Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:54, 1 August 2007

Ethnic groups B‑class Mid‑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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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.

Palestine B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Archives

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

Intro/Lead

Why are editors trying to introduce a lead that omits mention of Samaritans and Jews? There is a documented Samaritan community of 350 people living in Nablus who carry Palestinian ID cards and identify as Palestinian and there are some Jews who identify as Palestinian as well, for example Uri Davis. Further, there are Armenians in the Old City of Jerusalem that identify as Palestinian and they are not Arab. All of this needs to be discussed before being pushed through. There seems to be a rescoping of the article via changes to the definition of Palestinian and renames of the page that must garner consensus before being rammed through. Tiamat 17:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, though they are not mentioned much throughout the article, the Druze are said in the intro to be part of the Palestinian people. Are there any references to this notion? According to a book I have by Rabah Halabi, at least as far as Israeli citizens are concerned, Druze in general do not consider themselves to be Palestinian. Is there any significant Druze population in the West Bank?--Doron 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The most important part of any ethnicity is how people self identify. The languages people speak, their race and religion are irrelevant. Rktect 20:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-Identity and self-perception are NOT ethnicity. Smaug 21:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

is how people identify regardless of the size of the group or whether they are a nation or a gang.Rktect 22:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Some Druze in Israel do identify as Palestinian. For example, the Arab citizens of Israel article notes that: In 2001, Said Nafa, who identifies as a Palestinian Druze and serves as the head of the Balad party's national council, founded the "Pact of Free Druze", an organization that aims "to stop the conscription of the Druze and claims the community is an inalienable part of the Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian nation at large." The exact number may be in dispute, but that there are "Palestinian Druze" is not in question. Ditto for Samaritans, Jews, and even Armenians and others. Tiamat 22:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

These tiny minorities of 300 or even fewer individuals are not notable enough for the lead, especially the ones that are more political grandstanding that discernible reality. Jayjg 22:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What number do minorities have to reach before they are notable enough for inclusion in the lead? And whose engaged in political grandstanding? Aren't politicians supposed to represent the identity, needs, and positions of their constituencies? Tiamat 23:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the population of Palestinians is 9,410,000 as claimed, then 300 people would represent 0.003 percent. Numbers significant enough to mention in the lead should be at least 1%, or 300 times as many as are mentioned here. As for grandstanders, a number of the people claiming to be Palestinians are certainly not being represented by Palestinian politicians, or, indeed, volunteering to go live among real Palestinians. Article leads should not be vehicles for political theatre. Jayjg 23:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a policy that says we cannot mention minority groups unless they constitute at least 1% of the population? Further, Druze Palestinians are certainly more than 1% of the population. Tiamat 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't wikilawyer around; sometimes editors have to use common sense too. The lead must contain the most significant facts about the topic; something comprising less than 1% isn't significant. O.K., if you want to argue if 1% is significant, or 0.75% is significant, or 1.25%, fine, have at it, but it is without question that 0.003% is not significant. Now, given that according to Identity Repertoires among Arabs in Israel, by Muhammad Amara and Izhak Schnell; Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 30, 2004 most Druze in Israel consider themselves to be Arabs, but not Palestinians, just how many Druze actually consider themselves to be Palestinians? Jayjg 00:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Because there are no definitive numbers that address that issue, I couldn't tell you. However, using common sense, knowing that there are some Druze who do identify as Palestinian (As per the source I provided you above) I can deduce that there there is a minority Druze population among Palestinians. Similarly, knowing that there are more than 300 Samaritans living in Nablus, I know that there is a Samaritan minority among Palestinians. The significance of these groups should not be restricted by their small numbers. Tiamat 00:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Using common sense, if, say, 10 Druze considered themselves to be Palestinians, would that be suitable for inclusion in the lead? How about 20? At what point do the numbers become significant? I think any sensible person would agree that 0.003%, or even 10 times as much, 0.03%, is nowhere near significant enough for a lead. Keep in mind, regardless of minor exceptions, the scientific literature has always been clear that most Druze do not consider themselves to be Palestinian - frankly, many don't consider themselves to even be Arabs, but, in fact, simply "Druze". As Salih al-Shaykh points out "their Arab identity emanates in the main from the common language and their socio-cultural background, but is detached from any national political conception. It is not directed at Arab countries or Arab nationality or the Palestinian people, and does not express sharing any fate with them. From this point of view, their identity is Israel, and this identity is stronger than their Arab identity". Nissim Dana, The Druze in the Middle East: Their Faith, Leadership, Identity and Status, Sussex Academic Press, 2003, p. 201. Jayjg 00:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That is true of some Druze, but not all. For those Druze who do consider themselves Palestinians (for which I provided you one example of an elected Palestinian Druze leader in Israel), and considering the non-existence of solid numbers, I would argue that a mention of this minority in the lead in a line outlining what Palestinian minorities there are, is worthy of note. Samaritans are also definitely worthy of note, (even if they do number only 300 - 550 since their total community remaining in this area of the Middle East is only 700 max.) as are Jews. Tiamat 06:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You're just making assertions at this point, not even arguments. I've already brought you the scholarly literature that said most Druze don't consider themselves to be Palestinians. I've pointed out that a group that comprises 0.003% of the Palestinians cannot possibly be significant enough for the lead. I haven't even bothered to point out that there seems to be only 1 Jew, Uri Davis, who calls himself a "Palestinian Jew" and is currently living in a Palestinian community; the rest are a very small number of extremist, Eastern European originated Jews who don't even speak Arabic (they mostly speak Yiddish, Hebrew, and English), and who make the statement purely for political reasons, and not because they actually want to live as or with real Palestinians. If you have any actual arguments, please make them. Jayjg 17:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is better to determine any individuals identity than the individuals themselves?Rktect 20:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering there are only 700 Samaritans worldwide, roughly half of whom live in Nablus and the other half in Holon, I would argue that they deserve mention in the lead. i.e., roughly half of this existing minority population are Palestinians. This is notable. I brought you material that proves that an elected leader of the Druze community in Israel defines himself as Palestinian (he also represents a constitutency); that is notable. Finally, I would ask that you drop the dismissive tone and attitude and try to treat others with the respect you demand for yourself. Tiamat 10:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources saying that these Samritans consider themselves Palestinians? Beit Or 18:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Notables amongst the Samaritan sect in the city of Nablus have denied that a large number of Samaritans have acquired Israeli nationality, according to a news item published in the Hebrew paper "HaEretz" (25.4.97). Saloum al Kahen, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, said, on behalf of the sect, that the report concerns only a few dozen senior citizens who applied for Israeli citizenship about twelve years ago, in order to gain much needed pensions and national insurance allowances. Al Kahen affirmed that about 75 Samaritans have Israeli citizenship, most of whom were senior citizens, and that young Samaritans carry the same I.D. passes carried by all residents of Nablus. He added, "We are Palestinians and belong to Palestine, to Nablus and to Holy Mount Gerizim."

Farouk Al Sameri, the sect's secretary, vehemently denied that any members of the Samaritan sect in Nablus were in the process of obtaining Israeli citizenship. He said "We have no identity other than the Palestinian and Nablusi identity. Our existence is drawn from being here on this land on Mount Gerizim." The matter, he said, was no more than "a humanitarian issue," with no political overtones. "A number of senior citizens were compelled by their circumstances to obtain Israeli pension allowances in Israel by means of obtaining Israeli citizenship," Al Sameri said.

Members of the Samaritan sect in Nablus refused to accept an offer of citizenship from the Israeli government directly after its occupation of the town of Nablus in 1967. The people of Nablus remember to this day what the spiritual head of the Samaritan sect, Sidquh al Kahen, said in a radio interview with "Voice of Israel" after the occupation of the city. When the interviewer asked how the inhabitants of the town were treating them, he replied, "If our prophet Moses was with us to this day, I do not believe he would have treated us better than the way we are being treated by our own people - our brothers and sisters in the town of Nablus." The Samaritan sect is the smallest religious sect in the world, consisting of 680 individuals, half of whom live on Mount Gerizim whilst the remainder live in the Israeli town of Houloun, near Tel Aviv. The Samaritans believe in the sacredness of Mount Gerizim. Although they adhere to the ancient Old Testament, they deny the Jewish doctrines, believing them to be a corruption of the teachings of Moses.Tiamat 14:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that some of them consider themselves to be Palestinians is certainly notable information in the Samaritan article, but, again, they're simply not numerous enough to deserve mention in the lead of the Palestinian article. That irrefutable fact of 0.003% pretty much trumps anything else. Jayjg 03:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but no such proportion of Druse identify in that manner. Tewfik 19:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Says Tewfik, the Druse self apointed spokesman. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's what all the scholarly sources say, and I've cited some of them. Jayjg 03:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

why is Passia.com used as a source? Why is it reliable?

It refers to Palestinian "resistence", misses no chance in its chronology pages to count "massacres" of palestinians, and from it's chronoloy of 1967 one would think there was no war and Israel spontaneously annexed territory. It doesn't even substitute militant for terrorist, it calls them "activists". When Palestinians die on Sept 28 of 1996 they are "matyred". And finally, it calls Palestine a country. It clearly has an agenda. If this source is not reliable as I assert I will remove all "facts" that use this as a reference in a day or two. Smaug 21:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Having a POV does not make a source unreliable. There are no objective sources. That said, the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs certainly qualifies as a reliable source on information to do with Palestinians. See also their standards page: . Tiamat 21:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

When a website calls people "martyrs", it crosses the line into too partisan to be reliable. Jayjg 22:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Because we Palestinians have a word to honor those who die, in Arabic, Shaheed, and we translate it into English accurately and use it, we are biased. This doesn't make any sense Jayjg. It's a cultural practice among Palestinians to call the dead "martyrs". PASSIA is not an American academic institute, it's a Palestinian one, and it has a right to name its fallen as it's community does. Respecting and faithfully representing the culture of the community it comes from doesn't make it biased. Tiamat 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Omissions and distortions concerning DNA evidence

Plenty of false information here on DNA information. No mention of the fact that overall Jews are far more associated with Haplogroup J2, common in the northern fertile cresent and Mediterranean basin, than J1, more associated with Arabs, including Palestinians, which you are trying to portray as the "authentic marker" of "Semitic speakers". Plus, the research on "CMH" is still inconclusive and hotly debated, despite the way you are trying to portray it. There is no credible reason to believe that CMH lies outside of the main Jewish distributions. Shoddy scholarship with a strong political motivation are profoundly evident here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 02:18, 16 July 2007 (talk • contribs) 151.200.35.152.

Its true that there were problems with this section which I tried to sort out. For one, it misquoted the data from the line below, and left out important information about the relevance of J1 and J2 to the populations in question (relative occurrence among Arabs, Jews; Levantine focus) while including general information unrelated to the discussion about the Palestinians. Tewfik 03:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet this keeps getting reverted. Maybe someone knows of a different Semino? Tewfik 02:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Arabs and Arabians

Because I have noticed that there are some editors who are confused about the concept of Arab and the concept of Arabian. I would suggest you to read this . It shows you how Arabs, and ancient Arabs classified themselves into three categories... Only one of them is the Ishmaelites, cousins of the Israelites. But the rest are really ancient Arabs with whom Ishmael whom were in Arabia even before the arrival of Ishmael. There is a good Arabic book about all this stuff, unfortunately I cannot find an English translation. Almaqdisi 05:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Almaqdisi. Unreliable stuff simply is not going to stay in this article, per WP:V. Please respect that consensus. Jayjg 12:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Almaqdisi, according to WP:V, you can use a source in a language other then English when no English equivalent is available. It's not surprising that detailed information on Palestinians or Arabs and their geneaology would be more readily available in Arabic. If you can translate the sections you want to use and post them here and cite the source you are using in both Arabic and English, we can use your source for the article. Tiamat 00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

New intro?

It now says there are "four different types" of Palestinians. The first definition applies to the term's use in the British Mandate period, whereas the second, third and fourth definitions are "Israeli Palestinians", "West Bank and Gaza Palestinians" and "Diaspora Palestinians". The terminology is confusing and the definition makes it same as though these different groups are mutually exclusive whereas they are all Palestinians, just in different temporal and geographic spaces. It has to be changed. Tiamat 00:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but if you insert the irrelevant stuff about Canaanites yet again I'll revert all your edits. Please edit accordingly. Jayjg 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe I was quite clear about this, wasn't I? Also, it's rather disingenuous for you to revert my edits, then put the onus on my to explain why I don't approve of your reverts. Jayjg 21:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You can be as clear as you want, but when your reverts wipe out my work wholesale, including edits that have nothing to do with any of the points you have raised, despite my clear requests to be more discriminting, your action can be seen as provocative as disrespectful of the work of others. Tiamat 12:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Except for the fact that every single one of your proposed changes has been explicitly and specifically objected to, often at great length, yet you choose to ignore that. In addition, some of your edits are, in fact, reversions of edits that others have made, yet you refuse to explain your reversions. It would seem hypocritical to blindly revert several people without even explaining why, when you complain that that others "reverts wipe out my work wholesale". Your actions are, in fact, "provocative as disrespectful of the work of others". Jayjg 12:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? Shall we go through them then, one by one? Here is the diff:

1. Intro: I have added [[Samaritan and Druze and deleted "the region of" before Palestine since it is rather superfluous.
2. I have restored the quotes around the terms discussed in the next paragraph that shows changes, as well as the wikilink to the 1948 war (and a more simplified version of the a sentence that basically says the same thing.
3. I added one sentence to the footnote of Edward said's comment on Khalidi's book: "Khalidi's massive study of the construction of Palestinian national identity is a pathbreaking work of major importance.
4. I have removed the unsourced sentence, "without a clear definition whom to count as a Palestinian"
5. I added the following paragraph sourced to Franz Rosenthal to the origins section:

   Palestinians, like most other Arabic-speakers, combine ancestries from those who have come to settle the region throughout history; though the precise mixture is a matter of debate, on which genetic evidence (see below) has begun to shed some light. The findings apparently confirm Ibn Khaldun's argument that most Arabic-speakers throughout the Arab world descend mainly from culturally assimilated non-Arabs who are indigenous to their own regions.

