Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ramallite (talk | contribs) at 16:19, 2 June 2006 (→Allegations can be checked: What's your point?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Archive

Note that previous discussions on this topic are archived here:

Talk:Palestinian/Archive 1 2001-July 14, 2003 Talk:Palestinian people/Archive 2 July 15, 2003-July 15, 2004 Talk:Palestinian people/Archive 3 July 16, 2004-July 16, 2005

Jewish minorities?

"The Palestinian population is largely Sunni Muslim, with Christian, Druze, Jewish, and Samaritan minorities." Who comprises the Jewish minority of the Palestinian population? Jayjg 06:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian#Religions: "there are also about 300 Samaritans and a few thousand Jews from the Neturei Karta group who consider themselves Palestinian." - Mustafaa 22:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

For which see their site: "We seek to live in the land of Palestine as anti Zionist Jews. To reside as loyal and peaceful Palestinian citizens..." - Mustafaa 23:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I see, that is their goal? And yet they are currently not living there, nor do they call themselves Palestinians, nor are they Palestinian citizens. Jayjg 03:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that statement refers to the original term "Palestinian" which encompassed anybody living on the land. Also, a top official of Neturei Karta, Rabbi Moshe Hirsch, was "Minister for Jewish Affairs" in the first PA government in 1996. If we want to get into specifics, we have at least one couple who are close friends of my family where the husband is Palestinian and the wife is Jewish, born abroad and now "naturalized" inasmuch as that makes sense in a non-sovereign country. Both have Palestinian IDs and are residents. And I know of a few other similar cases as well. So both historically and currently, to claim that there are no Palestinians who are Jewish is untrue. Ramallite 04:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The original statements was a theoretical political position, not an actual reflection of reality. And regarding the tiny number of Jews who have Palestinian IDs, I suspect that there are probably several Buddhists who are Palestinians as well; should they be mentioned? The "Jewish minority", such as they are, are an insignificant number, and they are only listed here for political purposes. Jayjg 04:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is that the meaning of the term "Palestinian" has changed over the years. I have read books from the 1940s that speak of Palestinians taking it for granted that the term refers to Jews living in the Yishuv. I would propose that we can have a subcategory under Category:Palestinian people called Category:Palestinian Jews or something along those lines. I am trying to figure out the political implications of such a categorization - on the one hand, it makes the point that there are lots of Jews native to the area prior to the establishment of Israel; on the other, it is consistent with the PLO charter that the Palestinian nationality has nothing to do with language (though it is supposed to be part of the pan-Arabic nation). --Leifern 22:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you find the Buddhists, by all means. But the Jewish minority has much more of a history.

Lapsed Pacifist 04:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It does? What exactly is that history? An Israeli member of Neturei Karta acting as a propaganda-tool/"Minister of Jewish Affairs"? Please specify what you mean. Jayjg 05:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Neta Golan, a thirty-year-old Israeli peace activist and Buddhist, lives with her Palestinian husband in Ramallah See: http://www.ralphmag.org/BK/neta-golan.html --Eliezer 05:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Neturei Karta can point to a long tradition of living in Palestine, predating most Jewish settlement. Palestinian Buddhists do not have this history. But if you find more, by all means, include them.

Lapsed Pacifist 05:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Living in Palestine? Possibly. Depends on what you define as Palestine. They live in Israel. 1949 Armistice Lines Israel. I still haven't noticed them calling themselves "Palestinian". Have you? Jayjg 05:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

By their definition, 1949 Armistice Lines Israel is Palestine. By the PNC definition, most are Palestinian; by their own website's claims, they are Palestinian; and at least one has served in the Palestinian government, a post which would scarcely be opened to a non-Palestinian. The number of Palestinian Samaritans is significantly smaller, but, again, of special historical relevance. - Mustafaa 12:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If you complain that they aren't notable enough for the intro, discussion of them (and, of course, the Samaritans) could be postponed to the religions section, and replaced in the intro with "others" or something, although by the PNC definition they might be as much as ~5%. However, they, like the Samaritans, certainly merit mention in the article - as would Palestinian Buddhists, in the unlikely event that there actually is a verifiable Palestinian Buddhist community. - Mustafaa 13:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mustafaa, if the inclusion is controversial it should just be put lower down and its controvertiality noted.Heraclius 17:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It might be relevant to put a description of them in the Religions section, provided it actually dealt in a factual way with their only theoretical/purely political existence. Jayjg 18:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

A brief description is already there (have you read this article yet?), and a minister in the PNA is rather more than a "theoretical" entity. - Mustafaa 18:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I see the description. "Minister of Photo Opportunities" is a real entity, but only in the realm of political theatre. Jayjg 19:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Flag caption

I would like to say that the Flag of the Palestinian people is that of the Arab Revolt, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or seriously deluded. PJaz.

The caption on the flag in the info box says that the flag was adopted in 1948. Could whoever put that assertion in there please source it? Or anyone else? Please? Thanks. Until then, I'm taking it out. Tomer 03:01, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

One link that it is 1948 is here. Also, the statement that this is the "widely recognized symbol of the Palestinian Authority" but not necessarily the Palestinian people is utter absolute rubbish. This flag has symbolized the Palestinian people long before there was any PA or PLO in fact. The colors of the flag are used by many Arabic speaking countries, but this specific pattern was adopted by the Palestinians a long time ago. Ramallite 03:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The flag is a symbol of Palestinian nationalism wherever one goes. Hamas is put in a peculiar position in that nationalism goes against its Salafist "all for the ummah" views, but it still sees itself as a Palestinian nationalist group. Therefore, even Hamas members would look to the flag as a symbol of the Palestinian people.Heraclius 03:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Ramalite and Heraclius are quite correct. --Zero 04:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think including a flag is appropriate. The Palestinian flag symbolizes a nationalist movement not an ethnic group. Also many Hamas members don't look to the flag as a symbol of the people, but a symbol of other nationalist factions. You may even notice they wave other flags at their rallies, with the Palestinian nationalist flag almost always absent. For the sake neutrality I think the flag should be removed. --Yodakii 14:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Read the text above. The flag symbolizes a nationalist movement because of the fact that it symbolizes (or has come to symbolize) the Palestinian people. Hamas people carry their party flag at rallies, but there is no dispute as to what the "Palestinian flag" is, and they are carried at Hamas rallies as well (unfortunately). Ramallite 15:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The flag has always been an explicitely Arab nationalist symbol . There is a dispute within Palestinian society as to whether or not the "Palestinian flag" represents the people. Besides a large anti-nationalist Islamic population, there are Israeli citizens and a diaspora population which includes people considered Palestinian who would identify more with their host governments' flags than the Palestinian one. I think the main reason the flag is mistaken to represent the entire people is because the nationalist faction for various political reasons is still the only one recognised by the "international community" as representing the people. This isn't a neutral position. If this article was about Palestinian nationalism, including the flag would be appropriate. This article is about the Palestinian people. The Israeli flag is not the flag of all Jewish people, the Japanese flag is not flag of all Japanese people, and the Palestinian flag is not the flag of all Palestinian people. --Yodakii 17:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't follow. First, I belong to Palestinian society (although admittedly not the diaspora community) and have never heard of the dispute you speak of. Second, if I understand your point, which I may not, do we not use a flag that represents a people because a number of individuals have emigrated to other countries and are now citizens of other countries? I've been to numerous Palestine-related functions abroad, and even though the event participants are citizens of their respective countries, the Palestinian flag is displayed as it is a Palestine-related event. Expatriates and their children often use the flag to symbolize their heritage, just like any expatriate community anywhere. Third, it is also the only flag recognized by Palestinians themselves as representing the Palestinian people, not just the international community (this pertains to the discussion above). Fourth, you seem to be splitting hairs unnecessarily, because I'm sure there are anarchists in every country who don't recognize the legitimacy of their national flag, but is that a reason to remove the flag from an encyclopedia? I don't know if you are of Palestinian heritage or not, but I definitely am, and if you don't want to take my opinion into consideration (most people don't when it comes to Palestine, heck I'm only Palestinian!!), would you at least consider getting other opinions before removing it? Thanks ;) Ramallite 17:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• My heritage and yours doesn't count here.

