related to eachother, that's perfectly alright, you're entitled to your own views, but you cannot make edits like this based solely on your beliefs. Also there is no reason to remove Levantines from the list and replace it with the countries that make up the Levant, that just adds more words, when people can simply click on the Levant and see the countries that make it up. Regarding the Jewish section, why did you change it to Israeli's? That is not very informative considering Israel has Palestinians in it's population, and other ethnic groups that are not related to Palestinians as well. Keeping it set as Jews, while linking to Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrahi, shows the various specific Jewish groups related ethnically and genetically to the Palestinians. Lazyfoxx 06:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't see much of a point in adding Sea Peoples, because they no longer exist as far as I know. Other than that, the list is fine as it is now, I guess. All I did was remove some parenthesis.Evildoer187 (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose it's best to just include modern peoples labels in this area, that is fine with me, although the Sea People's make up an important part of Palestinians history. Regarding Jews however, it is not accurate to encompass Askenazi and Sephardic's in the Levantine label, these groups are modern immigrants from Central Europe and Other regions of Europe, while some Mizrahi Jews are indeed Levantine, others are from other countries in the near east and do not belong in the label. Lazyfoxx 12:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
As part of a larger Jewish diaspora, both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews trace their origins to the Levant. That's why I included them as part of the Levantine group. I still think they should be included there.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is a personal opinion that discards the views of scholars (eg Shlomo Sand}. nableezy - 09:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Sand's views are WP:FRINGE and contradicted by more numerous scholars (i.e. Josephus, Bartal, etc) with expertise in the field of antiquity and Jewish history, of which Sand has neither. That's without even mentioning numerous genetic studies which undermine his theory of Khazar origins. As it stands, consensus does not support Sand's arguments, so we can not lend any more weight to it than we would to any other fringe theory. Evildoer187 (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Evildoer187, if you cannot disagree with another editor without accusing that person of being an antisemite, you don't belong here. Period. Now retract what you've written, apologize to nableezy, and maybe you won't end up at WP:A/E. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 04:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
OK. I will delete the offensive parts of my statement then. I apologize.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- No worries, I didnt see much wrong with it. But you may want to reign in the somewhat absurd analogies so that you arent comparing the work of a Jewish university professor at an Israeli school to an antisemitic forgery. As far as the content argument, Ill leave it to others to argue about the specific sources, but I dont think Misplaced Pages can take the position that all Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jews trace their origin to the Levant by any means other than tradition. nableezy - 06:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- The article has been restored to the version before the edit war - And so we are all clear on this let me make sure all read the talk page main note at the top The article Palestinian people, along with other articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies - Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning.Moxy (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposals
I can see that one of the older versions of this article has been restored. However, there are several problems with it...
- "Other Levantines" is unnecessary, because they already fall under the bracket of Middle Eastern peoples, along with the Jewish diaspora, Arabs, etc.
- Travelers is spelled wrong.
- Bedouin is not capitalized.
- "In recent years, many genetic studies have demonstrated that, at least paternally, most of the various Jewish ethnic divisions and the Palestinians – and in many cases other Levantines – are genetically closer to each other than the Palestinians or the various Jewish groups to European groups." This is a much more accurate and complete statement than what is already there. The study in question was carried out on multiple Jewish diaspora groups, not just Ashkenazi and European Sephardi. I don't hold a strong opinion on this one in particular, but I would still recommend this revision.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Evildoer, actually there is no reason to remove Levantines from the related peoples, in fact other Levantines are the most related peoples to Palestinians so that is a null point to have it removed, same goes for the Jewish diaspora and Arabs, both equally related groups to the Palestinians in different lights of view, it is nice to let readers know just enough specifics, but also to link them to the broader range as well, as is done with the "other Middle eastern peoples" at the end. Also if you find spelling errors, feel free to fix them, you do not need to worry, in fact I believe edits such as the misspellings of Travelers and Bedouin would be considered minor edits, because there is not much to dispute with spelling unless we are dealing with multiple language interpretation. Lazyfoxx 16:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)
- Done. What about the fourth proposed edit. You still haven't commented on that.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- I looked it over and revisited the study, and do not think that it should be worded that way, because although the study does include some non-european jews in its studies, it also does include many european jews, such as ashkenazi and sephardic jews, who are classified as european jews by definition. If you still feel it should, I encourage more editors to share their insight on this, besides myself. Lazyfoxx 00:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Behar study
Lazyfoxx could you please explain where does it say what you wrote in the article? Especially this " partial common ancestry or some recent ancestral influx from the Arabian peninsula. However it must be considered that these individuals may genetically cluster close due to geographical proximity rather than direct common ancestry, because some Bedouins, especially Negev Bedouins, have deep ancestral roots in Arabia and have lived in close proximity to Palestinians for hundreds of years.".As words partial and the last sentence in not in the source at all.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's called original research. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Shrike, I do express some concern with your edits as you have only included a small sentence from the study with no context and also failed to include other relevant information from the study concerning the Palestinian's genetics. First off, Autosomal Dna is noted to be similar with covergent populations, that is basic genetics, and this section about Palestinians is about their genetics, so accurate information should be expressed. Palestinians have lived in very close proximity to Negev bedouins, as they are and have been geographic neighbors. Also the rest of my addition, especially the bit comparing the Palestinians tested to various Jewish divisions is blatantly stated in the study, I suggest you read through again, the whole study in PDF rather than the abstract that is linked to in the reference. I believe the focus of the study was concerning Jewish populations and their relatedness to Palestinians and others if i'm not correct.