6. I moved Kathleen Christison comment on Palestinian historians from her review of Kunstl and Albright's book to the section directly after the quote that they make since it is directly relevant there, so that the paragraph now reads:

   Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, author-journalists, write that:

   "Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan ... Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes."

   Kathleen Christison notes in her review of Kunstel and Albright's work that they are "those rare historians who give credence to the Palestinians' claim that their 'origins and early attachment to the land' derive from the Canaanites five millenia ago, and that they are an amalgamation of every people who has ever lived in Palestine."

7. I changed the sentence on increasing Arabization in the Umayyad era, based on Lewis as a source to read :

   Although various Arabian tribes inhabited Palestine since the 3rd millennium BC,, increasing conversions to Islam among the local population, together with the immigration of Arabs from Arabia and inland Syria, led to increased Arabization of the population in the Umayyad era.

8. I added the following bolded material to this sentence, based on the source:

   According to Science, "most Palestinian archaeologists were quick to distance themselves from these ideas," viewing the issue of who was in Palestine first as constituting an ideological issue lying outside of the realm of archaeological study.

9. I restored and made corrections to the material in the DNA section to reflect the sources cited and not Tewfik's WP:OR interpretation which badly misreads the source material.

• So, as far as I can recall, you have only actually raised issues around the first of these nine changes, and have not discussed any of the remainder with me. In other words, my assertion that your reverts are wholesale, is absolutely correct. Tiamat 13:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Said's kissing up to Khalidi, this is an article about "Palestinian people", not Khalidi's book. Save the back-slapping for the article about the book. Removing a link to the Establishment of the State of Israel article makes no sense, your wording was worse, the Palestine Post changed its name in 1950 so it's not clear why you would change this to the less accurate "after the 1948 war"). The "without a clear definition" stuff seems to have been slipped in there. The Rosenthal material is 40 years old, and he was a specialist in Arabic literature and Islam, not history; I've already explained at length why we need modern scientific works on this, as the science keeps changing. The problem with POV-pushing this irrelevant Canaanite stuff has already been explained to you by many editors here - your continued attempts to write revisionist history that not even Palestinian historians support are perverse. The Lewis material is dubious, as you haven't quoted him exactly. Your original research regarding the Science article is clear - you are quoting one person and attributing his views to many. Your reversions of Tewfik on the DNA material have not been explained, other than a claim that he "badly misreads" it. Jayjg 13:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't address all the points I raised and what you have provided is not so much a response as a a series of accusations based on non-sequiters between new material I have introduced and old arguments you have made that are specious at best. Indeed, it seems that you are not interested in collaboration here, but rather enjoy promoting any-version-other-than-Tiamat's. It looks like we once again need mediation. Tiamat 13:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have responded clearly with my objections to each claim; please avoid further violations of WP:CIVIL by referring to them as "non-sequiters". On the other hand, you have yet to provide a rationale for some of your reverts. If you want to set up Talk: page sections for each proposed change, so that it can be discussed in a way that is more clear to you, please feel free to. Jayjg 18:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would I do that Jayjg, when I have already outlined the changes I want to make here? Why can't you respond to each of them (they are numbered after all and you can say, "#1 is an issue we have already discussed, number #3 is fine, go ahead and add it ... etc., etc. (I should mention I missed one change in that edit, which is an introductory paragraph to the culture section that I restored after Beit Or deleted it, which you redeleted again without explanation.) Could you please work with me here? Tiamat 09:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well #6 is a big problem. The Kunstel and Albright junk shouldn't be here at all. They aren't historians, they're not doing history, they wrote a non-notable, apparently out-of-print book, which made WP:REDFLAG claims. Sorry, but it's extreme WP:UNDUE for such a non-reliable source. <<-armon->> 12:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Christison calls them historians in her review of their work. What evidence do you have suggesting that they are an unreliable source? Their work is properly contextualized. My version makes no extraordinary claims regarding their expertise. It simply states :

The claim that Palestinians are direct descendants of the region's earliest inhabitants, the Canaanites, has been put forward by some authors. Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, author-journalists, write that:

"Between 3000 and 1100 B.C., Canaanite civilization covered what is today Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and much of Syria and Jordan ... Those who remained in the Jerusalem hills after the Romans expelled the Jews were a potpourri: farmers and vineyard growers, pagans and converts to Christianity, descendants of the Arabs, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks and old Canaanite tribes."

Kathleen Christison notes in her review of Kunstel and Albright's work that they are "those rare historians who give credence to the Palestinians' claim that their 'origins and early attachment to the land' derive from the Canaanites five millenia ago, and that they are an amalgamation of every people who has ever lived in Palestine."

Tiamat 13:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to include the Palestinian claim of Canaanite descent, and it's a widely held belief that we can properly cite as such, i have no problem with mentioning that people hold this belief. OTOH, presenting pseudohistory as history will be reverted. Kunstel and Albright are "rare historians" because they aren't historians. There's no point discussing this further. <<-armon->> 14:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Every source that puts forward the claim of Canaanite descent is a not a reliable to you which is hwy there is indeed no point in discussing this with you any further. You cannot decide that a source is unreliable without providing evidence to support your claim. The Christison source says they are historians. Do you have a source that says they are pseudo-historians? I didn't think so. The source stays. I've had enough of the automatic denials of sources by you and Jayjg simply because you don't like what they have to say. Tiamat 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, they're historians because some other non-historian says so. Give it up. <<-armon->> 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I see. So I provide you sources and you provide me with insults. And I'm supposed to defer to your position? Is this how you go about seeking consensus? Find a source that says they are not historians and then we'll talk until then, they are a reliable source per Kathleen Christison, who by the way, is a Mid-East expert, and is likely familiar with literature on the subject. Tiamat 16:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know where you think I insulted you. Pointing out your poor sources is not an insult. As for "Find a source that says they are not historians and then we'll talk", you're simply shifting the burden of proof. It's on you, for your edits. <<-armon->> 00:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Christison is an ex-CIA analyst and noted Israel-basher. She is in no way a historian, or even an academic, and her word doesn't turn Kunstel and Albright into historians. Jayjg 16:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, do you have source? For any of the allegations you are making (which by the way, violate WP:BLP). If not, what you think personally about Christison or Kunstel and Albright is largely irrelevant. Tiamat 16:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Which parts of what I said do you think are not accurate? Jayjg 16:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• 1. Samaritans make up 0.003% of Palestinians, so they don't belong in the lead. Most Druze do not consider themselves to be Palestinian, and I have brought scholarly sources saying exactly that. We have been over this at length, your continued attempts to insert this material regardless is disruptive.
• There are only 700 Samaritans worldwide and half of them Palestinian, per the source I provided in that section above. They deserve mention in the lead. I hope you are not suggesting that because they are so small in number that they don't deserve to be mentioned in other articles besides their own at all. As for the Druze, I provided you with a source that proves that a Druze Member of the Knesset in Israel identifies as Palestinian, he represents a constituency who voted for him and that that means there are a significant number of Druze who identify as Palestinian. They also deserve mention in the lead. Your continued attempts to pretend that you won and resolved that debate are getting tiresome. You don't have consensus for your position. 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • One 0.003% and one Druze member aren't significant. You have no consensus for your POV edit, and I will not comment further. Jayjg 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Half of all the Samaritans in the world, and a Palestinian Druze leader of a major political party for Arabs in Israel are not insignificant. You have no consensus for your removals of this information.
• 2. Regarding Said's kissing up to Khalidi, this is an article about "Palestinian people", not Khalidi's book. Save the back-slapping for an article about the book.
• The "back-slapping" provides context for the sentence that follows it. I made a revised version of it in this edit (which I self-reverted once I realized I had probably violated 3RR). It cuts out some of the backslapping while providing context for the quote.Tiamat 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This article is about Palestinians, not the book. Jayjg 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree. Why don't we just remove the whole footnote? The half a sentence fragment I provided was for context, but if you think it's not relevant at all. Let's take out the whole part that comments from the back of the book. Tiamat 11:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• 3. Removing a link to the Establishment of the State of Israel article makes no sense, your wording was worse, the Palestine Post changed its name in 1950 so it's not clear why you would change this to the less accurate "after the 1948 war".
• That's fine. Upon reflection, I agree with your version for this point. Tiamat 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• 4. The "without a clear definition" stuff seems to have been slipped in there, I removed it.
• Great. Tiamat 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• 5. The Rosenthal material is 40 years old, and he was a specialist in Arabic literature and Islam, not history; I've already explained at length why we need modern scientific works on this, as the science keeps changing.
• He is used to quote Ibn Khaldun's theory which is presented while referring to the genetics section and its findings, which you seem to be ignoring actually suggest that Palestinians are descended from the earliest populations in the Levant with more than 60% of them holding Haplogroup J markers. Tiamat 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ibn Khaldun's theory is not relevant to modern science, nor is the 40 year old work of a specialist in Arab literature and Islam. I've been over this many times, I won't repeat it. Jayjg 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't share your view. His work is properly contextualized and there is no expiry date for historical works. Tiamat 11:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• 6. The problem with POV-pushing this irrelevant Canaanite stuff has already been explained to you by many editors here - the material only comes from non-historians, approved of by other non-historians. Your continued attempts to write revisionist history that not even Palestinian historians support are perverse.
• You are ignoring that the text as you keep restoring it actually debunks Canaanite ancestry without ever advancing the argument. My version does. Stop trying to censor out the opposite POV. Tiamat 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The debunking comes from reliable sources; the "advancing" does not. Avoid WP:CIVIL violations. Jayjg 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No source that advances the thesis of Canaanite descent is ever reliable to you. I have provided you with almost a dozen in the last two months. You always find an excuse under which to disqualify them from inclusion. Tiamat 11:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• 7. The Lewis material is dubious, as you haven't quoted him exactly.
• I am open to being corrected should you have a copy of the text. That material is from an earlier version of the page. Tiamat 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If you don't have a copy of the text, then don't include it. Jayjg 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • So I shouldn't restore edits that others have added if I don't have a copy of the book? Where is that written? Tiamat 11:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• 8. Your original research regarding the Science article is clear - you are quoting one person and attributing his views to many.
• You are ignoring that that material was previously used in a very misleading fashion. My version corrects that problem, but I am open to changing the wording to be more representative of the source. Tiamat 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Two wrongs don't make a right, and the previous version wasn't even wrong. Jayjg 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes it was. Please examine the diff. Tiamat 11:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• 9. Your reversions of Tewfik on the DNA material have not been explained, other than a claim that he "badly misreads" it.
• Neither has Tewfik explained how his edits reflect the text more accurately. They do not. Check the footnotes, read, and you will see why my version (which was the earlier version largely provided by other editors and slighty corrected for readability) is better. 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Explain your revert. Jayjg

color="DarkGreen">(talk) 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• 10. The introductory paragraph to the culture section was pure unsourced original research. Jayjg 16:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• It is all sourced by the material provided by the articles in the culture section. It's an introduction that summarizes the content of the culture articles and was the intro for the Palestinian culture] article. It therefore doesn't need to be referenced. It's not even controversial so I don't see what the problem is actually. Tiamat 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's unsourced original research. The section doesn't need that. Jayjg 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

An introduction to a section on culture that mentions that Palestinian share cultural customs with other Levantine populations, but also have unique cultural products is not necessary? Come on. Tiamat 11:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I will make some minor changes per my comments above.Tiamat 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tiamat. There is no consensus for your edits, as has been explained at length. Make uncontroversial edits first, and get consensus, and please stop this disruption. Thanks. Jayjg 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. I have moved way beyond these edits now. If you still have problems with some things I have added, as you indicate for a couple of things above, please make specific changes to those specific passages. Stop wholesale reverts. Alternatively, you can use fact tags and other tools. I am here working on the article and the pressing need you feel to automatically delete my additions can be moderated considering. Tiamat 11:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, your latest version reinserts a lot of what was objected to, as well as bringing in new issues. For example, you've put the "Druze and Samaritan minorities" back in the lead, and now the Khalidi source appears to state the opposite of what it did before -which is it? You've been asked repeatedly to proceed step by step on your proposed changes, so instead of doing wholesale reverts yourself, please either start with uncontroversial changes, or get some kind of consensus beforehand. <<-armon->> 21:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have gone to considerable to discuss the changes I want to make. I've been doing that for two months now. If you think that the Druze and Samaritan information should not be there, we can discuss that again, or you can remove it and we can discuss it again. Many of the changes I have made are not controversial at all and your wholesale reverts throw out improvements for flow and grammar and clarity, as well as new unrelated material. Please focus. And please explain further what you mean about the Khalidi quote. Tiamat 00:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Insert what you think are non-controversial edits first; your current method of editing is intended to be as disruptive as possible for other editors. Work with other editors, rather than trying to make life as difficult as possible for them. Thanks. Jayjg 02:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I did that Jayjg. My latest edit made changes to accomodate some of the concerns you raised. I think I have been extremely patient over the last two months, during your repeated deletions of my work here. I have found new sources over and over again, only to have you find something wrong with them and claim they are controversial. I have reformulated additions I have made to take into account viewpoints. As such, I am going to restore my edit and I am going to ask you once again, to work with me not against me. Please place fact tags on items you think need better sources. Please go through the edit and mark out the things you think are controversial. I can't read your mind. I made changes per our discussion above. I've engaged in talk. The changes I keep trying to re-introduce are not static. They are dynamic and crafted in response to your objections. Please. I'm asking you nicely. Stop undoing my work. And do some of your own. Tiamat 13:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems crazy. Why does information on the Druze and Samartians have to do with this entry? How do they have ANY connection with the Palestinian people? What makes you think Palestinians are an ethnic group? They are not. They are a political entity, nothing more. So why are you are adding material on other sub-ethnic groups which have no connection to this topic anyway?