When it comes to describing opinions on the discussion page, it helps in certain contexts. You stated "There is a dispute within Palestinian society as to whether or not the "Palestinian flag" represents the people" which to me is original research, and since you brought original research into this, I figured I would offer a more accurate perspective, and justify my "accuracy" by pointing out my heritage. This is a discussion page after all. The only source that comes close is this op-ed piece in which the writer laments the use of factional flags in rallies, but I cannot find evidence that certain Palestinian factions (even those talked about in the link) do not recognize the "Palestinian flag" as representing their nation. Ramallite 16:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think we're misunderstanding each other but I've never heard of using a flag to represent emigrants. Palestine-related events are almost always political and often organised by Palestinian nationalists and who are more visible at such events compared with other groups. When expatriates use a flag to represent themselves they make an explicity political statement.

Because of the unique situation of the Palestinian people and their lack of independence, it is inevitable that any such function is tied to nationalism. It's part of who the Palestinians are at this moment in time, for better or for worse. Also, many times, people looking at the conflict from the outside tend to confuse "political" with "humanitarian". Ramallite 16:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• The absence of other widely recognised flags is irrelevant.

Then we truly are misunderstanding each other, because if there is one "flag of Palestine" that Palestinians claim represents them, and there is no dispute over that (notwithstanding OR), and there are no other flags, widely recognized or not, I guess I fail to see your point. Ramallite 16:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• The existence of people who don't recognise the legitimacy of the flag means there isn't a consensus on the issue. It is reason enough to remove it from the article. There is a whole other article about the Palestinian flag in this encyclopedia (which could be expanded, by the way).

Again, do you have sourced material to back up your claim that there are Palestinians who "don't recognise the legitimacy of the flag"? Ramallite 16:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

--Yodakii 14:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Look, basically I object to having a large flag in such a prominent position in an article about an ethnic group. As a compromise, how about putting an image of the flag in the "nationality" or "representatives" section, somewhere near the image of Arafat (another widely recognised symbol of the Palestinian people)?

Again, I wish to have consensus from others who are familiar with the history of the flag (and can source such claims) other than myself (regardless of heritage). Perhaps you could ask other Wikipedians to weigh in, because I myself don't know who here would know enough about this subject. There must still be a misunderstanding, because I fail to see why you are making an issue out of what would be otherwise regarded as a non-issue. There is no dispute that I can find about the flag representing all Palestinians, regardless of the fact that Hamas prefers to display their factional flags at rallies (to show off). Have you seen the Hamas Emblem? As for Arafat, I would argue that there is enough evidence to apply your objections above to him. In other words, everything you said above regarding the dispute of who represents Palestinians is certainly more applicable to Arafat than the flag, because he represented the "leadership" and is now dead, and many factions or individuals did not regard him as their leader, while the flag is far more representative of the Palestinians then Arafat was. I don't think, based on sources that I can find, that the two are equivalent. Ramallite 16:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

--Yodakii 14:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I admit, the dispute I'm talking about is based on original research, as its based mostly on personal familiarity with members of Islamic groups such as Muslim Brothers and others among Palestinians who consider the Palestinian flag a colonial and nationalist symbol. I haven't found any sources showing Palestinians explicitly rejecting the national flag. But I think it is a well-known fact that many Muslims are anti-nationalist and rejection of nationalist symbols would go without saying. The piece you link to illustrates nationalists' intolerance of other banners besides their own and confirms somewhat what I know, that the Palestinian flag is seen as another factional flag by some people. But its not English, and I haven't found any sources myself... In any case, I still think keeping the Palestinian flag at the top of the article is a nationalist POV. I haven't found any other articles about an ethnic group in wikipedia that displays a national flag, whether that is deliberate or not, I think it makes sense. I don't know where to look for other opinions here. ... anyone reading who has an opinion on this: please share! (especially if you agree with me) --Yodakii 16:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

If your objections are based on the fact that other articles you looked at don't have a flag, I guess my response would be that, although there is no real reason to remove it (in my mind), there is no absolute necessity to have it. If nobody else weighs in during the weekend, and you still feel strongly about it, I won't object to it being reduced in size or removed, but it would be nice to have some other illustration, like a dance troupe or something similar, for example, like here. Ramallite 18:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there any way to center the flag than the Arab table?Heraclius 23:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the flag should be replaced with the word "Allah" written in purple Arabic caligraphy. --Zeno of Elea 00:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

False parallel, the reason being that there is no dispute amongst the Palestinian community about whether or not the flag is a symbol of the Palestinian people. That was a nice try, though.Heraclius 00:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I've centered the image (look at the diff to see how). I still hold in doubt the assertion that it was adopted in 1948 as the banner of the Palestinian people...the "history" given at Ramallite's webreference sounds pretty revisionist to me. Until I have something concrete to argue against it, however, I'll just leave it be. Tomer 02:25, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Sources for Zuhayr Muhsin (used to be Zuhair Mohsen) which are probably too specialised to attach to the article:

• http://www.al-bab.com/arab/countries/palestine/biogCM.htm (Syria's appointee to PLO-EC)
• Anders Strindberg, The Damascus-Based Alliance of Palestinian Forces: A Primer, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 29, No. 3. (Spring, 2000), pp. 60-76. (Sa'iqa fully funded by Syria)

While I'm typing, I'll dispose of another common quote that does not belong in the article. Ahmed Shukairy, who would later become the first leader of the PLO, told the UN Security Council in 1956 that "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria". The reason that this was not a Palestinian expression of pan-Syrianism is that Shukairy at the time was the Syrian representative on the UNSC (Official Records, 724th Meeting, page 10). He had to present the Syrian position regardless of his own opinions. His statement was supposed to counter the Israeli claim to sovereignty over the DMZ between Israel and Syria.

--Zero 13:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This article needs fixing my an entire section accidently got deleted while I was correcting spelling (read accident as household pet on keyboard).

My changes

I don't know why my changes were removed. they all fixed contradictions in the article itself. Not all Palestinians come from "Palestine". many come from other places, like Syria and Lebanon, and if youre going to claim that Neturei kara are palestinians, then you can't claim they came from "Palestine". The article also says that whether Arab Israelis are Palestinian or not is debated, then in the next sentence says that theyre palestinian. that's a contradiction. next you claim that a unique accent is a feature of Palestinians, then say only rural palestinians have it. that's another contradiction. so I fixed it to say that rural palestinians have it. next you claim "many" Palestinans thought Palestine was their country, but the whole paragraph above says mostly the opposite, and you provide no proof it was many. John McW 00:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

full of contradictions

This from the article:

"The current draft of the Palestinian constitution, which will take effect should the Palestinian Authority be dismantled and an independent state is established, states that: "Palestinian citizenship shall be organized by law without prejudicing the right of anyone who acquired it before 15 May 1948 in accordance with the law or the right of the Palestinian who was resident in Palestine before that date. This right is transmitted from fathers and mothers to their children. The right endures unless it is given up voluntarily."

Let's see now...am I getting this right? There is no Palestinian State at this point, but if there is one, then anyone who was a Palestinian citizen 60-odd years ago ...what? And if it isn't your state anymore, then how can you determine what your 'rights' are. The Israelis decide who lives in Israel. There was never a state called Palestine. It was an area, a neighborhood, which included Jordan, West Bank.. see "Palestine Under British Mandate Map here: MAP To call Jews "Palestinians" (line 1) today seems a rather disingenuous way to claim ownership of all of Israel under the nomen of "Palestine". Juanita 02:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

You probably misunderstood - the constitution is for a State of Palestine that was supposed to be the outcome of the final status agreements with Israel (that never took place) and is now envisioned in the Road Map. Also, what you added about all inhabitants of British mandate territory being call "Palestinians" I don't think is true, because the name "transjordan" quickly took precedence according to what I've read.

---- the speed by which the name changes means little. Look at the speed with which the name "Palestinian" became associated with Arabs only, just since 1967! A linquistic vacuum developed when Israel became a modern state and called her citizens Israelis. Israel by becoming 'Israelis',(which they have only been for ~58 years of so, this time round) left it open for the Arabs to identify themselves as "Palestinians" and today they are in reality the ONLY Palestinians. To say that Jews are Palestinians today is disingenuous, to say the least. Juanita

Culture

Jayg, as for that last edit, I don't have a reference as of now which says what was added in so many words, however I have done a little searching and found many sites that mention both of those new points in passing. One good example is this one: http://www.cafearabica.com/issue1/sections/culture/farah&hanan/commit2.html The author of that site is talking about an organisation dedicated to Palestinian culture. She mentions "Arab and specifically Palestinian culture," and talks about collecting Palestinian and Syrian (another Arabic culture) artifacts. I am not sure about how citation works on Misplaced Pages, I'll check on that if you want a link to that and/or some other pages which corroborate this point. It seems, though, a pretty minor and uncontroversial point, and this might be needless clutter for the external links. She also mentions a bit about the history (in terms of the cultural artifacts she is interested in) in "Gauze from Gaza, damask from Damascus." This is at least reference to the information I added - that Palestinian culture is Arabic, and the Mediterranean region is historically well-travelled (involved in trade, what have you). The history of other nearby countries has resulted in a similar situation to the one I pointed out in my edit. For example, check out Demographics of Lebanon for corroboration that historical diversity of population is a typical feature of this region. Still, Lebanese culture is generally considered Arabic.

I have been consulting Misplaced Pages and contributing occasionally on and off for a few years, but I only recently registered as a contributor. Is it common practice to simply delete an edit if you have a question about it? Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but I thought it was supposed to be discussed first. That said, I would like to restore my edit, but I won't do so immediately in case I'm missing something important - awaiting contributions from you or others. Joomba 09:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Joomba

The edit was highly POV - please review WP:NPOV to understand the issue. Jayjg 23:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I must ask you to be more specific in your objections. I actually have reviewed that page in the past, again more recently, and briefly again now. Also, I would like you to go over section 9.7 of that page.

You added the following text: "While most Palestinians define themselves as Arabs, their ancestry is most probably a combination of many tribes that inhabited the region over many centuries. This is typical, of many modern populations defining themselves as Arab - especially in the historically well-traveled Mediterranean region. Palestinian culture is steadfastly Arabic." The claims you added are points of view - what evidence do you have to back them up? How do you know that this is "typical"? What does a cultre being "steadfastly Arabic" even mean? And what is section 9.7 of the page - it only goes up to section 6. Jayjg 19:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I meant section 9.7 of this page. Also, you're mistaken: the only lines I added were "This is typical, (comma sic) of many modern populations defining themselves as Arab - especially in the historically well-traveled Mediterranean region. Palestinian culture is steadfastly Arabic." Please view the article's history. As support for my additions, however, I provided a reference to the demographics of Lebanon page (showing that other modern Arab populations are both Arabic in culture and ancestrally diverse), and a link to an archivist of Palestinian culture who mentions "Arab and specifically Palestinian culture," and talks about collecting Palestinian and Syrian (the significance being that Syrians are also Arabs, and are culturally similar) cultural artifacts as part of her work. Why did you ignore these pieces of evidence? Did you miss them? All you have done is reiterated that you feel my additions were POV. I have provided links, and you seem to have missed them. Anyway, the first sentence is entirely verifiable, and therefore not POV. Perhaps "steadfastly" was not the clearest word to use, but the point stands. I will omit that. If you have something to add, more than reiteration of your objection, please do.Joomba 10:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian culture is just arabic culture. Nothing special except maybe a speciality in terrorism.

Ancestry

Humus Sapiens, I have to object to your most recent edit. You said it was in order to NPOV the article, however I don't think that helped at all. Also, the word "Semitic" can refer to the people. Check out this entry from Webster's: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=semitic and this entry from Oxford http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/semite?view=uk. I think that pretty much wraps up that issue. As far as saying that the Palestinians themselvs make this claim, I think that would require a lot of qualifications (which Palestinians, and says who) and evidence, whereas saying that they "are considered" as such, as was written in the last edit, is NPOV, because it relies on the facts (the facts listed in the very next sentences, which you left unchanged). I assume you don't dispute the validity of these facts, so in what way is your change more NPOV?

First, in the future please type ~~~~ to auto-sign your posts in Talk.

Second, sorry, I'll have to disappoint you: in modern context, "semitic" does indeed refer to languages and your links actually confirm that (thank you). We are not using ancient or religious terminology here, and it won't help you anyway. The phrase "Arabs, Crusaders, Romans, Jews, and other Semetic people" was very bad.

Third: "Palestinians are considered to have a very mixed ancestry" -- by whom? Proof please. Ironically, in another article some editors insist that "Zionism is racism". I am looking forward to you telling them that it's impossible to have racism against "very mixed ancestry". Cheers. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of signature. I checked the two links again, and I don't see where they confirm your contention. As for their use (neither is marked as archaic), I will paste what the sources say here: ' a member of a people speaking a Semitic language, in particular the Jews and Arabs.' and 'A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.' Both sources say that "Semite" and "Semitic" can mean "Arab". Yes, they do refer to the languages as well, but as I'm sure you're aware, plenty of words have more than one meaning. See, for example, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=French . I'm not sure what you mean by "help" me, but until I see some evidence that the words "Semite" and "Semitic" are not valid in the way they were used originally, I think we have to consider your position unsupported, and the original usage supported by two important English dictionaries.

I can accept that "are considered" requires too much qualification and needs rewording. However, I will point out again that your rewording is not helpful in this respect. Not only does it require citation as well, but it is much more contentious - it violates by implying that this stance is somehow unreliable because it originates from Palestinians (you may find some examples of Palestinians who take this stance, but without massive clarification and setting bounds on the use of the word it will still be a characterisation) and is without independent support. A better rewording can be found. In any case, there is support for the position - that the Palestinians have a mixed ancestry - in the very article, and in fact in the next few lines themselves.

Anyway, any good anthropology book will tell you that race is a social construct, and is in the eye of the beholder. Whatever ones ancestry is, mixed or not, one can be the victim of racism simply by being perceived a member of a certain "race" by someone else. That's not really relevant to what we're talking about. Awaiting your response before making fixes. Joomba 10:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

We are not that far apart. Of course we are talking about people. But it is not Semitic people but rather people speaking S. languages. Including into this group the Romans and Crusaders is plain wrong. By "won't help", I simply meant that such definition is too broad and therefore is conterproductive = unhelpful.

I do not contest their mixed ethno-religious ancestry. IMHO, "are considered" (by whom?) is even worse than "they claim" (I realize the Palestinians have wildly different opinions, but at least the reader would know where to start). In a serious encyclopedia, I would prefer to have "According to scholar X ..." Cheers. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Can anybody provide a serious source or citation for the "Jews, Romans, Arabs, Crusaders, and other people have all settled in the region and intermarried" claim? The two citations provided link to partisan sites, one of which claims Palestinian ancestry to the Canaanites. Please provide an academic source for significant amount of Jews having remained in Palestine after 300 CE and intermarried with the other groups cited.

Unfortunately (for some), there are some topics that only parties of direct relation will write about that foreign parties will have no interest in. If a Ukrainian publication writes about the history of the Ukrainian people, I don't think anybody would call that 'partisan'. At the same time, I don't think Greek historians would have much interest in writing about the Ukrainian people. As such, it seems that Palestinians are the only people in the world who are not allowed to write any sort of history about themselves without having a 'partisan' or 'biased' label automatically attached. So please keep in mind two completely radical concepts: One, not everything written about the Palestinian people is automatically political, and two, Palestinians (or the non-Jewish natives of the holy land, whatever you wish to call them) are human beings too, and it is not a far-fetched idea that human beings love and marry other natives of the same land. Ramallite 13:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk page censored?

My comments on this talk page were somehow deleted by User_talk:Jayjg.

What are you talking about? What comments, and when did I delete them? Jayjg 19:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The term "Palestinian" refers to the peoples that have lived in this territory (British Mandate Palesine and preceding). Palestinian's can be Jewish, Arab(Muslim or Christian), Circasian, etc. Actually, pre- 1948 the term Palestinian referred to Jews. Today the term is typically and commonly used to refer to Arab Palestinians, but it's important to recognize/acknowledge equally the other Palestinian communities and ethnicities as well. Furthermore, Palestine is simply the territorial land (British Mandate 1919-1922). Palestine is analogous to Antarctica today. Antarctica is a territory, not a country. A country called Antarctica doesn't exist! Like Antarctica today, Palestine too was a territory. Two sovereign countries have emerged out of the territory (20th century). One sovereign country is Israel and the other is Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania. Jews of Palestine (Jewish Palestinians) have their county (called Israel), and Arabs of Palestine have their country (called Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania).216.58.42.49MO.

Antarctica was never inhabited (unless you watch sci-fi movies), and a colonial power's defining of the borders of land they ruled (and giving it a name) has absolutely no bearing on the native population's ties to specific parts of that region where their history and culture lies. The vast majority of Palestinians west of the River have/had strong ties not necessarily to "Palestine" but to their native towns and villages where they were born and bred and that happen to be in a region a colonial power named "Palestine" (and the name stuck, so what? Big deal!). So let's see: Jews of Palestine have their country, but what about the Jews that are not of Palestine (which is pretty much the Ashkenazi population of Israel as well as Yemenites, Moroccans, etc)? Isn't Israel their country too? But they do not fit your description of 'Palestinian Jews'. Next, what about Israeli Arabs? Are you saying Israel isn't their country? Lastly, what about the Palestinians (in today's modern terminology, not the one which you claim is from 1922) in the occupied territories? Are you saying Jordan is their country? Should they pack up and move to 'their country'? Never mind they have absolutely no ties to the land that Jordan was founded on whatsoever (except relatives who are still refugees living there). You are right in pointing out that colonial powers drew the maps of the region; you are wrong in creating artificial assignments of people to land based on those maps instead of basing it on their actual history. Ramallite 20:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The population of Antarctica (cold desert territory) is approx. 1000 (depending upon the season)(see permanent,year round research stations for details). As per the issue whether Israel (Jewish Palestinian country) also belongs to Ashkenazi Jews, Muslim Arabs, Christian Arabs, Circasians, and immigrants world wide (including Bahai,Ethiopians,Rusians,Europeans,Americans,Canadians,Oriental community,etc.)the answer is yes,it is their country too. Israel is a democracy open to immigrants of the world (see current population strata within Israel). By contrast,Jordan/Jordania/Trans-Jordan(Arab Palestinian country) is a totalitarian authoritarian dictatorship/monarchy. Jordan's immigration policy is best characterized as discouraging, and at worst 'hostile'(see Jordan's immigration/naturalization policy). Finally, I base my definition of 'Palestinian' to include all ethnic communities that lived in British Mandate Palestine territory so not to exclude anyone (ethnic group) arbitrarily. 216.58.42.49 22:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)MO.

So now Israel is also the country of Ashkenazi Jews, Muslim Arabs, Christian Arabs, Circasians, and immigrants world wide (including Bahai,Ethiopians,Rusians,Europeans,Americans,Canadians,Oriental community,etc)? That is good to know, maybe a whole bunch of these people should apply for citizenship there. While you have not directly responded to my point above regarding being wrong about arbitrarily assigning homes based on a colonial power's drawing of borders at one particular point in history (and not other points in history), I thank you for expressing your views on this talk page. Ramallite 04:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"The breakdown of Israel's population is as follows: Jews - 4.9 million, Muslims 936,000; Christians - 131,000; Druze - 101,000; religion not registered - 152,000. The "Expanded Jewish Population" (including immigrants and their children who are not registered as Jews by the census bureau) is 5.1 million, 81.5% of the country's population. These figures are based on a random survey conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics for the new year." (Dec. 30, 1999: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

"In 1999, there was a significant rise in the number of new immigrants - 77,000, as compared to 60,000 in 1998, a rise of 28%. Immigration caused Israel's population to grow 160,000 (2.7%) in 1999, up from 2.4% in 1998. The Arab population rose by 3.7% and the Jewish population rose by 2.4% in 1999, up from 3.4% and 2.2% respectively, in 1998. 40% of Israel's growth in 1999 was due to immigration, up from 35% in 1998, and accounted for 42% of the increase in the Jewish population."(Dec. 30,1999: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

Regarding the issue of territorial borders drawn by the old colonial powers at specific points in time, historicaly, nearly every country and territory on the planet was formed via this method (formed by: British, French, Spanish, Ottoman-Turks, Chinese, Romans, Egyptians etc.)216.58.10.18 00:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)MO.

As per the article regarding: 'Palestinians', I have some concerns: the flag implies sovereignty: 'Palestine' (British Mandate Palestine/Ottoman-Turks Empire territory/etc.) was a territory like Antarctica today; it was never a sovereign country. 2)the flag is adopted by an Arab nationalistic community living in the territory (Note: the flag is nearly identical to that of Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania; also adopted by Arab nationalists living in 'Palestine' territory now known as Jordan (Arab 'Palestinian'country)). The other ethnic communities living in this territory, don't identify themselves under this flag: Circasians, Jewish, etc., even though they too, are equally 'Palestinian.' 216.58.9.149 18:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)MO.

I remain deeply concerned about the 'Palestinian' page. It's far too exclusive of the other 'Palestinian' communities: Jewish, Circasian, etc. Neither communities identify themselves under the Arab 'Palestinian' flag.

The 'medieval' map is disturbing. Syria and Palestine were provinces under the Ottoman-Turk Empire; not countries. Jordan (Tans-Jordan/Jordania) didn't exist prior to 1922. Pre-1922, this land too was British Mandate Palestine/former Ottoman-Turk Empire territory.216.58.10.48MO.

I remember viewing this page perhaps two years ago and seeing that it was full of contradictions and heated in-text confrontation by various contributors with various axes to grind... I just read through it again (and made a small contribution), though, and I find that the tone has become much more factual and NPOV. I'm not really sure now if there's anything left to this NPOV dispute, or if it's just a relic of the era when this page was still being fleshed out, and everyone has just been too uncertain to take it off. So, I would like to suggest we remove the NPOV dispute flag; it seems pretty resolved, no? Does anyone want to bring up any more MAJOR points before we do so? I would also like to congratulate all contributors on the resolution of this article - that's a good example of how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work.

Two Points.

The genetic tests are far too narrow a scope, it is impossible to test Ashkenazi jewish populations in Israel, against something known as Palestinian and Arab.

The Arab people are far too mixed You will if one is using a Narrow scope find among the gazan population. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=semitic Negroid/Nilotics from the Army of Egypt which stayed.

Arab Bedouins (arabized adanite)

Arab Bedouin (qahtani)

Arab Syrian (adanite)

Arab Syrian Christian (adanite-greek)

Trans Caucasians (circacausasian/Chechen/daghestani)

It is imposible unless these tests are going to use such mind boggling definitions to single out a specific halotype and say this is arab.

to suggest Ashkenazi jews are derived from the middle east is likewise ridiculous.

and Lastly,

The Palestinian Flag is the Flag of the Great Arab Revolt.

T.Y. PJaz

Canaanites???

No, you are gravely mistaken....gentics researches proved that despite what they look like, they(the ashkenazi jews) match perfectly in the the genetic map of middle-eastern peoples. that Ashkenazi jews are much more related geneticly to the middle eastern populations and especially to the Sephardi jews and to other jewish non ashakenazi groups, despite their over all appearence, than to any of their non-jews neighbors in Europe...(in general)and by the way-European-like apperances(i.e white skin,bright hair and eyes) although rare relatively ,have been present in the middle east, specifically in where the jews orginiated from(i.e the place Abrham orginated-in modern day iraq more or less), since for ever with a "blondism" phenotype that is original as much as the European one.

Apperances are deceiving and genetically they match up with their sephardi jewish brothers and other jewish groups, and with the midddle east's diffrent peoples, most closely, to the kurds. that is not to say that during the centuries and millenia, that non jews haven't mixed with Askenazi jews or with other jewish groups(what poeple hasn't had people from other peoples mix with them to some degree or the other?), but their influence and occurrence was relatively insiginficant as far as genetics are concerned....the gentics of the poeple of israel, the jewish poeople, has been quite constant for thousnds of years. The people of israel, i.e the jewish people has a ditinct ethnic identity which has remained pretty much as it was, since biblical times, despite different geographies, locations in the world and distances from one another-they are the direct decendents, for the most part, of the ancient israelites - they are the modern israelites, hebrews, jews.

the people of israel,the jewish people, for the most part are a pretty tight group, genetically speaking:

http://www.sdss.jhu.edu/~ethan/jFAQ.html

http://www.imninalu.net/Khazars.htm

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769

http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~siamakr/Kurdish/KURDICA/2001/3/jewkurd.html

http://www.familytreedna.com/nature97385.html

and so on....

True, but all the research which attests to this truth - that the majority of gene sequence of Ashkenazim is mostly Middle Eastern (with some little European and Central Asian admixture) are true ONLY for the paternal ancestry (Y chromosome) of the Ashkenazim. All research findings on the maternal ancestry (mtDNA) of the Ashkenazim show that the origins of the Ashkenazim are indeed in Europe. Basically, what this means, is that the patriarchs of Ashkenazim were Middle Easterners, but the matriarchs were gentile Europeans. Since Jewishness is inherited from the mother, that means that Ashkenazi matriarchs were converts to the Jewish faith, or else the current Ashkenazi population would not today be Jewish. And do realise that the only geneflow into the Ashkeanzi population was from one source (from native gentile Europeans, as indeed they were in Europe for over a thousand years), while the Middle Eastern element was confined to that initial input provided by the Middle Eastern forebears that were responsable for the Ashkenazim being in Europe in the first place.

You may ask "but if this were true, if the Ashkenazim were now genetically Europeans and Middle Easterners only in a distant descent, why would they still show the markers pointing their origins (paternall only, as I have pointed out) as being almost entirely from the Middle East"? I will answer in an analogy; if an African man (who immigrated to Europe in the year 1015) and a European woman bear a baby mulatto boy, that boy's Y chromosome will place his origins in Africa, but his mtDNA will place his origins in Europe. When that mulatto boy grows up and in turn has a baby boy with another European woman, that boy's Y chromosome will again place his origins in Africa (even though he is 1/4 african), and his mtDNA will place his origins in Europe. Then if that boy has a baby boy with yet another European woman, that baby boy's Y chromosome will yet again place his origins in Africa (even though by this stage he is 1/8 african), and his mtDNA will again place his origins in Europe.

And as for the "jewish people has a ditinct ethnic identity which has remaind preety much as it was, since biblical times", well that is just not true. That "ditinct ethnic identity" is the view propagated by modern Zionism, which itself is a concept born of European Jewry in an social atmosphere unique to Europe (nationalism was a phenomenon originally native to Europe and the different groups of Europe). Most Jews before the rise of European Zionism, and most non-European Jews even after the rise of European Zionism, did not think of Jewishness as an ethnicity. Iraqi Jews, for example, generally viewed themselves as Arabs of the Jewish faith, with the distinction between Iraqis being religious (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc.) rather than as a separate race or nationality. Jewish nationalism is a recent phenomenon resulting from the birth of Zionism in Europe (a continent where the concept of nationality itself was born, the reason for the birth of Zionism, a form of nationalism).

When the non-European Jews made it to Israel, most were not even familiar with the concepts of Zionism much less with the idea that Jewishness was a nationality. Most saw themselves as ethnic groups of the countries from which they originated (Arabs, Kurds, etc.) except for the fact that they were of the Jewish faith. Their reception by Ashkenazim in Israel also testifies to the fact that this Zionist "Jewish nationalism" was in name only (at least not intended for those Jews not of European origin), as they were discriminated for being Arab Jews, Kurdish Jews, Yemenite Jews, etc. and the discrimination goes on today. Most European Jews were not even aware of non-European Jewish populations, and this explains the background of Zionism's "Jewish Nationalism" as just another sprout of nationalism of Europeans. I could quote a myriad of racist statements made by the Zionist (Ashkenazi) founding fathers of Israel that attest to the fact that Zionist nationalism never meant to encompass Jews who were non-Europeans. They only came to be included after the state was born, when the Jewish population still needed to be augmented. It was only then that they turned with contempt to the Oriental Jews (Mizrahim). Except for the fact that they were of the Jewish faith, Mizrahim were seen as no better than other Arabs, in fact the founders of Israel viewed the Mizrahi as lesser than the local non-Jewish Arabs of Israel. Now today you have the Ethiopian Jews, Lembas, Indian Jews, etc, they are all also very discriminated and even unrecognized by some Jews, even though genetic studies also show them to be descendants of ancient Israelites (at least in the case of Indian Jews and Lembas, because the Ethiopians show little if any ancient Israelit ancestry). Is this the "ditinct ethnic identity " that you speak of? Al-Andalus 17:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC).

Sorry, bub. But all of this sounds like garden-variety anti-semitism to me. If you claim that non-Ashkenazi Jews are actively discriminated against by the State of Israel (notice I say STATE, not people; I'm sure there are some small minded nutbags in Israel, just like any other country, and they will hate anybody. But they are people, not the government), why do they stay? Why don't they leave? Certainly, the Bnei Menashe (some of the Indian Jews you mentioned) will not have any problems on India's end if they choose to return. There was never any anti-semitism or anything like that from Hindus, and the Bnei Menashe weren't driven out in a "final solution" or anything like that. In fact, many Indian politicians were reluctant to let the Bnei Menashe Jews do their Aliyah. Therefore they can come back to India if they are sooo "Discriminated Against" by "Evil Israel". I'm sure that similar rguments can be made against other Jews from outside Europe who went to Israel. The fact that they STAY in Israel alone is sufficient evidence that there is no intolerable state sanctioned persecution against them, and they're basically doing OK, barring the usual problems faced by all Israelis. It seems you're just trying to foster hatred against Israel, and this is a wikipedia talk page, not a hate site.] 10:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)]

NPOV and editting Talk:Palestinian People

Two Things: First: Can we archive this to have talk only contain information regarding the page currently? My own arguments from months ago regarding NPOV are long settled. This is far longer than preferable and difficult for us with ADD to read through. Second, I see no reason the tag is up on the talk page. Unless someone posts a relevent reason for why it is up-no matter how disagreeable-by January 20th, I myself will remove this tag believing it to be leftover and unsupported. Note: One person claiming this tag should be there would gain legitimacy to me. But nothing clear in the talk describes why it is there now. Jmw0000 10:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Archived...Arniep 01:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparing the Palestinian refugee situation to other refugee cases

The Vietnamese boat people exodus from Vietnam was happening when I was in university. Shocked by the number of people affected; 1.5 to 2 million, and somewhat pleased with the Orderly Departure Program, I looked at the Palestine issue in order to understand the magniture of the boat exodus and was appalled to see estimates for the Palestinian exodus of from 9 to 15 million displaced people with no international resettlement response.

I continue to see acusations that it was the arab states responsibility to take in all the refugees, yet I cannot conceive of the effect it would have had on their economies for the bordering nations to handle 15 million refugees as the estimate which was given and the size of their own populations. Even 9 million would be crushing to the bordering nations whose populations are: Syria 18 million, Jordon 6 million, Lebanon 4 million, and more remotely Saudi Arabi 26 million

This is the extent of my investigation on the issue and I remain appalled. How accurate is the information I have presented here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.8.84 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 14 January 2006.

I think you might be confused, even the most loose estimate of the initial Palestinian Estimate was 900,000, the 9 to 15 million number might be the entire current population of Palestinians, sorry but your "investigation" seems off to an inauspicious start.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed text

Another editor removed the text below which I initially reverted but, on looking at the source it doesn't look particularly neutral so I'm moving it here for comments:

While most Palestinians define themselves as Arabs, their ancestry is most probably a combination of many tribes that inhabited the region over many centuries. According to one study:

Arniep 00:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian Dialect

Hi, there's a paragraph in the introduction that discusses the "palestinian Dialect". the paragraph contains incorrect information. the more accurate linguistic information is in the link under Palestinian Arabic. Sorry i posted here, but, i didnot know how to fix it. If someone would delete it or copy the correct information from Palestinian Arabic and post it there, i would appreciate it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.12.83 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 24 January 2006.

I've taken out the obvious inaccuracies. Feel free to make any more changes you feel are warranted. Palmiro | Talk 15:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

huh?

Today the existence of a unique Palestinian nationality/identity is generally recognized even by most Israelis ().

http://www.rosenblit.com/Palestine.htm

The source used for this bit of information doesn't really seem to add up to what's being said in the article - it claims that there IS no such thing as the palestinians. Can someone sort this out? I don't really know enough about the topic to change anything around, but it looks a bit dodgy to me. XYaAsehShalomX 15:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

arguments for NPOV dispute

In this talk page there is no clear argument supporting the non-NPOV tag in the article. Would somebody please add any?--BMF81 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Middle East Forum link

I have removed the link below added by User:SlimVirgin as the Middle East Forum is a well known neo conservative anti palestinian organization so it is inappropriate to link to a site with such obvious lack of WP:NPOV. I would appreciate other peoples opinions of course. Thanks Arniep 03:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

* Gottheil, Fred M. "The Smoking Gun: Arab Immigration into Palestine", 1922-1931]

It's a scholarly source and there are no grounds in policy for removing it. Or are you suggesting only one POV should be represented? The page also needs a references section. SlimVirgin 03:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I wouldn't link to neo nazi pages on the holocaust page or a website run by republicans on John Kerry's page. If there is an obvious known bias in an organization we should not consider it WP:NPOV. Arniep 03:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a neo-Nazi site. Don't be silly. It's an article by an American professor of economics. I've started a references section. Perhaps you could start adding citations instead of removing material you don't like. SlimVirgin 03:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was a neo nazi site, please don't misquote me. I was using examples of where people or organizations have shown a clear bias against something we should not link to them on the article pages. The Middle East Forum is a neo-conservative pro israel organization and therefore cannot be considered a neutral source for Palestinian history. Similarly I would not link to a Hamas site full of Jewish conspiracy theories on the Israel page. Arniep 12:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this a From Time Immemorial redux? I wouldn't be surprised if Zero0000 were to show up, ripping the article apart. -- Dissident (Talk) 03:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It is along the same lines and was endorsed by the founder of the Middle East Forum, Daniel Pipes. I don't think we can consider any information from the Middle East Forum to be created from a neutral perspective so it's existence on this page is not appropriate in my opinion. Arniep 22:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It is completely unacceptable to have this link on this page - it IS just as bad as putting a link to a Muslim fundementalist site on Jew. As regards the other links they are all neutral in their presentation except for Palestine Monitor which I will remove. Arniep 23:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My concern is the other site - the PMW site - this is a propaganda site that is highly biased and is definitely not scholarly nor is it subject to third-party verification. Furthermore, if it is to be included on any article on WP, this wouldn't be it - this is an article on the Palestinian people and not a political article nor one about the fighting. I'm removing it, it is best suited elsewhere. Ramallite 04:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I removed it but SlimVirgin restored it. Arniep 12:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't restore it when Ramallite removed it. SlimVirgin 23:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You are totally out of order, Arnie. DO NOT remove a scholarly source and DO NOT attempt to poison the well with your own description of it. Read WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV and start editing in accordance with them. Just because you personally don't like something has no bearing on whether Misplaced Pages publishes or links to it. SlimVirgin 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Arniep, on what specific grounds are you removing the article? "Middle East Forum is a well known neo conservative anti palestinian organization" according to whom? If we removed all POV website links, there'd be precious few external links in Misplaced Pages, if any at all. The last time this article was deleted from the page, against my objections, the ostensible reason was that it was "non-factual" - of course, that really doesn't jibe with our WP:V policy. Jayjg 00:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes himself has stated that there should be no Palestinian state. An article on a website founded by a person that says that cannot be considered WP:NPOV or anywhere near it for this article. Arniep 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? There are Palestinians (and others) who say there should be no Israel as well, or a bi-national state, or whatever. Please quote a specific policy-based reason for deleting this. Oh, and if you mention any ridiculous "Nazi" comparisons, I'll invoke Godwin's Law, and you will have immediately forfeited any right to further discussion or reverting. Jayjg 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I did quote a policy, WP:NPOV. I would not include a research paper by a Muslim historian claimed to be anti semitic by many people on any Jewish or Israel related pages just as I would not include this link here. Arniep 00:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There are several arguably anti-Semitic scholarly sources, and sources who are hostile to Israel, who are used in Israel-related articles. The point is whether the person is a mainstream scholar in a relevant field. I can only repeat: read the content policies. SlimVirgin 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll quote from the only one you seem to have glanced at, NPOV: "NPOV is one of Misplaced Pages's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. The three policies are complementary, non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editor's consensus. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. (my emphasis) SlimVirgin 00:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Scholars can still have extreme biases, including race based bias. Please point out the anti semitic links on Israel related pages and I will see if I think they should be removed. Arniep 00:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't keep arguing with you. You would be as wrong to remove scholarly sources from other pages just because I don't like them, as you are to remove this one from this page because you don't like it. I won't be responding to any more of this. Please use the time to read the policy pages. SlimVirgin 00:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming the author of this particular article is the equivalent of an anti-Semite? On what grounds? Jayjg 00:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll quote from the WP:NPOV policy as well: All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. We link to anti-Zionist sites from the Israel article (e.g. Electronic Intifada, Indymedia), why wouldn't we link to this site from here? Again, I'd like to see a policy-based reason for not linking to this site. Jayjg 00:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not that I don't like the article, it is the fact that it comes from a clearly biased source. I would find it disturbing and distasteful for "scholarly" papers written by known anti semitic academics to be linked to as reliable sources on Jewish or Israeli pages just as I find the linking of this site distasteful on this page. I believe the Middle East Forum cannot be considered a reliable source as it has a clear bias against Muslims and Palestinians. Arniep 00:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why MEF would not qualify as WP:RS. I don't believe it is the MEF that is the problem here, I tend to think it is the article's topic (something Ed Poor also touches upon in the next talk section). Here's a relevant quote from 1930 Hope Simpson Royal Commission: The Chief Immigration Officer has brought to notice that illicit immigration through Syria and across the northern frontier of Palestine is material. This question has already been discussed. It may be a difficult matter to ensure against this illicit immigration, but steps to this end must be taken if the suggested policy is adopted, as also to prevent unemployment lists being swollen by immigrants from TransJordania. ←Humus sapiens 00:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source as it is a political organization with extreme bias against Palestinians. Arniep 00:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

First, that is your POV, but more importantly, what does that have to do with the academic whose paper we link to? Also, I must insist that you edit in accordance with the policies and guidelines. WP:CITE says specifically that we should not add our own descriptions to links. SlimVirgin 00:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You keep repeating yourself, but you refuse to provide any evidence for your claims. Also, please do not mess around with citations; there is a proper citation style, and one shouldn't attempt to introduce POV into citations by adding your own take on them. Jayjg 01:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't see anywhere in WP:CITE that says that the publisher of a source cannot be given. Also, I still believe the link as it currently stands violates WP:NPOV as a reader may click on it not realising that the website has a known bias. It is a fact that the Middle East Forum is a neoconservative thinktank so that should be made clear on the link too. Arniep 01:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying things like "has a known bias" without any evidence or reliable citations. Jayjg 01:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you could hardly claim it's more biased than the links to the "PLO Negotiations Affairs Department" or the article from Al Jazeera; neither of which are anywhere near as scholarly. Jayjg 01:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually just added those to try to defuse the situation. I just removed the PLO link as it is doesn't directly bear on the "Palestinian people" article, per se. Lokiloki 01:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

My commentary on the Middle East Forum citation/link was requested by Arniep, and I've (cursorily) read over this discussion thread and the article history. I do share much of Arniep's concern that Middle East Forum is very partisan source—I probably don't agree with anything they've ever published. That said, it is roughly within the realm of scholarly discussion, so a link that doesn't endorse the content of that site is reasonable to include. I believe that Arniep's latest edit which adds a brief description of the organization as a neo-conservative advocacy group is appropriate to include for context, though much more "refutation" than that characterization would belabor the point. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Followup: Looking at it slightly more, I'm not really sure what good motivation there is for including the MEF reference. I don't believe that WP:RS prohibits its use, per se; but it is also far from clear to me why that particular link, out of however many thousands of articles that have been written about the Palestinian people, is particularly germane. Yeah, it's vaguely on the right topic, but it doesn't feel like a resource that really adds anything helpful to the article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The specific article is about the origins of the Palestinian people, and their economics, in the period 1921-1931. How on earth could it not be relevant? Jayjg 01:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's clearly relevant, Lulu, and it's a scholarly source so there are no grounds in policy for removing it, as Arnie has been doing repeatedly, and WP:CITE says we shouldn't add our own descriptions to citations, as he has also done. The Middle East Quarterly is now linked to and its article says it was founded by Pipes, so the information is there for anyone who needs it. I suggest this one link has been discussed enough. SlimVirgin 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality vs. POV-pushing

This article appears at first glance designed to prove the point that the "real Palestinians" are the Palestinian Arabs and not the Palestinian Jews. Since this point is the focus of one of the foremost political and military disputes of modern times, I would like Misplaced Pages to treat it with the most scrupulous neutrality.

Say rather that "most people think" or "this politician said" or whatever. But please do not simply assert that the Arab definition of "Palestinian" is correct. Let it be a matter of dispute, and let each reader decide for himself.

This is important because much of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a dispute about who really belongs to Palestine (region) who and its rightful owners or dwellers are. The Definitions of Palestine and Palestinians are crucial to this, and we should not take either a pro-Israeli or pro-Arab side, but simply lay out the issues as clearly as possible. --Uncle Ed 16:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is actually true to say that this article is "designed to prove the point that the "real Palestinians" are the Palestinian Arabs and not the Palestinian Jews". That's a pretty interesting assessment. I see this article as just basically referring to common usage of 'Palestinian' in contemporary times, something I have not seen anybody having trouble with. Is there an actual "Arab definition" of 'Palestinian'? The only 'Arab definitions' I can find include Jews who lived in the area prior to 1948 (or whenever the 'Zionist invasion' is supposed to have started). So there is no actual definition that excludes all Jews. Your concerns also seem to indicate that Israeli Jews may be offended that the term 'Palestinian' does not include them - but the vast majority of Israelis would not be offended at all. Sure, the word 'Palestinian' referred to all inhabitants of Palestine at one point in time, but I'm not sure the past is relevant to this particular article. In other words, I don't really think that the majority of people would see this article as biased just for the reason you state, but more input from others would be appreciated.

And another thing, the flag you removed is not the 'Flag of the PLO-declared State of Palestine', it actually represented the Palestinian Arabs before there was a PLO (which decided to adopt this flag after it formed), and was a symbol of the Palestinians' nationalism once that nationalism started to form earlier in the 20th century. Ramallite 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You make a lot of good points here, but please forgive me if I only address one right now. On the flag image, I may be mistaken. I seem to remember that flag as being the "flag of the State of Palestine", which would indicate a political statement. Ethnic groups don't generally have flags, do they? A flag is a symbol of a country. And what does the flag of the Palestinian National Authority look like? I should check if it's the same as the one I removed from the article. Uncle Ed 16:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Begging the question

Deleted from The origins of Palestinian identity:

However, the Palestinians, like most Arab nationalities, have come to view themselves as primarily Palestinians (rather than as primarily Arabs, or Syrians, or citizens of a particular town) mostly in the past century.

This sentence assumes that there is (or has been) a particular group called "Palestinians" but it does not explain how this group came into being. Nor does it explain how this group, if it previously existed, came to self-designate as "Palestinians". Since this is the key part of the article and the main focus of this section, I'd like to see at least SOME detail here.

This sentence implies that some Arabs of Palestine became a nationality (or wanted a nationality, or wanted to create yet another Arab nation in Palestine). It's not clear which.

This sentence does not, however, explain what it means to "view themselves as Palestinians". And it seems to contradict the etymological material just a few sentences earlier, which identifies "Palestinians" with Filisteeni (which sounds a lot like the "Philistines" of the Old Testament. --Uncle Ed 19:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What's with the flag?

This image - Image:Flag of Palestine.svg is the official flag of the Palestinian Authority. Why is it "widely considered the symbol of the Palestinian people"? And what does that mean, anyway?

Do non-Arab Palestinians feel that the PNA flag represents them? Do Israeli Arabs feel that the flag of the Palestinian Authority is an ethnic symbol for them? Or a political symbol? Or what?

Much of this is not clear. --Uncle Ed 16:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)\

As Ramalite cites above, please see this source, e.g., . Lokiloki 19:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I object. The NPOV dispute has not been settled. At issue is the meaning of the phrase "the Palestinian people" (among other things). Please put back the NPOV tag until the dispute is settled. --Uncle Ed 14:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist use of Palestinian Arab children

Where should the following factsideas go?

• USA Today correspondent Jack Kelley reported:

  Children serve as infantry in the confrontations between Israeli and Palestinian soldiers. In scenes reminiscent of Iranian children sent to the Iraqi front equipped with plastic keys to heaven, Palestinian children are sent close to Israeli positions with rocks and Molotov cocktails, while the gunmen and snipers fire from positions hundreds of yards back.

• Palestinian terrorist groups use many different methods of encouraging the youth to embrace the ways of terror. The most important method is of ensuring that an environment of hatred is maintained in the society. And the youths are kept in a perpetual state of anger. To accomplish this goal, radical Islamism as represented by Hamas, Hezbollah and other Arab terrorist groups make sure that no one in the society speak against their methods. There are reports that Palestinian armed groups have pressured families of those who have been killed while carrying out attacks, including children, not to condemn but to welcome and endorse their relatives' actions.

The article should have a link to anti-Israeli terrorism or "freedom fighting" or whatever these people think they're doing. --Uncle Ed 19:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You are very fast losing my respect if you take racist garbage like this and refer to it as 'facts'. Ramallite 20:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Note change from "facts" to "ideas". --Uncle Ed 20:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in this. Please note that peddling these sorts of articles is like insisting on quoting garbage out of Protocols of the Elders of Zion on Misplaced Pages. I take great offense to both sorts of crap. I will assume good faith and believe that you do not have malicious intentions with these dehumanization articles. Ramallite 20:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Disgusting garbage. Keep it out. --Zero 13:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not information is disgusting to you has no bearing on the factual status of said information. Facts should be included. Tastes should be excluded. yonkeltron 06:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Allegations can be checked

According to Amnesty International, since 2001 there have been other cases in which Palestinian children have been used by Palestinian armed groups to carry out or attempt to carry out suicide bombings or other attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers.