- "According to a 2010 study by Behar at al titled "The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people," there is a close relationship between most contemporary Jews and non-Jewish populations from the Levant, such as Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, and Jordanians. Behar's explanation for these observations is a common genetic origin, which is consistent with an historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant. "
- If you wish to insist that some Palestinians are related to Negev Bedouins and Jordanians, you must at least not cherry pick what you wish to include from the study and also include the information about the Jewish populations and their relatedness to the Palestinians. The study shows in autosomal comparison and y-dna comparison maps that only a portion of Palestinians cluster near the Bedouins, Jordanians, and Saudi's tested, not all of the Palestinians tested. Lazyfoxx 06:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- The extended version still includes original research. Palestinians and Bedouins living in proximitry is no guarantee that they are intermingling (baby-making). Samaritans live in the Levant but many studies show that they don't baby-make much outside their communities. Bedouins, open and generous though they be, may not necessarily have been adding genetic material to their trade goods.
- Also, it isn't cherry picking to discuss Palestinians without mentioning Jews. That argument, in this case, is self-defeating. Certainly you aren't suggesting that Palestinian identity is inexorably linked to Jews, right? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please show me relevant part of the source and how do you want to rephrase because your version doesn't appear to correspond to the source--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Living in close proximity is no guarantee by itself that they intermingled, I agree with you Chicago Style. In the Behar study Shrike posted, it is shown that a few Palestinians cluster away from other Palestinians, more towards the Negev Bedouins in the study, this could, but does not positively indicate some geneflow between those individuals, however minute. Either way it would only apply to the small group of individuals in that cluster, not the group as a whole, and certainly not to the entire Palestinian population as a whole so I do not believe it can be applied in that context as Shrike intended with their edit.
- But yes it is cherry picking in this context to only include a small sentence concerning Bedouins with no context from a study about "Jewish Genetics and the relationship of Jews to other peoples." Those actions show a considerable bias if the rest of the study is not considered and acknowledged. Let's say for example it was study on Irish people and their relatedness to other groups, and in the study the Irish are found to cluster closely to both some English individuals tested but also with some Scottish individuals tested. Now by your reasoning it is sufficient to just say that the Irish individuals are related to the English, without mentioning the Scottish? That would lead a reader to believe that the Irish are only related to the English. That is not accurate reasoning and in fact seems like there would be some agenda behind such actions.
- Also, inexorably linked to Jews? Some of the early Palestinians were Jewish while some Gentile individuals, that much is fact, Chicago Style, do you have an issue with that? Jewish individuals like others in Palestine have been absorbed into the Palestinian people, when discussing genetics there's no reason to leave anyone out from an unbiased standpoint, especially the Jews. User:Lazyfoxx Lazyfoxx 07:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Your last paragraph really threw me. Do you have a sexxy-time viewing machine? Did Able make babies with Eve? Was Da Vinci gay? Is the milkman my dad? Genetics studies can be used to make inferences about the past. Only sexxy-time viewing machines can give you "facts" about past events. Please, enlighten me about how you know Canaanites = Jews = Palestinians and ≠ Arabs. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- I really wasn't going to dignify you with a response after reading what you just wrote, what kind of response was that, honestly? You really threw me, Chicago Style. I try to assume good faith, but you show you are obviously quite an immature and agenda driven individual. Also, englighten me where have I said, and I quote you, "Canaanites = Jews = Palestinians and =/= Arabs"?
- Rather than put words into my mouth with whatever agenda you are trying to fulfill, I suggest you draw your attention to articles you'd actually be able to improve rather than degrade articles like this with your behavioral nonsense.