I don't understand why things have reached this point. please try not to remove Tiamat's material. If you disagree with his material, you can simply add your own counter-balancing refernces an/or note the disputed nature of some claims. Tiamat is a good-faith editor, and it seems unnecessary for well-sourced text to be so disputed. --Steve, Sm8900 16:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve. Thanks for your comments about my good-faith editing, I really appreciate it. About Druze and Samaritans, most view them as religious minorities rather than ethnic groups. Even if they were ethnic groups, there are many among both groups who identify as Palestinian as noted in the article body in the section on Religion. I tend to agree with you that Palestinians are not an ethnic group (if by ethnic group you mean racial group, since they are very racially mixed); however, that doesn't mean we should exclude information about the different religious and self-identified ethnic minorities that claim to also share in Palestinian identity or ethnicity. Nonetheless, for now I have refrained from adding to the intro, so as to pursue consensus. Having them in the body of the article is good enough for now. Tiamat 17:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to continue negotiating

Hi there. Glad to see you only deleted about 1,000 bytes of material here instead of 5,000 bytes as in your previous revert. Now we're getting somewhere.

I have a couple of questions for you about your edit. First the easy ones:

1) Why did you remove "national liberation movement". The PLO was one of a handful of national liberation movements to gain observer status. This is well-documented and relevant to the article.

2) Why did you restore Tewfik's edits to the DNA section. What makes his version more accurate than my own? I explained my edits above in response to your request to do so. Can you explain yours?

As for the ancestry section, we need to discuss that in detail once again once we finish these issues. You once again reverted all of my changes there, even removing a sentence sourced to Lewis regarding Arabian tribes.

But again, I appreciate you taking me up on my request. Please answer these two questions and we'll take it from there. Tiamat 16:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

According to whom were they accorded observer status as a "national liberation movement"? Also, your explanation of your reverts of Tewfik's edits were broad and non-specific. Finally, yes, we do need to discuss the ancestry section in detail. Jayjg 01:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I provided you with a source that explains that a bit. Read it.

I have re-read all of the DNA material linked, discovered both Tewfik and I were wrong in our versions, drafted a new version based on the sources that were already there that is clearer (I think) and much more accurate than what was there before (both my version and Tewfik's old version).

Can you acknowledge that the "national liberation movement" information is both accurate and verifiable and relevant to the article?

Can you explain any problems you see with the new version for the DNA section?

And then, can we move on the Ancestry section again?

Thanks. Tiamat 02:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to review the DNA changes you've made. The "national liberation movement" source would have to be an official U.N. one. We can certainly move on to the Ancestry section. Jayjg 02:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I gave you the link to the source. It's a legal summary. Here's the diff showing my changes to the DNA section: . I'm also going to add a link to the full text of the Semino paper available at another page to the article right now, since the link currently in place is not the full text. Tiamat 02:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, a simple google search for national liberation PLO UN observer status, brought up this UN document: . Pretty clear no? So, reinserting "national liberation movement and appending this source alongside that already there is all clear. Tiamat 02:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The link doesn't work for me. Do you have a better one? Also, please review Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages: Never address other users in a heading, and avoid provocative and pointless reverts in this regard in the future. Thanks. Jayjg 04:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's another UN source - UN General Assembly resolution 52/260 from 2 July 1998, available here: or if the link doesn't open, go here and look it up by title, "Participation of Palestine in the Work of the UN", states:

Recalling also its resolution 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, by which it granted observer status to the Palestine Liberation Organization, Recalling further its resolution 43/160 A of 9 December 1988, adopted under the item entitled "Observer status of national liberation movements recognized by the Organization of African Unity and/or by the League of Arab States", in which it decided that the Palestine Liberation Organization was entitled to have its communications issued and circulated as official documents of the United Nations, Recalling its resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988, in which it acknowledged the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988 and decided that the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system ...

Also, did you get a chance to look at the DNA section? Tiamat 10:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The PLO was granted observer status at the UN, but it's incorrect to say it was recognized as a "national liberation movement" by anyone other than the League of Arab States and/or the Organization of African Unity. Maybe I missed it, but it was unclear if it was both orgs. <<-armon->> 11:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's another source that makes it clearer from the UN Security Council: It has been the practice of the United Nations since the early 1950s to recognize movements of national liberation and aid them in their quest for self-determination. However, as demonstrated by the situation in Israel and Palestine, despite this recognition, the UN has been unable to help procure peace in some of these situations.

And another from Tufts University: National liberation movements the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) prior to Namibian independence–were given observer status in the General Assembly.

It's quite clear that the PLO was granted observer status on the basis of its character as a national liberation movement. Tiamat 12:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry section negotiations based on this diff:

Questions for Jayjg:

1) Why would you put Kunstel and Albright at the beginning of this section if you claim that their opinion is not as valid as that of "real" historians?

As you can see from my version on the left of the diff placed above, I have put them at the end of this section and contextualized their argument. Your version gives them WP:UNDUE prominence. Further, you version uses Kathleen Christison's review of their book to make a generalized claim about how "most historians do not give credence to these claims." My version places her review after Kunstel and Albright's statement, properly attributing it the context in which it was produced.

2) Why are Ibn Khaldun's writings on Arab ancestry not relevant to this section?

Note that my version does not proffer his thesis as a fact. It refers to the genetics section and points out similarities in his thesis while consigning the determination of the debate to the realm of DNA studies (where it belongs, as per the Palestinian archaeologists statements and even Lewis himself. Genetic questions cannot be answered by historians or archaeologists.)

3) Why do you keep deleting this sentence opening:

Although various tribes from the Arabian peninsula had migrated into Palestine as early as the 3rd millennium BC,

?

It is sourced to Bernard Lewis who you quote from extensively in this section. The reliability of the source, in other words, is not in question. So what's the problem?

I believe that covers the fundamental differences between the version you keep restoring and the one I do. Please answer the questions and we can take it from there. Tiamat 13:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

1) The Kunstel and Albright stuff is the earliest chronologically. You're right, given that they are not historians it doesn't really belong at all in the article, but given your insistence on it anyway, it logically goes first.

2) The theories of medieval writers, or even specialists in Arab literature and Islam who 40 years ago agreed with those theories, are not relevant to this page. Use recent material from relevant experts, in accord with WP:V and WP:NPOV.

3) Because the claim seems unlikely to me, as I've said before. I also asked for the exact quote, to verify, but you have not yet been forthcoming. Jayjg 02:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

1) I don't see how the Kunstel and Albright stuff should go first. It's chronologically first how exactly? Where does it say that we cite sources in chronological order? I think your point here is weak, evasice and pointy.

2) How are the writing of medieval Arab writer on the ancestry of Arabs not relevant to a section on the ancestry of Palestinians? Where is the Wiki policy that disqualifies sources based on their antiquity?

3)It's totally uncontroversial that Arabian tribes migrated out of the Sinai peninsula into Palestine in the 3rd millenium BC. As I explained to you before, I don't have Lewis' book to be able to give the exact quote, but a previous editor inserted this information, its not a far out claim at all, and it doesn't deserve to be deleted just because you think it might not be accurate. Get the book and check it. Or do some research. It's verifiable. Do some verifying if you have doubts.

In short Jayjg, I think your objections here are nitpicking. There isn't a solid argument that addresses why my version is unsuitable. Tiamat 10:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

1) It describes the earliest origins of the Palestinians. The alternative is to remove the musings of journalists entirely.

2) Because the writing of medieval writers is only a reliable source for articles describing what they wrote, not for any actual real-life scientific information.

3) It may be uncontroversial to you, but I don't trust the claim, and I don't see how its relevant to this article. When something is challenged, and cannot be supported, it is removed, not stubbornly re-inserted. Jayjg 17:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

what's that about medieval writers? I think you must be kidding. I regards to history or ancestry, it's totally acceptable. What about Josephus, and numerous other writers of antiquity? how do you think the historical record was created in the first place? Even if your point were right, this is not a Misplaced Pages rule. you can note your points in the text, without reverting or removing the material entirely. --Steve, Sm8900 18:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not acceptable at all. We don't rely on Josephus, or Herodotus, or any other ancient writer for reliable information. Now it's entirely possible that modern historians will use ancient writers as one source of information, but we can't, since we're not experts nor are we doing original research. WP:V is indeed a Misplaced Pages rule, and we don't "note your point in the text" regarding unreliable sources, you simply remove it. Jayjg 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Tiamat, in regard to all her points. I suggest to please stop taking potshots at her material, and simply add your own if you feel it needs more balance. For example, if you don't consider medieval experts convincing, simply note this in the text. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a scholarly journal. It reflects overall amount of work on this topic, not necessarily the latest or the most current or developed. --Steve, Sm8900 13:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V disagrees with you. The writings of Ibn Khaldun are fine for an article on Ibn Khaldun. Jayjg 17:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you point me to the passage in your bible (WP:V) that disqualifies the use of Ibn Khaldun? Also could you explain how you lack of trust for a claim requires other editors to go out to library and get a book when you could easily get it and check it yourself? Tiamat 17:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your request; what bible are you referring to? Perhaps you can rephrase your question in a way that is more comprehensible. Regarding the material currently being attributed to Lewis, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Jayjg 18:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Lewis material is wholly uncontroversial. See The Catholic Encyclopedia online which says the same thing he does . This is basic ancient history Jayjg, but whatever.

I want to know how WP:V disqualifies the use of Ibn Khaldun. And my question was partially facetious (as was your answer). What I'm trying to say is that your interpretation of policy can differ from my own. We're not dealing with holy texts here, so don't try and pretend that you can invoke a policy, pretend it's the word of god and the issue is then closed.

Finally, you still haven't addressed the problems with "your version" that I outlined at the beginning of this section. Specifically, why do you keep insisting on using Christison's review of Kunstel and Albright's work in a tendentious way to make conclusions about the views of all historians, rather than placing in context directly after their work? Thanks.Tiamat 18:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You keep claiming the Lewis material is "uncontroversial", but that's simply not good enough; support your claims. And please don't bring articles from 100 year old religious works as "proof". Regarding the Ibn Khaldun material, WP:V states "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." and "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." I don't think that applies to Ibn Khaldun. Finally, I don't understand why you think Christison's review has been used in a "tendentious way". Frankly, it doesn't belong at all, Kunstel and Albright are journalists, not historians, and Christison is an ex-CIA analyst and anti-Israel activist, not a historian or academic. I think I'm being quite generous in accepting this material in any form. Jayjg 19:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

When the topic itself is rooted in antiquity, such as the movement and derivation of ancient peoples, you an use sourdces which are from antiquity. That is precisely why many historians rely on Josephus for information on historical Jewish events. --Steve, Sm8900 20:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, of course not. We use modern historians. They in turn might use some of what Josephus wrote, with caution, as one of their sources, but Josephus doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's WP:V requirements. Jayjg 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Accounts by ancient historians are too easily taken out of context, or may even be inaccurate, biased, or otherwise flawed. We have to rely on modern historians to put ancient writings in the correct context. Making our own interpretations of the material is original research. In any case, I don't see the value in quoting Ibn Khaldoun unless the comparison of his opinion to modern opinion is frequently made by historians. On the face of it, dropping his name adds no useful content. nadav (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the view of Nadav and Jayjg is that Ibn Khaldun is not notable enough or credible enough a source for this claim, there are others. For example, in the Nebel et al. study cited in the DNA section, the article clearly states that:

"According to historical records part, or perhaps the majority, of the Moslem Arabs in this country descended from local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD (Shaban 1971; Mc Graw Donner 1981). These local inhabitants, in turn, were descendants of the core population that had lived in the area for several centuries, some even since prehistorical times (Gil 1992)."

I might point out that this is exactly what Ibn Khaldun says. But if you prefer that we use "modern historians", there is this quote. Is there any objection to using this source instead of Ibn Khaldun? Tiamat 11:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added the quote as a footnote to the text. I don't agree that Ibn Khaldun's view should be removed. Nadav seems to be ignoring that Rosenthal, a "modern historian" is citing Ibn Khaldun, he's not being cited directly. Jayjg is ignoring that Ibn Khaldun's thesis that Arabs are descendants of previous populations in the region is neither controversial, nor disputed. Even Lewis concedes that this is true, though he believes the contribution to be more minor than others. Throughout the article, DNA studies cite the historical record as saying that many of the Moslems in Palestine are descendants of Jewish and Christian populations that preceded them, and the pagan populations that preceded them. There are no sources cited in the article that dispute this claim. If you find a source that disputes it, we can juxtapose it against the others. However, to continue insisting that this is an extraordinary claim without acknowledging the myriad expert sources cited in the article that make it, is really rather ridiculous. The burden of proof was long ago met and it is stubborn POV pushing to deny it. Tiamat 12:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Rosenthal wrote his stuff 40 years ago, and is not, and was never, a "historian". Jayjg 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop ignoring that this is not controversial material. Acknowledge the expert material in the quote above. Stop disrupting development of this article. When you delete 6,000 bytes of material and then explain your edit with this one sentence here, that's not discussion Jayjg. Nor is the making of general and inaccurate accusations against me discussion of the article, as per you comments in the section below. Are you being purposefully obtuse? Tiamat 16:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Demography

I have moved the section on demography from Palestine to this article. Logically the demography of a people should be discussed in the article on the people and not elswhere. I have made some minor changes to avoid duplications and to facilitate understanding. Benqish 07:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Shalom: it appears that the 'Palestinian people' discussed in this article may not be the same group of people that are discussed in the other article you mentioned. You also had few mistakes and interruptions in the flow of original content. Sory I didn't see this post of yours here before. 65.188.174.171 15:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The notion that the Palestinians are a "race" or "ethnicity" of people is widely disputed. The evidence suggests that Palestinians are a nationality at best. To define Palestinians as a ethnicity (and let's be honest, "Palestinian people" really means "people who are ethnically Palestinian") is to at once define "people" too narrowly and too broadly. the people that lived in the British Mandate of Palestine and their decendents collectively as "Palestinian people" also describe the people include Jewish citizens of Mandatory Palestine under that umbrella? This would include the entire Yishuv, Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi. According to this view, Menachem Begin is as much a member of the "Palestinian people" as Yaser Arafat. I would suggest that this too broadly defines what is actually being writen about. Would those that would describe the people that lived in the British Mandate of Palestine and their decendents collectively as "Palestinian people" also describe the people that lived in the British Mandate of Mesopotamia and their decendents collectively as "Mesopotamian people?" If not, then "Palestinian people" too narrowly defines what is actually being descibed. --GHcool 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

people: "the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people." . Nobody wants to call the article "Palestinian race". "Palestinian people" sounds just about right, given WP:Naming_conflict (quoted above), as long as the subject of the article is indeed those who identify themselves as the Palestinian people.--Doron 21:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; the key phrase in WP:Naming conflict#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms isn't "ethnic group" (which is merely incidental to the hypothetical example) but rather "self-identification."--G-Dett 21:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

When there is a conflict of naming and one way to describe it is less controversial then the other, common sense dictates to use the uncontroversial one. Here this article was called for years "Palestinians" which was also wrong as it should have been called "Palestinian Arabs"; only in the last year someone came along and changed it to "Palestinian People". Doron, wouldn't it be the right thing to do, to change it back to "Palestinians", which GHCool and Nadav agree. If you agree then I'll take the lesser of two evils so that Misplaced Pages should be a step closer to being fair and unbiased. Remember both are self-identifying names, so when there is a conflict, the less controversial one should be there. Itzse 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's naming of articles about peoples is not uniform, you have Romanians and Italian people and Jew and Azerbaijani people and Demographics of India and Dutch (ethnic group). I don't see why "Palestinian people" is controversial, but I suppose I could accept "Palestinians". I prefer the former, as it is more clear that it is about the people. Why is it so POV exactly?--Doron 22:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't see it as controversial that tells me that you have a certain POV for which you are entitled. But this is Misplaced Pages and Nadav, GHCool and countless others do find it controversial, which should be enough to tell you that it's controversial. It would be futile to explain it to you if you don't know it already; haven't you read some of the comments here? Either way if "Palestinians" is acceptable for you and for GHcool and Nadav then I'll go along with it. Itzse 23:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't read much of what's been written here, I responded to a RfC, which now seems to be spiraling out of control. Could you give a brief explanation why "Palestinian people" is controversial, according to your POV?--Doron 23:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the above comment by GHCool which explains it a little. He starts out by The notion that the Palestinians are a "race" or "ethnicity" of people is widely disputed... It's not my job to explain the dispute. That it's disputed is not in dispute. I'm interested in Misplaced Pages being fair and unbiased, not reflecting one side of the dispute; that's all. Itzse 23:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"People" is not the same as "race" or "ethnicity" (see the dictionary entry I quoted above). The latter may be disputed indeed, but I don't see what's wrong with "people".--Doron 23:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Again what difference does it make if you understand it or not. It's enough that others who do understand it (scholars and laymen) think that it's controversial; that's all that counts. Misplaced Pages shouldn't reflect your way of thinking more then mine and others. Itzse 23:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't you answer a simple question? I'm not sure anymore that there is a dispute at all. It seems more like some people are denying the self-identity of others, which weakens the advantage of "Palestinians" over "Palestinian people".--Doron 23:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Palestinians" is approximately 10 times more common a term than "Palestinian people", at least according to Google. Jayjg 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Doron, What you just wrote is a POV and it's your POV. There are others including me who consider it a fact that there never was a Palestinian people; it's a brand new creation for a political agenda. For whatever it is worth, Golda Meir also believed so, and books are written on this subject; go learn. If this isn't satisfactory then I give up. GHCool, maybe you can explain it again to him. Itzse 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What is enough is that Misplaced Pages has a clear convention for precisely this sort of dispute.--G-Dett 23:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And what exactly is it? Itzse 23:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the discussion above Itzse or follow the link G-Dett provided. Tiamat 00:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages in no way justifies naming an article with the disputed title when there is another self-identifying title in our case "Palestinian" which is less controversial. What's more this was the original title for years, but it wasn't good enough for you; so someone went and biased it even more. I'm disgusted by you trying to justify an injustice by using Misplaced Pages's rules which you would like to support your bias. Itzse 00:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to naming the article Palestinian. I do have an objection to naming it Palestinian Arab. Please don't speculate as to my positions or intentions. Try kicking it down a notch. K? Tiamat 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I gave you the option of clarifying your intentions. It's no secret that people have agenda's and beliefs. Mine, I spelled out on my user page, stating clearly, that although I have a stong point of view, I believe Misplaced Pages should represent everybodies. So it is only human to speculate what other people's intentions are.

Now that you have given your consent to renaming it back to "Palestinians", we can turn over another leaf. Be a gentlewoman and make the change. Itzse 00:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Itzse that "Palestinian Arabs" is probably the most accurate, NPOV name possible, but "Palestinians" or "Palestinian" would do just fine because that is the term used in the mainstream media to denote the nationality being discussed in this article. Some editors asked for a reason why "Palestinian people" would be controversial. To those people, I'll try my best to provide an answer ...

I accept the definition Doron gave above (from Webster's) for a "people." Palestinians are a "body of persons who constitute a community, ... or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, ... or the like." Palestinians are not a "body of persons who constitute a ... tribe" and do not have "a common ... religion." Historical evidence suggests that the people that today define themselves as "Palestinian people" were people of Greater Syrian ancestry and migrated to Palestine relatively recently (around the mid-19th century up until the 1940s). Some "Palestinian people" have only lived in or were decendants of people who lived in the British Mandate for Palestine for less than 3 years before the State of Israel declared independance. Only the most liberal definition of the term "people" would accept that a group that had a shared history for less than 100 years could be considered a "people." The hypothetical "Mesopotamian people" have a better argument. Even "American people" or "Australian people" are a stretch of the term, unless it refers to the indiginous peoples of the United States or Australia, but those peoples wouldn't use the nationality of their conquerors to describe themselves. The point is that the "indiginous Palestinian people" is a myth that falls apart under historical/anthropological scrutiny. Therefore, to avoid confusion, a different term must be used in the title of the article to avoid NPOV, OR, and just plain accuracy. --GHcool 03:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, I think you're still confusing the general term "people" with more specific terms like "tribe," "ethnicity," etc. In particular, I think you're overlooking the two "or"'s in the definition of "people" you're working from, which is intentionally open-ended. Your notion that "American people" already "stretches" the term is idiosyncratic, to say the least. With regards to shared history, this is constituted by pivotal events, not a gross count of years, decades, and centuries. See Benedict Anderson's Imaginary Communities (one of the most influential and canonical works on nation-formation in the last 50 years) for examples. In any event, the Palestinians see themselves as a people, and Misplaced Pages's naming convention is pretty clear about how to proceed in cases of "self-identification."

Jay's observation that "'Palestinians' is approximately 10 times more common a term than 'Palestinian people'" is irrelevant, because these aren't terms for the same thing, and the former is far more semantically diffuse than the latter. "Palestinians" is a common noun, "Palestinian people" a collective noun. The subject here is the Palestinians collectively. In most instances where "Palestinians" is used, it refers to individuals and its meaning doesn't correspond to the subject of this article (e.g., "10 Palestinians were shot today in Ramallah"). The subject of this article is a collective, i.e. an entire body of persons who constitute a community, nation, or whatever, by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like. The precise term for this is "people." Like I said, I'm not planning to stay, and I won't object if the article is moved to Palestinians, but I don't see why accuracy and specificity should be compromised in response to objections that fall apart upon inspection.--G-Dett 14:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

people: "the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people."

G-Dett, everything you wrote above is absolutely true except for the assertion that I am confused by the term "people" or by the conjunction "or." You and I both know very well that "Palestinians" fit the literal Webster's definition of "people," but the word is so broad that even Trekkies can fit the definition. It violates Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words at best and WP:NPOV and simple accuracy at worst. I can think of no reason why "Palestinian people" would be a preferable title to "Palestinians" other than to deliberately cloud the facts and allow for misinterpretation. --GHcool 01:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians is fine with me. I just think Palestinian people is more specific (collective v. common noun), and frankly I think you're making an unwarranted fuss over an imaginary POV-issue. Depending on one's temperament, it may be annoying or galling or ironic or perfectly understandable that Palestinian national identity was forged in the crucible of conflict with Israel. But forged it was, and that's a fact. I am aware of arguments that "the Palestinian people" didn't exist a hundred years ago; I'm not aware of arguments it doesn't exist now. NPOV does not mean perfuming the facts for those who find their natural scent noxious.

I also want to be clear that I think Trekkies have a right to a homeland. It needn't be in historic Palestine, vexed as it already is by competing claims. Perhaps Jersey would do. But with a capital in Jerusalem, of course; everyone's entitle to one of those.--G-Dett 12:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, your opinions are noted. Thank you for accepting the compromise article "Palestinians." Your spirit of compromise is admirable. I am moving the page now. --GHcool 17:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: It appears I cannot move the page without an administrator's help. I'm adding my request using the protocol described here. --GHcool 18:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing not to object to a move is not the same as supporting it. G-Dett appears to have done the first, but not the second. As for me, I weakly oppose this move as unnecessary and controversial; actually checking Palestinians gets you to a dab page, half of which is Palestinian Jew; it really should remain a dab page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe G-Dett could speak for himself. In fact, G-Dett has spoken for himself when he wrote above that "Palestinians is fine with me." As for your weak opposition, the move is necessary and no longer controversial on Misplaced Pages. Your assertion about the disambiguation page is an argument for the title of this article to be renamed "Palestinian Arab," not "Palestinian people;" an argument I and many other fully accept but (for some unknown/unspecified reason) is unacceptable to some here. --GHcool 21:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The move certainly is controversial. The request appears to be based solely on your misunderstanding of Palestinian ancestry. --Ian Pitchford 22:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

From a NPOV; the term Palestinian should just refer to a person who lives in Palestine. palestine has been around for a long time and a lot of people have lived there. Whether they are Jewish (a religious reference) or Arab (a reference to a people) is not germane. In the history of Palestine there have been families living in the same place for millenia living among people who are jewish, christian, muslim and other religions, afroasiatic, indo European semitic and canaanite in terms of peoples.Rktect 22:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

But this article does not deal with any of the "broader Palestinians" other than the Arab Palestinians, who are not an ethnic group nor do they have a long ancestry or history of national identity. The modern day "Palestinian" (as the media and scholars refer to the group) is a national identity created some time around the founding of the PLO in 1964. Before that, the group identified themselves as Arabs that once lived within the borders British Mandatory Palestine. Their ethnic group was Arab and, if they thought in nationalistic terms at all, they would have called themselves Syrians or perhaps Egyptians. This move might have been controversial at one point, but it has since been sorted out and a compromise has been reached. Please do not undermine this process that others have worked for a long time toward. --GHcool 23:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, your post above – especially its first sentence – crystallizes what I find so puzzling and short-circuiting about the position you've staked out. It is self-evident to you what the subject of this article is, and yet you refuse to use the common term for this self-evident thing. What is this "group" you talk about (and parameters for inclusion in which are so obvious to you and everyone else) if not a "people"? When a large group of individuals see themselves as closely bound together culturally, historically, and politically, the word for that is "people," right? Or is there some other word? Imagine an editor imploring his fellow editors, "But this article does not deal with any of the broader range of fruits, other than the narrow, oblong, curved yellow peelable fruit we find in bunches and on trees – but don't call them bananas."--G-Dett 00:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The banana comparison is extremely weak to the point of being satirical. Maybe that was how it was meant, but I took it that you made the comparison seriously. We (meaning G-Dett and myself) agreed above that "Palestinian" was the best title for this article. To answer G-Dett's question, the group of people that the article talks about is a nationality, a more precise word for what G-Dett describes as "a large group of individuals ... closely bound together culturally, historically, and politically." The term "people" is much more broad and can include virtually anything from ancient civilizations (Maya peoples) to common ancestry (Germanic peoples) to ethnic groups (Romani people) to skin color (White people) and everything in between. Calling Palestinians a people is misleading at best and anthropoligcally bogus at worst. --GHcool 05:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to move the article to "Palestinian nation," as per your latest post, I think you'll run into less resistance from verbally punctilious editors, who rightly prefer a collective singular noun to a common plural one. Your semantic distinctions meanwhile continue to baffle. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the bar for nationhood is higher than for peoplehood, not lower. If you've got a contemporary anthropologist who says otherwise, please share.--G-Dett 14:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the current name Palestinian people is a good article name and should be retained on this article. The controversies over this and similar articles aren't likely to be resolved soon, but there is widespread usage of the term Palestinian people and this seems a remarkably good article on that topic, all things considered. Andrewa 06:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Palestinians are not a nation either. I never said they were nation; I said they were a nationality and even that was a compromise (--GHcool 03:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)). The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East has an article on Palestinians that covers much of the same information as the Misplaced Pages article (although the Continuum article has virtually nothing on Palestinian culture and focuses solely on its historical/political existance) and the title of their article is "Palestine Arabs!" Throughout the article, the author never simply writes "Palestinians" to refer to the whole group, but sticks only to the group title "Palestinian Arabs." I suspect this is done to avoid confusion, but I would not recommend that it be done in this article.

Furthermore, the Continuum Encyclopedia uses the terms "Palestinian-Arab identity," "Palestinian entity," "Arab population of Palestine," but mostly sticks to the title of "Palestinian Arabs." Only once does the encyclopedia use the phrase "Palestinian people" when the article quotes Jordan's recognition of the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people." --GHcool 17:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, first you say "the group of people that the article talks about is a nationality, a more precise word for what G-Dett describes as 'a large group of individuals ... closely bound together culturally, historically'," etc. Now you say the group of people this article describes is not that. Then you say, "I never said they were a nationality, and even that was a compromise," which has a wonderful I-didn't-do-it-and-besides-the-SOB-had-it-coming sort of quality to it. Please make up your mind. And please tell me what the generic term would be for collective subjects like the subject of this article – you don't like "people" (for reasons I never understood), you liked "nationality" for the duration of one post but have now repudiated it ... just give us a good, generic, collective noun. A normal, uncapitalized English word I can find in any dictionary for whatever sort of self-evident thing it is we're talking about. "Entity" might be appropriate, reminiscent as it is of another ideologically stubborn, ultimately farcical refusal to use plain language in the context of this conflict.--G-Dett 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. I'm sorry. I made a typo. I'm glad G-Dett pointed it out to me because it was an important one. I meant to write "I never said they were nation; I said they were a nationality and even that was a compromise." I must have somehow not typed the first part of the second clause, but I assure everyone that that's what I was thinking. I appologize for making such a serious error because it totally changed the meaning of my sentence and made me look like a fool. I just ammended the previous statement (in bold) and signed my name next to the ammendment. Again, I'm sorry I didn't write it properly the first time and blame myself for shooting myself in the foot. Hopefully my point will be clearer this time around. --GHcool 03:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, I fail to see why you're baffled that some people think that "Palestinian People" is incorrect. But be it as it may, you are at least aware that there are people who think that it is wrong to have the article named "Palestinian People" when "Palestinians" would mean the same thing. I, even have a problem with "Palestinians" and think that in order that Misplaced Pages should be unbiased the article needs to be named "Palestinian Arabs"; but to appease some Wikipedians I yielded to the proposal that Nadav put forth to rename it to "Palestinians".

All those that objected to renaming it to "Palestinian Arabs" agreed that it would be ok to them if this article was renamed to "Palestinians".

I would also like to make you aware that this article did indeed have the name "Palestinians" for a number of years and only in the last year someone unilaterally changed it to "Palestinian People". It makes no sense to get into a heated debate on the meanings of these terms; suffice that it's controversial; why it's controversial is not important and Misplaced Pages should take the high road where possible. Besides, here is not the place to debate if the Palestinian Arabs are a people or not, it really belongs on the Palestine and Who is a Palestinian pages.

After a complete discussion we finally came to an understanding. Why all of a sudden the stone walling? Itzse 17:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett agrees with this view as evidenced by what G-Dett wrote on 12:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC): "Palestinians is fine with me." There was no longer a debate until Ian Pitchford selfishly revived it on 22:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC). The time has come to move the article from "Palestinian people" to "Palestinian." --GHcool 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians is fine with me. Palestinian people would be better, of course, because it's more precise. The various objections raised about it have not been compelling, and have not even cited sources for the idea that "people" is contentious or disputable. I find this sort of debate irksome, in the same way I'd find it irksome to discuss whether Israel should properly be called the "Zionist entity" because after all it's so young, its borders so ill-defined and the issues surrounding its founding so contentious. Surely one of the most depressing aspects of the I/P conflict is the dogged sophistries employed by each side to avoid recognizing the authenticity of the other. The fact that I am irked has made me prickly, and I'm sorry that my prickliness strikes some as stonewalling. I had hoped to make it clear that I won't stand in the way of a move to Palestinians if that is the way forward.--G-Dett 20:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Now, how do we get the attention of an administrator? --GHcool 00:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I also objected to the move. But if I'm now the only one (it might be wise to check that others haven't been similarly ignored), that shouldn't be a problem. As this has been listed on WP:RM, it will get admin attention in due course. Andrewa 12:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I object to the move. I know why this guy wants it moved, he is Jewish. Never have I pet anti Israeli statements on Misplaced Pages as we have to be neutral in here. But I see he doesn't think of it like that.` So I've come here to object to it. All users opposing to Palestinian people are Jewish, this is ridicules! The Honorable Kermanshahi 21:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

i was about to suggest the same move, however, User:GHcool beat me to it. Jaakobou 00:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of this move, why hasn't it happened yet? --GHcool 06:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm an administrator who saw this listed. I came here looking for consensus in support of the move. After quite a bit of reading, I can't say I see a consensus. I suspect that this page hasn't moved yet because admins like myself are just looking for a clear sign that there is a consensus and that we won't be creating new problems and disagreements by making the move. If there is doubt, we probably won't make the move. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

page move

i wonder why it was deemed "no consensus to move" when, according to my count, 6 editors supported the move, 2 against, 1 neutral, and 1 suggesting we move the ethnicity box (similar to support move).

see: 'Consensus building'. Jaakobou 13:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad faith deletion of a lot of people's hard work. It is inexcusable. I'm re-adding the most recent debate back here ... --GHcool 17:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF. I think the administrator noticed that many of the people who commented in the section that was above this one that you did not restore had concerns about the move and had not changed their position. Selectively restoring just this section makes it look like I'm the only one who disagreed, when in fact at least three other editors did not support the move as well. I think you should let it die. Tiamat 18:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add the entire debate if you wish, but I see no reason to because all the other debates had similar outcomes. --GHcool 19:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So, after two admins state that there's no consensus, you feel it's ok to revive the part where there was consensus, while the previous section where many objected is "left out". If you feel that you need to restore a debate then the honorable thing to do is restore the whole thing and not just the part that suits you. 65.93.135.181 19:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to restore the whole debate, I won't stop you. I'm not sure why complaining to me about it is helpful when its just as easy for you to do it as it is for me. --GHcool 19:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Poll

Most people seem to agree that "Palestinians" is the better title and "Palestinian people" is a misleading title. --GHcool 21:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

• Agreed, I suggest we move the article.

--Eternalsleeper 06:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agree, let's move it. The article is about the "Palestinians". "Palestinian people" is a silly tautology. <<-armon->> 02:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Obviously, I also agree to move it to "Palestinians." --GHcool 03:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• I also agree to move it back to "Palestinians" which is the minimum necessity for Misplaced Pages to be fair and unbiased. A true NPOV title would have been "Palestinian Arabs", but as there is some opposition to it, I'll settle for "Palestinians" which has been its title for a number of years until someone recently unilaterally (without any consensus) changed it. Itzse 21:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• agree to move - I would have suggested the move myself had I not been beaten to it. btw, "Palestinian Arabs" is the most accurate term imho. Jaakobou 09:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support, as this seems to be a more concise title that was previously moved without consensus. Tewfik 18:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support - "Palestinians" is the most used term. "Palestinian people" is a tendentious construct akin to Soviet people. ←Humus sapiens 23:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support "Palestinians" is both more and more widely used. Beit Or 20:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support only because "Palestinians" is short, snappy, and a more common phrase (and from what I understand, the long-standing name of the article). I am disappointed that what I expected to be a quick discussion has degenerated into an intractable ideological debate. nadav (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• As a lot of the discussion was moved around and some major portions were deleted, some editor’s positions are missing. Therefore in order to get a clear and fair picture I'll compile them. Itzse 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• On July 11, Nadav wrote: "the article name policy is to generally stick with the most common English name, which I think you will agree is "Palestinians" in this case. Indeed, I propose renaming this article to "Palestinians."".
• On July 13, Jayjg wrote: ""Palestinians" is approximately 10 times more common a term than "Palestinian people", at least according to Google.".
• On July 12, Doron wrote: "I don't see why "Palestinian people" is controversial, but I suppose I could accept "Palestinians".
• On July 27, John Z wrote: "I have no preference on PP vs Ps".

Changed positions

• Here are Tiamut's and G-Dett's original and new positions. Itzse 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• On July 13, Tiamut wrote: "I don't have an objection to naming the article Palestinian. I do have an objection to naming it Palestinian Arab".
• On July 30, Tiamut wrote: "I oppose the move to "Palestinians"".
• On July 14, G-Dett wrote: "Palestinians is fine with me".
• On July 26, G-Dett wrote: "On with the move already, for cryin' out loud".
• On July 30, G-Dett wrote: "Steve has asked me to clarify my position... As long as there are other editors pushing for Palestinian people (Steve and Tiamut have made particularly astute observations in favor of it), my support goes to them.".

G-Dett and Tiamut made their vote pretty clear in this discussion - they opposed. As G-Dett wrote below "There was a moment early on when I appeared to be the only holdout, and I was prepared to accept Palestinians to get us out of the deadlock" and that's why when you ganged up on them they slightly gave-in - BUT THEY NEVER VOTED YES FOR THE MOVE - SO THEY NEVER CHANGED THEIR VOTE. On top of it you are twisting their comments. 70.48.106.42 00:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrewa, first sign your comment so we'll know who is saying what. They can talk for themselves; they don't need you to speak for them. I am not twisting anything; I didn't say that they changed their vote; I said they changed their position; which they did. Why they changed it, is also clear as they wanted to punish me so they are punishing Misplaced Pages, Nadav, GHCool and everybody else. Isn't it interesting that Misplaced Pages is at the mercy of the goodwill of editors not substance? If you dare say what you think you get punished along with everybody else. What a system? Itzse 23:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not Anrewa - I just moved her vote since you moved some votes as well - I don't want to create an account because I am sure that you will accuse me of being a sock puppet. Them two never changed their position - what is the matter with you and your emotional outbreaks? If you think that Tiamut (a Palestinian) would agree on this issue with a Jew who doesn't recognize his people as anything more than some political issue - then you are hallucinating. Get it to your head - When someone is outnumbered then they won't argue with a number of people, but when the numbers are even they show their real stance.

The funny thing is that if you left out the political debate out of this move, that is just said "Palestinians seems more logical than Palestinians people" then a lot less would have opposed. But no, you come and belittle them to the point that the Palestinians feel insulted and don't want you to have the satisfaction of succeeding in pushing your political view on them. What did you expect? "Yea, you are right, we aren't a people and we are just a political result".70.48.106.42 00:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Question Can someone actually explain how "Palestinians" and "Palestinian people" differ and what specifically makes one more preferable than the other? ("Palestinian Arab" is a no go, it delimits the population artificially considering that there are individuals and groups who identify as Palestinian, but not as Arab. And further, most "Palestinian Arab" Jews - i.e. those Jews who lived in Palestine before Jewish immigration from Europe began and spoke Arabic as a mother tongue - became Israeli Jews ... further confusing the use of this terminology.) The advantage I see in "Palestinian people" is that it specifies that its subject are people who identify as forming part of a Palestinian nation - be they in exile (Arab Diaspora) or under occupation (West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem), in a refugee camp or citizens of the state that superseded what might have been their own. Palestinians seems less precise actually. But I'm open to hearing more about why it is. Tiamat 12:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe my question has now been answered and my vote is to stay with Palestinian people; in other words I oppose the move to "Palestinians".Tiamat

• Oppose There was not a consesus in the previous move debate. Why are some editors so determined to make this move that they keep bringing it up again? And I do not really understand the objection to the title Palestinian People. (Uneless we are arguing whether Palestinians are people or some lower form of animal, who only understand force etc. etc.) ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Object. I object ot the move. The Honorable Kermanshahi
• Palestinians are not an ethnic group. That is why this article should NOT be called "Palestinians", and SHOULD be called "Palestinian people". The entry "American people" does make reference to citizens of the US. That is one reason why I feel we should keep the name of this article as "Palestinian people". Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• There was a moment early on when I appeared to be the only holdout, and I was prepared to accept Palestinians to get us out of the deadlock. Palestinian people is however accurate, clearly compliant with policy, and more precise, and no serious objection has been raised to it by any editor minimally conversant in the relevant anthropological terminology. As long as there are other editors pushing for Palestinian people (Steve and Tiamut have made particularly astute observations in favor of it), my support goes to them.--G-Dett 19:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• I also objected to the move. Andrewa 12:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of poll

Maybe it's because it was discussed/debated too much, but it looks to me that this has been waaaaay "over thought". "Palestinians" is the almost universally used common name for the topic of this article. The issues you raise are best addressed in the body of the article, rather than titling it with a tautology. We know that "Palestinians" refers to people. <<-armon->> 12:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a tautology. A People or Nation has a meaning that differs from a loose collection of individual persons (the meaning when you remove the "a" before "people" as you did in your last sentence). It would help if you could explain why Palestinians is preferable to Palestinian people. It seems to widen the scope of the article rather than confine it more precisely to its subject - i.e. people who identify as part of the Palestinian nation (not necessarily as a state, but as a people). Tiamat 13:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a tautology, of course, but given the first two sentences of the article it's easy to see why someone would think that. "People" in its sense here is a collective singular noun, not a common plural, and Tiamut is exactly on point about the word's implications. There has been a circular debate on this page about whether Palestinians qualify as a people. However well-intentioned, this debate was fundamentally misinformed: both as a matter of Misplaced Pages policy and – more importantly – of the standard terminology of contemporary anthropology, a people is a people if they say they are. Self-identification as such is the only criteria. This debate hit a nadir of inadvertent silliness when an editor struggling valiantly for compromise claimed that Palestinians were a "nationality" but not a "nation," not realizing that the terms are mutually constitutive, that nationality is what you have when you're part of a nation. At any rate "Palestinians" is fine, but it would be nice if as the debate trundled to a halt there was a sense that some basic principles had been clarified. The only term that is not acceptable is Itzse's, "Palestinian Arabs," for the simple reason that Palestinians do not use that term for themselves and don't much like it being used about them; they see it as a political attempt to deny their nationality. This is one of those rare issues where POV is a moot point – again, for reasons both of Misplaced Pages policy and contemporary anthropological terminology. If black people in America tell you they don't wanna be called "Negroes" any more, that's all a Wikipedian needs to know.--G-Dett 14:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh OK. I get it now. You guys are pushing your POV, which is the opposite of the "they're just Arabs" position. Well at least I understand why we ended up with something other than simply "Palestinians" which is what 99.9999% of people looking for this article would search for. Ludicrous. <<-armon->> 14:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no POV issue at all here, because in terms of Misplaced Pages policy as well as anthropological terminology, Palestinians are a people if they say they are. Full stop. When it comes to what the Palestinians should be called, the only relevant point of view is that of the Palestinians. There will always be people ignorant of policy, ignorant of anthropology, indifferent to basic manners, and sufficiently impassioned to insist otherwise, but their insistence doesn't turn the matter into a six-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other POV-dispute. Ya can't call 'em negroes anymore, Armon. Why? Because they say so.--G-Dett 14:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you came down off your soapbox for a moment, you might notice that the Palestinians call themselves "Palestinians". <<-armon->> 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you got out of the "they're just Arabs" gutter, you might notice I'm standing on level ground, and you might also notice that we've agreed to "Palestinians" for the very reason you cite. Palestinians see themselves as a people, and as "Palestinians"; the former is more specific and therefore preferable, but the latter is what's going to fly here, due to the endurance of obsolete notions such as those you've helpfully espoused for us. On with the move already, for cryin' out loud.--G-Dett 15:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That figure in the gutter is just your strawman, not me. What's really noticable is your inability to simply type agree without a endless stream of disruptive rhetoric. No wonder the admin couldn't find a consensus for the move. <<-armon->> 15:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Equally noticeable is your inability to answer a simple question: Why is "Palestinians" preferable to "Palestinian people" and how will the name change help us improve this article and/or refine its focus? I can't give a simple agree answer until I get a satisfactory answer to this question. Tiamat 16:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't notice "Palestinians which is what 99.9999% of people looking for this article would search for" I guess. <<-armon->> 04:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians already redirects to this article. That is not an argument as to how changing the article name to it would help improve the article, refine its scope, etc. etc.Tiamat 11:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think all this "discussing" doesn’t belong here; mine included. This paragraph is labeled "Consensus building" where you agree or disagree, state your case and that’s it. The debate in one form or another is all over on this talk page so we’ll need to append any discussion or questions to the other paragraphs of this sort.

I’ll try to make a little sense of what has been discussed. If a group of people in Baltimore, Maryland decide one day to become a people; that doesn’t automatically turn them into a people, just because they say so. On the other hand if the Aztec tribe decides one day to exercise their people hood and demand self determination, that would be a serious claim since it is an established fact that the Aztecs are a "people". The Baltimoreans can scream until they are blue in their face that they don’t want to be called Baltimoreans and nobody will even listen, unlike black people in America who are justified in not wanting to be called Negroes since its short form has become a racial slur.

Tiamut asks why is "Palestinians" preferable over "Palestinian people"? The answer is, that on the fundamental question: Do the Arabs who lived in Palestine constitute a people? Tiamut and Arafat (born in Cairo) say yes; Itzse, Golda Meir, my grandfather and even my neighbor say NO. Why should Tiamut’s POV trounce my POV? The burden of proof should be on those who have never been a people to prove that are indeed a people. So even if we’ll use up another thousand talk pages, still I’ll stick to my POV and Tiamut will stick to hers and nobody will be smarter then before. That aside, it has been pointed out that even if the impossible should happen and Tiamut should SOMEHOW be proven right; the people in question refer to themselves as "Palestinians"; right or wrong that’s a fact. So a "factual" fact should be preferable to a "debatable" fact.

G-Dett is correct that Tiamut is exactly on point that using "people" would have "word implications". So to avoid those implications WP should use "Palestinians". G-Dett is also correct that the Palestinian Arabs don’t like to be called as such "for the simple reason that Palestinians do not use that term for themselves and don’t much like it being used about them; they see it as a political attempt to deny their nationality." I would like to remind G-Dett that NOT using "Palestinian Arab" is a political attempt to deny the Jews their nationality, and to convince people that a questionable fact (people) is a factual fact.

So here you have it for anybody interested in the truth. "Palestinian Arabs", although it's a FACT, the Palestinian Arabs don’t want it used, lest you'll think that there were also Palestinian Jews. "Palestinian people", which is at best a DEBATABLE fact, the Palestinian Arabs DO want it used so you'll become convinced that there is a Palestinian people. So in a goodwill gesture, Misplaced Pages will let the Palestinian Arabs be called the way they want to call themselves, which is "Palestinians" which still to a lesser degree wrongly insinuates that the Arabs are the Palestinians. IMO any pushing for the term "Palestinian people" has a clear agenda. Itzse 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Itzse, G-Dett, and Tiamut are all correct in saying that "Palestinian people" has unwanted implications that "Palestinians" doesn't have. I believe we found our consensus. --GHcool 06:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of usage

I have no preference on PP vs Ps, a rose by any other name ..., although if "Palestinian Arab" is objectionable to some, I think we should listen to them; I don't really follow how nonusage of "PAs" denies Jews their nationality. But is it out of place to note that Israel has had no objection to and has itself used the phrase "Palestinian people" in legal documents for a long time? - since the Camp David Accords - and it also appears in the Letters of Mutual Recognition. Begin objected to "Palestinian People" at the last minute, but what he wanted and got was merely the second word uncapitalized (see R Ben Cramer's How Israel Lost). Considering Misplaced Pages's capitalization conventions, this seems meaningless for us. By the way, Mencken used to call himself and his fellows inhabitants "Baltimorons" - I thought G-dett might like that (and is the real reason I made this comment).John Z 08:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe my question has now been answered and my vote is to stay with Palestinian people; in other words I oppose the move to "Palestinians". As John Z points out, while a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, "Palestinian people" is used by the Palestinians, the PLO and even Israel recognized the term under the Oslo Accords. It is obvious to me now that the POV of those who wish to change the article name stems from as GHcool put it the "unwanted implications" in "Palestinian people" - i.e. that it denotes that they are recognized collective. That Palestinians are recognized people, or nation is an important fact that I am not willing to deny Misplaced Pages readers. Tiamat 10:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't expect anything less from you. You asked for an explanation although GHCool has already explained it to you twice but you still asked for another explanation. I explained it again. Obviously your'e incapable of understanding another persons POV as I suspect that you consider yourself a Palestinian and your'e trying to force your POV on everybody with such fancy words as "I am not willing to deny Misplaced Pages readers" - your point of view. As much as you want to believe your POV; others don't share it. Is that so hard to understand? The Israeli goverments political (not factual) position is based on its desperate and correct attempt at peace, for which if necessary they will call "day", "night" and "night", "day". Their necessary positions are understandable but it still doesn't change a fact. The purpose of the Israeli goverment and other goverments to throw out the words "Palestinian people" is intended to make you feel good and agree to peace; not because they really believe so. Besides, I and others have already pointed out that goverments can't speak; people speak. Some will tell you what you want to hear while others like me won't. We'll tell you what we really think. So in the final analysis, only those that have a personal interest in wanting their POV pushed, want to deny Misplaced Pages's readers a Neutral POV Encyclopedia. Itzse 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion shows why it IS better to have an article called "Palestinian people". Anyone who can spend this much energy on this discussion desewrves toi be called a people. by the way, i am not kidding...sorry if i sound flippant, but I actually do mean that. --Steve, Sm8900 16:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Should emotions, or the lack of it, drive the content of Misplaced Pages; or facts? What exactly are you saying? Itzse 17:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Itsze, the fact is that there is a Palestinian people. that is a political and hsitrocial fact. this discussion is increasingly ridiculous. palestinians have a flag, a government, a UN delegate, and a national identity. to spend all this time aruging over minutiae is ridiculous. --Steve, Sm8900 17:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To you it's a fact; to me and others it's not. Can you at least acknowledge that; or does your understanding of what is a fact force me to think so too? I don't know where you are coming from; and if you're outside of this whole debacle, I can understand that you have accepted the Palestinian Arabs position, lock, stock and barrel. That's exactly why Tiamut wants WP to flaunt her facts, so that the next generation of know-nothings will accept it as fact too. I on the other hand whose family has lived in the Holy land (Land of Israel, Palestine) for hundreds of years, so I am personally acquainted and have first hand knowledge of its history, culture and nuances. So as a Wikipedian who strives that everything here should be correct and presented neutrally, surely I would want that the subjects that are dear to my heart to be presented neutrally.

You don't have to agree with me, but at least have the courage to acknowledge that others don't consider it a fact. Itzse 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I really can't believe that this whole proposal for a name change stems from your denial that Palestinians exist as a people. And you accuse me of pushing a POV! This extreme minority viewpoint, widely discredited even in Israel itself, continues to rear its ugly head. I'm sorry to say it, but it's just plain racist. Listen friend, you can deny me and the other Palestinians the right to a state, but you cannot deny us the right to define our identity and nationality. Trying to deny that we exist as a collective is like denying that we exist at all. It's also a huge denial of reality. I'm really just totally disappointed by this. Tiamat 18:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Itzse does not speak for me (nor, I am inclined to believe, for the other supporters of the move) when he implies that Palestinians aren't a group of people with a shared history/culture; and Tiamut was absolutely 100% wrong when he mischaracterized my attempts (and temporary success!) at gaining a consensus as denying that Palestinians aren't a "recognized collective." "Palestinian people" certainly "denotes that they are recognized collective," but "people" when used here also conotes that they are a race or centuries old ethnicity akin to the Japanese people or even the much younger Romani people. --GHcool 21:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record I did not intend to imply that the "Palestinians" aren't a people. They are indeed a people, the "Arab people" and they share the history and culture of the Arab people. What I and Golda Meir and thousands of others, Scholars and laymen who are familiar with the facts say; is that there was never a "Palestinian" people, and that the Palestinian Arabs claim to people hood started with the establishment of the PLO; (until then it was known as the Arab Israeli conflict or the Middle East conflict); and even they didn't push for "people hood" as they knew that they would be laughed at; but instead focused on denying the Jewish people's roots and attachment to the Holy Land and therefore by default claiming "Palestine" (instead of the Land of Israel) for the "Palestinians". Then after seeing that they got away with murder and they are being treated on the world stage as decent representatives of a (concocted) "people"; they decided to stretch it even further and claim "nationhood". Tiamut, you surely don't expect that the scholars of Misplaced Pages should go along with fraudulent pretensions of the world’s governments who for every person they saved, they caused the deaths and ignored the deaths of ten others from Africa to Antarctica. It is not truth that governments are after; their job (interests) are to protect their people, by every means (lies included) available.

Tiamut, all who know me know that I'm far from being a racist. But your giving yourself a "Palestinian" identity (similar to those Baltimorons) and then a concocted "nationality"; that is the cause of so much continued bloodshed in the Land of Israel/Holy land/Palestine. Again let me make it clear; you do exist; but not as a nation but as a group of people with a similar heritage, and that heritage is the "ARAB" heritage.

As has been pointed out by others; my motivations (which in my humble opinion) are noble, should not have any bearing on the discussion; what counts is the arguments. Painting me as racist or declaring yourself disappointed has nothing with the discussion; substance does. Also on the record, if it would be up to me, I would be willing to give the Arabs half of Israel for the sake of peace; and only for the sake of peace; which means that it is verified that their intentions are peace not a temporary springboard to annihilate Israel. Itzse 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a an implication of antiquity in the word "people" and take issue with attempts to say we just popped out of nowhere. I have access to church records that prove my father's family has lived in this region for more than a millenium. But again, all of the this is really besides the point. How does renaming the article to "Palestinians" improve the article? How does it help to better define its scope? Doesn't "Palestinian people" specify that we are talking about people who today identify as part of a wider Palestinian collective? The Palestine Liberation Organization, which remains "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" uses "Palestinian people" all the time and by it refers to the subjects of this article: i.e. people who identify as Palestinian in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, inside Israel itself, Palestinian refugees in camps and elsewhere and other in the Arab Diaspora. Doesn't Palestinian people make it clearer who the subject of the article actually is? Tiamat 21:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt that Tiamut's church records would indicate the existance of a Palestinian national identity prior to World War I, but this is neither here nor there since the article already reflects this reality, even if the title of the article does not.

Although everyone agreed upon "Palestinians" until Tiamut came along, some of us are willing to settle for the compromise title of "Palestinian (nationality)." In the English language, "the people" can refer to a nationality (as in "the American people") or it can refer to a race/ethnicity (as in "the Romani people"). Clearly there is a "Palestinian people" in the former sense, but not in the latter sense. Therefore, it would be acceptable to me (and hopefully others) to rename this article to "Palestinian (nationality)." --GHcool 00:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How is "Palestinian (nationality)" different from "Palestinian people"? A people is a national collective; i.e. a nationality. What is so irksome about the current name that it cannot stand? Tiamat 11:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point I'm against bringing in any other option. "Palestinian Arab" wasn't on the table, yet people are still arguing as though it was. Bring up "Palestinian (nationality)" as an option is unnecessary, and will likely lead to another sterile 6 month debate about "nationality". All of these issues re: ethnicity/nationality etc. can be discussed in the article itself. Whatever the "ultimate truth" is of the matter, the subject of this article is the "Palestinians" -however they are defined. Aside from one editor, there obviously IS a consensus for "Palestinians". Would an admin please make the move. <<-armon->> 04:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Rather than moving the article, wouldn't it be better to just remove the "ethnic group" infobox? Palestinians are "a people", not an ethnic group though. Funkynusayri 03:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Armon. I'm starting to lose my patience and resorting to desperate measures. "Palestinian Arabs" is the correct correct title for this article, but "Palestinians" is a close second. I shouldn't have opened the door to further options. --GHcool 06:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian Arabs is not correct and has no support so I don't see why you keep bringing it up. "Palestinians" seems to have near universal support, though some editors have expressed that they don't really care and don't really see the difference here. That is why I wanted to know why the move is being proposed. Again, questions:

Does it make it easier to find the article? No. Palestinians already redirects here.

Does it refine the focus of the article? No. Actually it broadens it considering that Palestinian can be used as an adjective for everything from things to people to land, and at different times has had different meanings.

So, how does this change improve the article? It doesn't. All it does is remove the word "people" which Itzse, GHcool, and I presume Jaakobou and Tewfik seem to find objectionable, despite the fact that the term is used by the UN, Israel, the PLO, and the Palestinian people themselves. If admins think that "consensus" to move without a compelling reason based on improving the article itself is good enough, I will obviously have to defer. But I can't agree to such a move in principle when it is motivated by the need to deny my existence as part of a collective. No self-respecting person would. Tiamat 11:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The "motivations" of other editors are irrelevant. There is a debate on the nature of the Palestinian identity, but that is also completely irrelevant to what we title the article. If we simply title it the most common name: "Palestinians", we don't have to make a "call" regarding the ethnicity debate. We can save that for the article itself where it can be properly discussed. <<-armon->> 22:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Poll discussion, section 2

Firstly, ease in finding the page clearly isn't a factor in the debate to move the page. Secondly, "Palestinians" is a proper plural noun that clearly refers to the group of people that identify with the Palestinian nationalism, whereas "Palestinian" could either be a proper singular noun or an adjective. Nobody suggests changing the article to "Palestinian" (singular), which could, in Tiamut's pathetic argument, "be used as an adjective for everything." There can be no confusion about what is meant by the article title "Palestinians" (plural). Thirdly, nobody denies that the Palestinians are a collective nationality. All we are saying is that the Palestinians are not an ethnic/racial "people," and that the article title "Palestinian people" unjustly implies that they are. Rashid Khalidi, James L. Gelvin, and several other historians in the "Origins of Palestinian identity" section all support this historical fact. It is time that the article title also reflected the same reality. --GHcool 18:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What am I missing here? There is no difference between an ethnic group page with the word "people" in the title and a page without one in it. Ashanti, Romanians, Armenians, Greeks, Cherokee, Georgians, and many other ethnic group pages don't have the word people in it. So strange.... Are you a person who just likes to stir up argument for its own sake? 205.212.72.21 20:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not, but thanks for proving my point. If the "Ashanti, Romanians, Armenians, Greeks, Cherokee, Georgians, and many other ethnic group pages don't have the word people in it," then what possible reason would the Palestinians, who are not a race/ethincity, have the word "people" in the title? --GHcool 21:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

...which makes "Palestinian people" a tautology. <<-armon->> 22:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Object. I object ot the move. The Honorable Kermanshahi

  This is not a vote, you need to explain your objections, honorable as you may be. Yonatan 13:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply, was away for the weekend. To reply to a specific question posed by GHcool, what about the phrase "the American people"? That is used repeatedly, yet it does not ever imply shared ethnicity, ancestry, derviation, etc. it only implies shared political identity. that's why I believe that phrase is usable here. --Steve, Sm8900 13:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians are not an ethnic group. That is why this article should NOT be called "Palestinians", and SHOULD be called "Palestinian people". The entry "American people" does make reference to citizens of the US. That is one reason why I feel we should keep the name of this article as "Palestinian people". Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as Sm8900 and everyone else who has seen the American people article knows, the American people article is a disambiguation page. Thus, Sm8900's example supports the current consensus that "Palestinians" is the better title for the article. --GHcool 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but I do not feel my example supports that point. Is there an article for "Americans"? No. so then there is no such usage of that term. My point was only that "American people" is a commonly-used phrase, and refers only to political affilitation, and not to any ethnicity at all. I realize it is not a major point, but I do feel it is of at least some relevance. --Steve, Sm8900 17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve has asked me to clarify my position. And not without reason, it seems: as I scroll down the page I note that my friend GHCool, of whom I am fond enough, is quoting me as saying that "Palestinian people" has "unwanted implications." Frankly, I don't know what the hell he's talking about. Palestinians are a people, and I think that's what the title should be. That Itsze thinks his opinion and that of his neighbor and Golda Meir has some bearing on the intellectual and editorial questions before us is amusing but irrelevant. A "people" or a "nation" is defined by self-identification. In the eyes of anthropologists, and in the eyes of Wikipedians. If Itzse and his neighbor and the Golda arrive with a geneticist and a historian in tow, and the geneticist unfurls some charts and proves that the DNA of contemporary Palestinians is nothing like that of the Canaanites, and the historian flutters his pencil through some archival records and shows that most Palestinians migrated to the Holy Land in relatively recent centuries, they may get a standing ovation from editors on this page but none of their fascinating findings will put a dent in the people-ness or nationality of the Palestinians. The idea that you can disprove nationality by debunking national myths is absurd. Myths of origins are a constitutive feature of peoples and nations, and they are by turns usually false, exaggerated, artificially tidied, or utterly fantastical. Doesn't matter. A people/nation is a large group of individuals who see their cultural, political, and spiritual fates as intimately bound together; that is all. The crucible of history that brings about this fusion is as irrelevant as whatever mythology may emanate from it.

There was a moment early on when I appeared to be the only holdout, and I was prepared to accept Palestinians to get us out of the deadlock. Palestinian people is however accurate, clearly compliant with policy, and more precise, and no serious objection has been raised to it by any editor minimally conversant in the relevant anthropological terminology. As long as there are other editors pushing for Palestinian people (Steve and Tiamut have made particularly astute observations in favor of it), my support goes to them.--G-Dett 19:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Respond to poll please

it is getting a bit hard to tell where people stand on this issue topic in general. I would like to suggest that everyone please go to the "Poll" section (which I renamed), and post your response to the poll there, if you have not already done so, that way, we can get an accurate sense and an accurate count of whether people here agree or not. Again, as you may realize, I think we should use that section for poll responses only. if you want to make comments or discussions, please do so in another section. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 18:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, i believe that it is actually legitimate for editors to move other editors' comments into the poll section, in order to make things easier, by compiling existing answers into one place. However it might be seen as misleading, if it is not done across the board on an overall consistent basis. So therefore perhaps we should refrain from doing so for now, and give people a chance to read this request themselves, and wait for a while before moving anyone else's comments. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 18:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I do plan to place everyone’s vote for consistency. Those that have clearly stated their view should be moved to the poll but those that still want to understand or haven't clearly taken a stand have to be left out for now because maybe someone might make them understand. Itzse 18:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Moving people's comments into the poll section (extremely selectively at that) is just one of a series of rather disappointing tactics employed by Itsze (talk · contribs) and GHcool (talk · contribs) to advance their name change agenda here. I would note that while Itsze saw it fit to post his argument for a name change at WP:Israel on July 12th, the same day that GHcool opened the request for a move here, he did not post anything at WP:Palestine: odd for an article entitled Palestinian people. We have discussed this issue for about three weeks now and two admins have rendered their decision that there was no consensus here for a move. One of those admins closed this debate and the request. GHcool restored only the debate (only the second part of it where it "appears" that there is consensus.) Only after being challenged as to why he made this selective restoration did someone restore the rest of the debate. The whole "process" has been rather unfair actually. I think I will have to defer on "voting". I don't even think it's appropriate to call for a vote yet again at this point and under these circumstances. Tiamat 19:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But don't you admire these guys persistence? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Amazing really. I share it but I know why its important to me have a page that properly represents my identity. But what is in it for them? Tiamat 19:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

One word "TRUTH"; and what might result from it which is the end to bloodshed. Misplaced Pages wasn't created for you to have a place which "properly represents your identity" the way you want to see it; WP was created to represent the truth or where there's more then one opinion, to also include those. Do you disagree? Itzse 19:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So the "truth" you're peddling to end the bloodshed is that Palestinians aren't a people? That's what causing the bloodshed Itzse. (Both in the real world and here my friend.) That's what you don't seem to get. Tiamat 19:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Truth in labeling should not be called "peddling". Nobody is denying that you're a people. The debate is that some don't share your view of a "Palestinian people"; they consider the Palestinian Arabs as part of the "Arab people". And yes this insistence on a "people hood" which you now want to claim goes back to the Canaanites, has direct ramifications and is the cause of bloodshed. Because the minute the Arabs will accept the truth that there were two peoples in Palestine; the Arab people and the Jewish people, then peace becomes a possibility. But if the Palestinian Arabs are a people and claim all of Palestine for themselves and deny the Jews any connection to the Holy land; that indeed is the cause of all the bloodshed. Itzse 21:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The cause of all the bloodshed in Israel-Palestine is a semantic dispute about the concept of a "people"?--G-Dett 21:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Then why was there bloodshed prior to the Palestinians claiming themselves as a people, before the establishment of the PLO in 1964? From 1948 until 1964 it was the Arabs fighting Israel for an Arab claim not a Palestinian claim; what semantics played then a role in the bloodshed? Itzse 21:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a question, Itzse, based on your previous comment. Note the question mark.--G-Dett 21:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly the answer is there too, as to what is the cause of the bloodshed. It's what underlies the use of words, which in our case is a creation of a people to push out another people. If the Palestinians wouldn't have declared themselves a people but stayed the way they were looked at by the world and other Arabs as "Palestinian Arabs", then the original idea of partition would have been an option and peace would be a real reality; but since the annihilation of Israel is more important to the Arabs then a "Palestinian" country, the bloodshed will continue. Hence the semantic need of a "Palestinian people" to claim all of Palestine for themselves. Itzse 22:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Itzse, please stop placing G-Dett's comment in the poll section. Editors should decide for themselves whether they want to continue participating in this process or not. They should also select for themselves how they want to phrase their vote (rather than having you decide which of their comments is indeed a vote). Please try to understand that there is an issue of process here as well. Tiamat 19:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali asks "I do not really understand the objection to the title Palestinian People. (Uneless we are arguing whether Palestinians are people or some lower form of animal...)".

Where in this entire discussion have you seen a debate if Palestinians are animals or people? Can't you read plain English that the debate is if the Palestinians are "a people"? Read the entire page and you'll become smarter which I'm not sure you want to.

Tiamut, the words of G-Dett "On with the move already, for cryin' out loud" is clear enough for any one who wants to be fair. But for you, who were the one to make the first reversion without any discussion and ignored the "process", you will stop at nothing to achieve your goal. As for "selectiveness" which Steve correctly pointed out; you conveniently ignored my answer. As for why I didn't place it on WP:Palestine, I think you know the answer; not to invite more people like you, who are not in it for the truth but using the "process" and ignoring the "process" at whim to further your goals. Itzse 19:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(NOTE:I'm currently moving some comments re the poll/article itself to the current section for discussion. I'd prefer if we could use this section for discussions of the polling process only. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve, I restored those comments to their rightful place. They make no sense taken out of context. I don't agree with moving around people's comments on contentious pages. It just confuses things more. Tiamat 20:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have not read G-Dett's post above where she has changed her vote. You also managed to make me change my position from on the fence, to wholly against. In the future, I think you should reflect on how to build consensus and how to make move requests based on practical or policy arguments rather than airing your offensive views about how Palestinians don't exist as a people. It's toxic to the discussion and does nothing to build agreement. You pretty much dug your own grave my friend. Over and out. Tiamat 19:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tiamat (and Abu Ali). the whole point of a poll is for you to indicate that there is disagreement over this issue. Obviously there is disagreement here. The purpose of the poll is to make that plain. So if you could please indicate your basic stance, if that's ok, that might be helpful. It needn't be anything elaborate, just a few words indicating there is contention here.

As far as people's past actions, it's a bit hard to rectify all of that now, of course. Obviously, most of what you said indicates why this issue is still in contention, and requires everyone's input to indicate that. --Steve, Sm8900 19:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I feel that a lot of people had already stated their objections and reservations (exacerbated deeply by the irregularities in the process, the lack of policy-based argumentation for such a move, the lack of answers to questions on how this improve the article or refine its scope, the offensive extreme minority POV motivating the nomination - i.e. that Palestinians aren't really a People or Nation - etc., etc. I think at this point it should be acknowledged that there is no consensus for a move (as evidenced by the comments of at least five editors on this page who just haven't been as pushy or vocal about their objections as the "opposing" side). I don't think it's necessary to compile a poll. It's rather self-evident at this point. If someone wants to re-open this discussion at a later date they are more than welcome to. I would hope that next time they think of policy-based reasons or even just practical ones related to improving or refining the article rather than using this as an opportunity to soapbox about how Palestinians don't really exist. Tiamat 19:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, if the Jew article was at Jewish people, I'd be working pretty hard to get it moved to "Jew", because that kind of wordy nonsense helps no-one. It's sad to see yet another example of people using ideology and personal animus as a reason to do what's worse for Misplaced Pages, not better. Jayjg 19:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's nice Jayjg. But in this case it's not personal animus at work. Over the course of the discussion many pint were raised as to why "Palestinian people" is preferable. Yes people's position became entrenched by the offensive ideology underlying some people's advocacy for the move of the page to Palestinians, but that was an extenuating circumstances, not a primary one. While you pointed out that "Palestinians" gets 10 times as many hits as "Palestinian people" you did not mention that "Palestinian people" get over 1 million hits. The discussion also pointed out that the PLO uses the term "Palestinian people" and as their sole legitimate representative before the international community, that's a solid reason to name the article as such. Finally, as I pointed out in numerous posts, "Palestinian people" clearly defines the subject of the article. As the term "Palestinians" has referred to different people at different times, the specificity of "Palestinian people" and the formation of this collectivity makes it preferable, particularly since people often get confused as to who this article should and not cover in detail. Thanks though for boiling everything down to a way to insult people who don't share your POV. It's classic. Tiamat 20:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Lies, lies and more lies. "If someone wants to re-open this discussion at a later date they are more than welcome to". Are they Tiamut, really "more than welcome to"?
• "irregularities in the process". Who used "irregularities in the process" more then you? You reverted without explanation the page move even though it had been discussed and made clear why it was being done. So you subverted the process. Furthermore the page was named back to a name which it had for a number of years and had been unitarily recently changed.
• "offensive extreme minority POV motivating the nomination". Do you deny any motivation on your part? Please state another lie that you are looking for the truth and you don't want to deny Misplaced Pages's readers the truth. What exactly do you find offensive? Can you be specific?
• "Soapbox". Seeking a Neutral and non-biased Misplaced Pages is to you soap boxing? Itzse 20:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there is now officially absolutely no consensus for moving this entry from its current name. i suggest that we accept the current name as is, and move on to addressing the article content. I feel the last two comments were not that helpful, and I feel everyone here is clearly trying to show they are doing this only because of the side they happen to be on. so thanks to everyone who brought up the Arab or the Jewish people, the nature of the essential conflict and any other refernces which are only likely to simply further escalate this.

Again I suggest we get back to simply dealing with the content and subject matter of this article. --Steve, Sm8900 20:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve, although well intentioned, I am insulted to be considered Tiamut's counterpart and lump both of our comments together as "not helpful". While Tiamut and I, clearly have strong POV's; the difference lies in that I can understand her POV and what motivates it; but she cannot or rather doesn't want to understand mine. While she'll pretend to adhere to WP's rules; I actually do. It is not against WP's rules to point out an editor’s agenda and their steadfastness to their agenda at the expense of a fair and NPOV Encyclopedia; just as it not against WP's rules to point out a vandalizer and we don't play semantics with them. Tiamut has been given the benefit of the doubt until she removed all doubt. Itzse 20:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Itzse, my comment wasn't posted when Steve made his comment. He was talking about your post and Jayjg's. Although now I am surely contributing to this mess too. I think I'm done now. Tiamat 20:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree (Steve). In fact, I had initially opened an RfC to deal with content issues when Itzse made the proposed request for move. I would appreciate feedback in the sections above on Ancestry and other negotiations. Tiamat 20:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure you agree; because it gives you what you want and to hell with everybody else. Itzse 20:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You know Itzse, your attitude does absolutely nothing to win people over to your position. At one point, when I had almost agreed to the move, you failed to even notice and went on insulting me (as you have once again now). Please stop with the violations of WP:CIVIL. I've had it with your vitriol and offensive opinions about who and what I or my people are. Back off. Tiamat 20:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, once again with lies. I have never insulted you, not here or anywhere. You actually called me a racist, called my arguments offensive, pretended as if I was debating if Palestinians are people or animals; so it was you who was uncivil and offensive. I still will not call you any names; but it is my right as a good standing and fair Wikipedian to point out that you have an agenda which you want to force on all of us. Itzse 20:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks. I'm still here. Tiamat, i appreciate your offer to suspend discussion, while it is in this counter-productive territory. I would suggest that is a good idea. At this point, there is little need for any further discussion, unless anyone here does want to argue that there is any consensus for a proposed move, which i seriously doubt. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 20:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Somebody mentioned that an admin "closed" this argument. I don't remember that ever happening. Could someone show me where it happened? The most I remember is that an admin said that there was not currently a consensus, which is not the same as closing an entire argument. Rather, it is encouragement for more argument until a consensus is found. --GHcool 22:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

this is getting a little bit crazy. this is starting to make me think we have lost our idea how Misplaced Pages works. You don't argue to achieve consensus. You achieve consensus by negotiating, putting a few ideas on the table, and gradually discussing various options until an agreable solution is found. There is absolutely no point to further discussion of this. The burden of proof is one the people who want the name change, to prove that consensus exists for the new name. If there is no consensus for a new name, then the current name remains.

I have gotten a bit tired of this ongoing discussion. We have reviewed the idea, and determined there is no support for changing the name. Now I fel it is really time to drop this topic entirely. That's all. If discussion of the article's content is needed, that can proceed, but I suggest we take a brief period to have a break. that's all. (Sorry for my earlier stridency. it was late and I was tired. This illustrates the rule WP:MASTODON Thanks.) --Steve, Sm8900 22:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Was there a consensus to move the page from "Palestinians" to "Palestinian people" in the first place? ←Humus sapiens 23:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Humus, there is no consensus now. Not after three weeks of discussion. What possible gain is there in beating this dead horse any further? Tiamat 23:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As for GHcool's comments, it's strange you don't remember this edit by an admin removing the entire discussion with the edit summary citing the lack of consensus? or this edit by you restoring the entire debate and accusing the admin of "bad faith" for closing the dicussion? Whatever you're smoking I want some. Tiamat 23:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I do remember that, but as far as I understand it,"no consensus for move" (an observation about the present state of affairs) doesn't mean the same as "there will never be consensus for move and therefore the argument is over" (which is a ruling). --GHcool 22:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

DNA Section (two different versions need to be reconciled)

Tewfik, would you care to join me in discussing the DNA section? This diff: in particular. I spent hours reading the articles there to come up with a version that accurately and faithfully represented the material there to resolve an edit war with Jayjg over the issue and thought that the matter had been resolved. I find that your version is a little vague and selective in its presentation of the material. For example, you write: "The haplogroup, associated with marker M267, is a marker of the Arab expansion in the early medieval period." This is true, but only partially. It is a marker of Arab expansion in the early medieval period when it is found in North Africa. Not Palestine. It originated in the Levant area. So your version tends to imply that its presence among Palestinians is derived from Arab dispersal of the haplogroup rather than the opposite which is that the Arabs dispersed it among others. Is there anything in particular that offends with about my version? Thanks. Tiamat

By the way, could you explain why you also restored the old version of the ancestry section in the section devoted to that discussion above? Thanks. Tiamat 19:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

While I'm glad to see that you've stopped replacing the data with incorrect numbers (where I also spent hours poring over the literature), as I said in my edit summary, a general discussion of Haplogroup J (Y-DNA) is very nice, but not relevant to this entry. It certainly should not replace a more specific discussion of the relevance of the J1 subclade, since this is after all a discussion of the origins of Palestinians. As for the specifics, while the Semino study also discusses J1's spread through North Africa, that is in addition to concluding (as is stated outright in the abstract) that it is a marker of expansion from Arabia, citing as evidence the findings in Nebel's Galilee marker. Of course, incivil comments like these are not at all helpful. Do you notice how I manage to edit without attacking you, ever? Tewfik 22:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

JI is a sub-clade of J and Palestinians show high levels of both J1 and J2, which are sister clades. A discussion of both is certainly relevant. Is that your only objection to my version? Your comments on the Arabian expansion do not address my concerns above of how this is an oversimplifcation that tends to lead the reader to false conclusions. Tiamat 09:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of 5,000 bytes of material

Those who are removing material from the article that is sourced, are asked to explain their edits here before or after doing so. These edits: , , , remove material without explaining why. The deletion of sourced material without explanation is considered vandalism. Please engage in discussion. Thank you. Tiamat 12:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert of everything but one sentence without explanation

Hi there Armon. In this edit , you reverted everything I have just restored and new information I had added. I agree with the note you left in your edit summary about how Nakba Day should not be wikilinked in place of 1948 Palestinian exodus (if you notice, I added it alongside the exodus link in the culture section. I think its kind of relevant. I didn;t notice however that it was already there, so I will take it out). I notice that you reverted out of existence some 6,000 bytes of sourced material unrelated to that issue. Would you care to explain your edit? Thank you. Tiamat 15:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) With all due respect, it would be far more appropriate if you instead explain the addition of "5,000 bytes"? You are not only continuing to restore the disputed content discussed in-depth above, but adding misrepresentations of sources, partisan statements, removing citation requests, making sources say what they don't, and pretty much restoring en masse everything that you previously added. Despite your declaration to the contrary, I explained the problems with your version of the DNA above, and addressed your concern about the 'North Africa' bit. Good day, Tewfik 16:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tewfik. In this edit , you deleted about 6,200 bytes of sourced material. Would you care to explain your edit summary and its relationship to the material you deleted? Thank you. Tiamat 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Jayjg. In this edit you deleted about 6,200 bytes of sourced material. Would you care to discuss? as per your edit summary? If this has to do with this ancestry section, could you respond in that section to my comments there? and refrain from combining issues by isolating the material in that section for restoration or removal as such should be the case? Thanks. Tiamat 16:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in bandying about the term "sourced material"; for literally months in this article you have been inserting material sourced to unreliable sources making dubious politically based revisionist claims, or inserting material that does not properly represent its sources, or inserting original research you've created from sources. I can't repeat this often enough; use extremely high quality sources only, represent their contents faithfully, do not insert material that is unsourced, and, above all, get consensus first. Jayjg 16:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Now to respond to Tewfik and Jayjg. Anyone who seriously reviews the edits on this page will see that your descriptions are unfair and inaccurate. I consider your editing style here to be disruptive. I have constantly taken your objections into account, have attempted to engage in substantive discussion only to stonewalled and reverted. I have found better and better sources, more and more experts, only to have you delete them or disqualify them for various reasons. I think we need yet another RfC on this matter. Tiamat 16:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, anyone who seriously reviews the edits on this page will see that your descriptions are unfair and inaccurate. "Taking objections into account" does not mean responding, then reverting in the identical, or near identical material. True, you have slowly upgraded the quality of your sources, but that's not saying much - instead of citing blogs/personal propaganda sites and romantic accounts written by wives of diplomats in the 1920s, you're now citing book reviews written by ex-CIA analysts/anti-Israel activists, reviewing the works of journalists. And even getting you to upgrade to that extremely low level of reliability took literally months of arguing. Get consensus first for everything. Everything. Your edit history here does not permit anything else. Jayjg 16:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. What was the point of discussing, for example, the poor Kunstel and Albright source, only to have it repeatedly reinserted? This won't turn them into a good source however many times you restore. What I reverted had been discussed and the problems explained to you at great length, if not by me, then by many others. <<-armon->> 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Armon. When we discussed Kunstel and Albright, I told you "Find a source that says they are not historians and then we'll talk until then, they are a reliable source per Kathleen Christison, who by the way, is a Mid-East expert, and is likely familiar with literature on the subject. Tiamat 16:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)". As I said then, their book is reviewed in an academic journal by Kathleen Christison and she says they are "historians". At Misplaced Pages, we go with what the source says. If you have source that says that Kunstel and Albright are not reliable as a source or not historians, then I would consider removing them. Until then, you unsourced opinion of Kunstel and Albright is not a valid argument. It is also not a reason to delete another 4,000 bytes of material unrelated to that question. Tiamat 16:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, your revert deleted over 6,000 bytes of material. That includes the four edits above , , , that I had restored, while posting that section to ask people to explain their deletions. It also includes new edits that have nothing to do with the stuff we discussed. I have asked you time and time again to be selective in your editing. To try to isolate specific problems. Instead, you have used every opportunity to smear my editing and research skills. Your descriptions are completely unfair and uncivil and your actions are doing nothing to build consensus. Please focus. Tiamat 16:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should discuss what you want to add and present your sources here first. That way, when it does get put in, it will have support. <<-armon->> 16:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already done that a number of times and I'm frankly offended at the suggestion. I am not a disruptive editor and the sources I am using are not unreliable. I don't think I need a special permit from you to access an article on Palestinian people. I may need one to get to gaza, but not here. Tiamat 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah: an Introduction to History, Franz Rosenthal, transl. Princeton University Press, 1967, pg. 306
2. ^ Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright (1990). Their Promised Land: Arab and Jew in History's Cauldron-One Valley in the Jerusalem Hills. Crown. ISBN 0517572311.
3. Christison, Kathleen. Review of Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright's Their Promised Land: Arab and Jew in History's Cauldron-One Valley in the Jerusalem Hills. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 21, No. 4. (Summer, 1992), pp. 98-100.
4. Cite error: The named reference lewis-p17 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Michael Balter, "Palestinians Inherit Riches, but Struggle to Make a Mark" Science, New Series, Vol. 287, No. 5450. (Jan. 7, 2000), pp. 33-34. "'We don't want to repeat the mistakes the Israelis made,' says Moain Sadek, head of the Department of Antiquities's operations in the Gaza Strip. Taha agrees: 'All these controversies about historical rights, who came first and who came second, this is all rooted in ideology. It has nothing to do with archaeology.'"
6. Christison, Kathleen. Review of Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright's Their Promised Land: Arab and Jew in History's Cauldron-One Valley in the Jerusalem Hills. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 21, No. 4. (Summer, 1992), pp. 98-100.
7. {cite book|title=The Arabs in History|author=Bernard Lewis|year=2002|publisher=Oxford University Press, USA, 6th ed.|page=17}}

• B-Class Ethnic groups articles
• Mid-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Top-importance Palestine-related articles
• Palestine-related articles needing attention
• WikiProject Palestine articles