The above could be googled. I don't think anyone's ever accused AI of being racist. --Uncle Ed 20:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Cases of children being used" is not the same as "scenes reminiscent of the Iranian army sending their children out with plastic keys" - AI can quote alleged cases, but that's all they are - cases. Making this into a dehumanizing propaganda article is a different ball game. What's next? These Palestinians hate Jews more than they love their kids? Oh wait - that has already been uttered by the likes of Kelley and Marcus. Yes, all those Palestinians are terrorist monsters who deserve to be H-bombed out of existence. Ramallite 20:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I see your point. Good, reliable primary sources are what we need. (Sure am glad I didn't stick that rubbish in the article; I guess this is what the "discussion" page is for.)

For what it's worth, I believe in *you*, Ramallite. --Uncle Ed 02:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the tone of the article from which I quoted was not that all Arabs in or near Palestine are monsters but rather that powerful groups within the culture are exploiting young people. And given that article's premise that the bombing campaign has no overarching moral or political justification, it regards these groups as driving young people to hideous crimes of murder and suicide.

I personally do not advocate the "nuclear solution" - I assume that was extreme rhetoric. Perhaps a solution can be found, one that maybe no one has thought of yet (or has received little publicity).

Anyway, I'm not here to debate the issues but to describe them fairly. If there are deep issues relevant to the inhabitants of Palestine (including longterm Arab natives, their descendants and recent immigrants if any; plus the Palestinian Jews who are now all or almost all "Israeli" Jews), then we MUST describe these issues as clearly and rationally as we can. We can also be sympathetic and gentle, but we must not let our writing become partisan here at Misplaced Pages. Rather, we should describe the partisan views of the various parties who espouse them. Okay? --Uncle Ed 13:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

First, thanks for your believing in me. Second, including any sort of writing such as this would automatically make WP partisan, not to mention a right-wing propaganda machine. You ought to keep in mind that you are talking about my own country here, and I know more than anybody else on these pages what does or does not happen. Obviously I cannot inject my own knowledge here, but when I see garbage, I will call it as such. Let me state a few points in relation to the above:

1. Powerful groups within the culture are exploiting young people. This is the sort of claim that would need to be verified by sociologists or people who actually interview these 'young people'. What is happening here is a right wing racist journalist is seeing Palestinian kids throw rocks at Israeli soldiers, and because of his hate agenda, writes the conclusion that this is because kids are 'coerced' and that groups propagate a 'culture of hate'. That's exactly like seeing a few Jews being the heads of major cooperations, and writing an article about a Jewish targeted agenda to take over the world (in other words, taking a few observations and spinning a pile of garbage out of it). Let me tell you a little secret: even young kids know what lack of freedom means. They do not have to be taught it - being harrassed by foreign occupying soldiers since the day they were born is enough evidence that something is wrong. The Palestinian people (including young kids) are not some kind of regimented robot army that takes commands from some hate source and acts accordingly.
2. Describe them fairly: First, you would actually need to show verifiable sources that these things exist in the first place - if something doesn't exist, how would it be described?
3. Driving young people to hideous crimes of murder and suicide. There can be no question that these actions are hideous crimes, but the notion that there is a culture that 'drives young people to do it' is false and, I can't believe I have to say something so obvious, racist and dehumanizing. There is a lot of hate built up in Palestine against the occupation, and trust me on this: nobody needs to be 'taught' this, it's in your face all the time. It's like the old canard that Palestinian textbooks are full of anti-Semitic hate. Well I graduated high school in the nineties, and the textbooks we used were all stamped with Israeli seals. In fact, the word 'Palestine' was erased in our textbooks and replaced by the word 'Israel'. The Palestinian Authority did revise the curriculum during those years, and there has been much garbage spewed about the contents of these textbooks. But organizations that have actually bothered to read them (and I don't mean the pathological liars over at Palestine Media Watch) have found that, while not perfect, they come nowhere near being as bad as these allegations state. In fact, the degree of 'negativity' towards the Israelis and the occupation is comparable to the degree of negativity that Israeli textbooks have towards Palestinians.
4. In short - if somebody wants to quote sources about Palestinian culture, one ought to rely on knowledgeable sources (keeping in mind that not all sources that claim to be knowledgeable are in fact so, especially those that are not actually based in Palestine). I can't write my own knowledge about my own country on Misplaced Pages, but I can call people on garbage when I see it.
5. Throughout history, mass dehumanization has usually been the precursor to some bigger crime against a people (like genocide or mass deportation). I continue to fear that this is not a far-fetched concept for Palestinians, just look at the standards we are held against compared to other peoples of the world. So when I see propaganda material that is clearly dehumanizing, it just reenforces my fears that things are not going to end very well for us at all.
6. I have recently tried to avoid spilling my personal opinions on WP discussion pages (I used to do that a lot just to clarify things about Palestinians that are usually taken for granted in the case of any other people, like the fact that we are human beings too). So I apologize to all who read this that I'm off pontificating again. But that's my natural response to hate-filled propaganda that tries to pass 'matter-of-factly' around here.

Ramallite 13:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

R, your monologue above is exactly the reason that original research is not permitted in these articles. For all I know you are a raging terrorist out to murder Jews, Brits and Americans, purposely attempting to sound semi moderate to conceal evil intent (we certainly have had enough of those recently in many Western countries). I could post a long article claiming to be a Palestinian Christian suffering the discrimination and brutality of having to live amongst a bunch of intolerant bloodthirsty Muslims (and those Christians probably exist), but it wouldn't be true. The whole point of Wiki is to have third party mainstream objective sources as the sole source of information. That will provide some validity to these articles. The fact that you (or I) don't like a particular point of view is something you or I might find disconcerting, but if a mainstream source says something, and you don't believe it's accurate, you don't delete the source, you provide another source that has a contrary point of view. I personally find the views of Eduard Said and Noam Chommpsky vile, untruthful, and crazed - but I wouldn't delete them from an article, I would just make sure that a view I considered more accurate was also cited. R, that's what democracy is all about, not drowning out those you disagree with, but offering alternatives to allow interested persons to make up their own mind. And that's why ultimately democracy wins out over rival systems that involved censorship and intolerance, people want the right to make up their own mind. Observe the rules, post mainstream sources, suck it up when reading views you don't like, and you will be a good editor on this article.Incorrect 12:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow - an unprovoked tirade against me!

• "you are a raging terrorist out to murder Jews, Brits and Americans, purposely attempting to sound semi moderate to conceal evil intent". So you find out that I'm a Palestinian and so it becomes okay to throw such despicable insults at me? That is highly offensive. Such insults are not tolerated, and perpetrators are normally blocked. Read WP:Civil.
• "I could post a long article claiming to be a Palestinian Christian suffering the discrimination and brutality...." No you could not, because WP is not a place for posting personal articles, true or otherwise. This here is a discussion page, and not the actual article. I suggest you look into blogs, that's where you could post your articles. Read WP:NOR.
• "if a mainstream source says something, and you don't believe it's accurate, you don't delete the source, you provide another source that has a contrary point of view." Right. If on the other hand a source is NOT mainstream and is NOT reliable, then you would have two options: post nonsense from it anyway, then go and counter it with another source, and clutter up the WP article with back and forth bickering over something that is factually not true anyway; or not bother with it at all and stay only with reliable sources. I prefer the second. Read WP:V.
• "I personally find the views of Eduard Said and Noam Chommpsky vile, untruthful, and crazed - but I wouldn't delete them from an article" Good for you, neither would I, because they are scholars, as opposed to the people you are presumably referring to, who are not. Read WP:RS.
• "R, that's what democracy is all about, not drowning out those you disagree with, but offering alternatives to allow interested persons to make up their own mind". Unfortunately certain 'alternatives' are allowed to be used on WP with much less scrutiny than other certain 'alternatives'. However, read the policy regarding Misplaced Pages and democracy.
• "And that's why ultimately democracy wins out over rival systems that involved censorship and intolerance". Censorship and intolerance, especially intolerance, are what my post above was about. Read it again.

Regards, the raging terrorist also known as Ramallite 16:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)