- My goal here is the improvement of this article and the protection of it from bias, especially from radical viewpoints but also from personalized viewpoints on the other sides and angles related to these topics, what is your purpose here? Lazyfoxx Lazyfoxx 11:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'll agree it was on the immature side, but I've shown no agenda. You expressed the belief that the Israelites of yesteryear were absorbed into the Palestinian people. Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seemed like you were expressing the belief that Hebrews weren't a race, while Palestinians had an identity 2000 years ago. It's basically the Leila Khalid version of Golda Meir's "there are no Palestinians". Both are wrong. In the article, Rashid Khalili says that the Palestinian roots are deep, but the national consciousness is "relatively modern". So, my math equation was a question of why you said "Some of the early Palestinians were Jewish while some Gentile individuals, that much is fact, Chicago Style, do you have an issue with that?" That statement, besides being confrontational and accusatory, makes a claim of "fact" and I wanted to know how you came to learn this fact. I honestly thought you had a machine that could view people from the past having sex, because no geneticist would tell you facts about the past, only what modern DNA suggests. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know how long you've been on wikipedia, but it has been discussed in this article countless times the history of the Palestinian people and what peoples contributed to their makeup, some of those peoples included Jews, others included Gentiles. Whether or not the ancient Hebrews were a separate race, I'd have to say no, as they were able to reproduce with other homosapiens. They were an ethnic group of people with a shared religion and customs, yes. And did some of those people become absorbed into the population in Palestine and become Palestinians along with the Roman gentiles and others? yes again. Lazyfoxx Lazyfoxx 14:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- So you know this fact because it is your interpretation of past talkpage dialogue. That is even more ridiculous than telling me you saw it on a sexxy-time machine viewer. By the way, (I assume you're a trained biologist because you were lecturing Shrike on genetics) a race is capable of mating with other races in the same species. We can observe this in a laboratory, and therefore know it as fact. You're historical knowledge, no matter how politically convenient, is not.Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
@Lazyfox:We should say only what the sources say we can't add anything from our head its called WP:OR--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, Chicago Style, stop assuming, I know it's fact because through past dialogue discussions countless sources have been shown to indicate the facts about Palestinians in this article. Again, you are being immature and confrontational in your response towards me. It is not my personal historical knowledge, it is the knowledge from sources and history. Homo sapiens are a race, Chicago Style, there are subgroups of different ethnic groups within the race of homo sapiens, an ethnic group is not a separate race, if that were the case they would be a separate species and thus unable to produce viable offspring with other humans. Also, politically convenient? Who brought up politics besides you just now? If you wish to be a good wikipedian you should not be bringing up politics and focus on the sources and studies already found on the page. I think you have agendas on your mind other than the improvement of this article, and frankly I'm a bit annoyed. Also, it's spelled "your", unless you are implying that I myself am historical knowledge. Lazyfoxx 09:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)
I think pointing out petty grammar mistakes is immature and confrontational. So is trying to justify your unique definition of "race". Stop trying to score points and show me one, just one, source that proves a fact from 2000 years ago. An historian or anthropologist's assertion is not a fact. Also, was consensus achieved in these talk page recreations of ancient history? I perused the archives and see a lot of dispute and disagreement, even amongst editors with similar edit histories. This article should reflect the researched history of the Palestinian people, noting minority views when necessary, not Lazyfox and Saeb Erekat's Since Time Immemorial conjectures. Science and academics are quests for truth. Politics is trying to make others believe what you want. Which iz youz doin'? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Right, this article should reflect the researched history of Palestinians, which it does for the most part, editors have been working improve it throughout the years, although neutrality has been disputed concerning bias toward Israeli/Zionist views as well as Palestinian bias, the article cites many sources and provides researched history of Palestinians, so I do not understand what you are asking, besides talking in circles. If you wish to claim that we must not post information in this article about Palestinians because you believe facts from thousands of years ago need proving beyond anthropological evidence and researcher works, then I suggest you take a look at the articles relating to many more ethnic groups of people on Misplaced Pages, including Jewish divisions, I believe that the major Jewish claim to the land of Israel is that "God promised the land of Israel to Abraham thousands of years ago." I believe Israel and Zionists have defended this "fact" with that of the writings in the Bible, what do you think about that? Lazyfoxx 02:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Trying to pigeonhole me, eh? You had an issue with Shrike's edit, which was sourced. You changed the edit, making it about Jews, oh the Jews. Then you went on an orgy of edits, including claims as ridiculous as Canaanite origins (even though they are only mentioned in the Bible) and something called "Palestinian Ottoman". Please take a look in the mirror and see you are POV pushing. For example, you added speculation about what languages people in Palestine spoke based on literature. Doncha know that writing is different than speaking? In modern Morocco, the people are more literate in French than Arabic, their spoken tongue. Additionally, finding some stuff written down in Petra (a trader city with no singular identity) doesn't let you speculate on what they spoke. You should restrict yourself to commentary on modern-day Palestinians, since your grasp of history is guided by political convenience. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see you don't have a response aimed at the question you asked me, seeing as how you are "pigeon holed" according to you. You don't know what you are talking about here Chicago Style, if you look again my initial edit of Shrike's edit did not "make it about the Jews" it simply included more information regarding the rest of the information from the study to convey Neutrality in this article. I am laughing at your accusation that my recent edits are POV pushed, all of my edits on this article are for the improvement of this article and I convey neutrality on the Israeli/Palestinian topic. When you say "including claims as ridiculous as Canaanite origins (even though they are only mentioned in the Bible) and something called "Palestinian Ottoman"." What does that even mean and how does it relate to my edit? You are rambling. And your edits, notably your most recent are clearly POV pushed, you are personally denying Palestinian history, which is cited in literature and sources throughout scholars, your recent edit on the article is nothing more than vandalism, not improvement of this article, and you should revert them. If you are concerned that something inserted in the article needs validation I suggest you read Misplaced Pages:Citation needed, before you go on a tirade of deleting informative content. Lazyfoxx 07:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Denying Palestinian history"? So if I suggest that Palestinian national identity is less than 2000 years old, I'm a racist? Extremists from opposite sides of an issue are identical. You just pulled the "dont support Israel (unconditionally)? Must be an anti-Semite" card. Your last comment makes it seem that you see anything putting Palestnians in a bad light to be an indication of Zionism. Your black and white world must make you feel very righteous.
- Upon rereading my comment, I noticed I misspelled "Palestinian". Betcha caught it and think Imma racist. But seriously, all narratives of history deserve a grain of salt. You seem to do what Creationists do, start with your beliefs and look for evidence that backs it up. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Who called you a racist? I simply stated you are denying the history of Palestinians, which is clearly what you're doing. And how did I "just pull" the "dont support Israel (unconditionally)? must be an anti-semite card"? Explain yourself clearly. And no Chicago Style, I do not start with my beliefs and look for evidence of it, but thanks for another accusation yet again. I use information I have researched and found to be both informative and educational regarding the Palestinians and their history. You on the other hand do quite the opposite, it seems most of your edits since you have joined wikipedia have been deleting content from articles that you find offensive or do not fit your viewpoint. Lazyfoxx 16:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Langauge additions
Do you have the "ʻAl kanfei Yonah" book?Could you please scan the relevant pages that correspond with your edits?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Shrike, what specific part of that section are you concerned with? Feel free to propose a "citations needed' superscript. The Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, by David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, Astrid Biles Beck, as well as The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia by Roger D. Woodard support the edits I believe, the edits coincide with the general history in the region. Lazyfoxx 11:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am speaking about this edit that your sourced to Greenfeeld please supply the source .Until that please don't restore it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Before blatantly removing material from this article because a person doesn't agree with it, do you not think one should give the benefit of the doubt and read Misplaced Pages:Citation needed while consensus and sources are shown regarding the content in question? Lazyfoxx 07:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)
- Please read WP:BURDEN.You have failed to prove that material in the book you cited refers to Palestinian Arabs--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- You didn't answer my question, Shrike. Lazyfoxx 09:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)
- Do you own the book or not?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please stop avoiding, and answer my question Shrike. To answer your question, the book is available publicly thanks to Google, if you are interested look into it yourself, and understand it was not me who initially cited that book. Lazyfoxx 17:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- The edit] is in itself fairly innocuous, except that (a) 'some traces of Hebrew' is wrong. One doesn't speak traces of a language as a language, and Hebrew died out as a spoken language in that area by the 3rd century CE. (b) the Arabaic Nabataean stuff raises complex issues, and even were it a precise description of a complex field, not relevant to the article. I can't see that in Greenfield, however. Greenfield, googled, gives pages 156 and 159 for me, with no sign of an intervening gap. Rather odd. How does one describe the languages spoken in Palestine on the eve of the Islamic conquest, by ethnos (Jews spoke Judeo-Aramaic and Judeo-Greek (not Yevanic). Christians in Judea spoke koiné Greek and Aramaic, often called Christian Palestinian Aramaic, which is quite close to the Amaraean dialects spoken by Jews and Samaritans at that period. It is improper for Shrike to ask if you own a book. You don't have to own books: you can google them, but any request, such as he has made, for a precise pagination and either transcription of the disputed content or a link to the page, is normal practice.Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
affinities are with Jewish Palestinian and Samaritan Aramaic.
Categories:- 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
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- High-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Arab world articles
- Top-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles